📖 Biblia online

Citește Biblia

Alege cartea

Alege capitolul

Biblia audio Planuri audio structurate — ascultă Biblia zilnică

Geneza 2

¹ Astfel au fost sfârşite cerurile şi pământul, şi toată oştirea lor.

² În ziua a şaptea Dumnezeu Şi-a sfârşit lucrarea, pe care o făcuse; şi în ziua a şaptea S-a odihnit de toată lucrarea Lui pe care o făcuse.

³ Dumnezeu a binecuvântat ziua a şaptea şi a sfinţit-o, pentrucă în ziua aceasta S-a odihnit de toată lucrarea Lui, pe care o zidise şi o făcuse.

⁴ Iată istoria cerurilor şi a pământului, când au fost făcute.

⁵ În ziua când a făcut Domnul Dumnezeu un pământ şi ceruri, nu era încă pe pământ nici un copăcel de câmp şi nici o iarbă de pe câmp nu încolţea încă: fiindcă Domnul Dumnezeu nu dăduse încă ploaie pe pământ şi nu era nici un om ca să lucreze pământul.

⁶ Ci un abur se ridica de pe pământ şi uda toată faţa pământului.

⁷ Domnul Dumnezeu a făcut pe om din ţărâna pământului, i-a suflat în nări suflare de viaţă, şi omul s-a făcut astfel un suflet viu.

⁸ Apoi Domnul Dumnezeu a sădit o grădină în Eden, spre răsărit; şi a pus acolo pe omul pe care-l întocmise.

⁹ Domnul Dumnezeu a făcut să răsară din pământ tot felul de pomi, plăcuţi la vedere şi buni la mâncare, şi pomul vieţii în mijlocul grădinii, şi pomul cunoştinţei binelui şi răului.

¹⁰ Un râu ieşea din Eden şi uda grădina; şi de acolo se împărţea şi se făcea patru braţe.

¹¹ Numele celui dintâi este Pison; el înconjoară toată ţara Havila, unde se găseşte aur.

¹² Aurul din ţara aceasta este bun; acolo se găseşte şi bedelion şi piatră de onix.

¹³ Numele râului al doilea este Ghihon; el înconjoară toată ţara Cuş.

¹⁴ Numele celui de al treilea este Hidechel: el curge la răsăritul Asiriei. Al patrulea râu este Eufratul.

¹⁵ Domnul Dumnezeu a luat pe om şi l-a aşezat în grădina Edenului, ca s-o lucreze şi s-o păzească.

¹⁶ Domnul Dumnezeu a dat omului porunca aceasta: ,,Poţi să mănânci după plăcere din orice pom din grădină;

¹⁷ dar din pomul cunoştinţei binelui şi răului să nu mănânci, căci în ziua în care vei mânca din el, vei muri negreşit.``

¹⁸ Domnul Dumnezeu a zis: ,,Nu este bine ca omul să fie singur; am să-i fac un ajutor potrivit pentru el.``

¹⁹ Domnul Dumnezeu a făcut din pământ toate fiarele câmpului şi toate păsările cerului; şi le-a adus la om, ca să vadă cum are să le numească; şi orice nume pe care-l dădea omul fiecărei vieţuitoare, acela-i era numele.

²⁰ Şi omul a pus nume tuturor vitelor, păsărilor cerului şi tuturor fiarelor câmpului; dar, pentru om, nu s-a găsit niciun ajutor, care să i se potrivească.

²¹ Atunci Domnul Dumnezeu a trimes un somn adânc peste om, şi omul a adormit; Domnul Dumnezeu a luat una din coastele lui şi a închis carnea la locul ei.

²² Din coasta pe care o luase din om, Domnul Dumnezeu a făcut o femeie şi a adus-o la om.

²³ Şi omul a zis: ,,Iată în sfârşit aceea care este os din oasele mele şi carne din carnea mea! Ea se va numi, femeie, pentrucă a fost luată din om.``

²⁴ Deaceea va lăsa omul pe tatăl său şi pe mama sa, şi se va lipi de nevasta sa, şi se vor face un singur trup.

²⁵ Omul şi nevasta lui erau amândoi goi, şi nu le era ruşine.

{"verseMap":{"1":[{"id":4855,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"of the Old Testament in the New Testament Bible*, Quotations","title_en":"of the Old Testament in the New Testament Bible*, Quotations","content_ro":"<h3>BIBLE*, Quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament<\/span><\/h3>\nOT passages cited or alluded to in the NT writings.<\/p>\nOne of the most complex problems in interpreting the Bible is in understanding how NT writers quoted the OT. Obviously nothing is so formative and authoritative for the NT writers as Scripture. However, the way that they used OT passages often seems strange to modern readers.<\/p>\nThe OT has provided the words and ideas for much of the NT. Unless one has a Bible that prints OT quotations in distinctive print, this may not be easily seen, for the NT writers often weave the OT words into their own without indicating they are borrowing from the OT. There are over 400 passages of the OT that are explicitly cited in the NT. Almost half of these are introduced by a statement like “Scripture says” to draw attention to the fact that the authority and thought of the OT is being implemented. For the others, however, the OT words are woven into the fabric of the author’s own statement.<\/p>\nIn addition to the over 400 passages cited explicitly, there are well over 1,000 places where there is an allusion to an OT text, event, or person. The difference between a quotation and an allusion is sometimes debated for particular texts, but usually the distinction is that in a quotation the author consciously uses the words of an OT passage, whereas with an allusion he has the texts in mind but is not consciously trying to use the words.<\/p>\nQuotations are easy to identify if there is an introductory formula such as “the Scripture says” (as in Rom 10:11; cf. Is 28:16). Where there is no introductory formula, it is easy to overlook explicit quotations (Rom 10:13; cf. Jl 2:32). The allusions are, of course, harder still to recognize, but they often provide the key to interpretation. For example, John 1:14-18—with its mention of glory, grace and truth, Moses, and the fact that no one has seen God—is much more easily and profoundly understood when read in connection with Exodus 33:17–34:8. In the Exodus passage the glory of God and his grace and truth are revealed to Moses. The author was showing that a much more complete revelation of God was given in Jesus than was given Moses in the account recorded in Exodus.<\/p>\nIn addition, significant light is shed on many NT passages from OT passages with similar ideas and words even where the NT author may not have been consciously alluding to those texts (e.g. Mt 16:19; Is 22:22). What was behind the author’s thinking is not certain, but in such cases the NT reflects the thinking, the culture, and language of the OT period.<\/p>\nDistribution of Old Testament Quotations<\/p>\nThe books of the NT that show the most dependence on the OT are Matthew, John, Romans, Hebrews, 1 Peter, and Revelation. Such a statement can be misleading, however, because the writers have different methods.<\/p>\nMatthew quotes or consciously reflects the wording of OT passages about 62 times, almost half of which have an introductory formula. The book of Revelation, on the other hand, never quotes the OT and never has an introductory formula but is probably more dependent on the OT than any other NT book. The book of Hebrews quotes or consciously reflects the OT about 59 times, again half of which have an introductory formula, but the Gospel of John does so only 18 times, nearly always with an introductory formula. However, the allusions to the OT are present on virtually every page of John’s Gospel, so much so that some scholars have argued that he has modeled his account on the exodus narrative, the Jewish feasts, or OT persons and images. Paul’s Letter to the Romans uses the OT 54 times (about three-fourths of which have introductory formulas), but nowhere else so frequently (e.g., 1 Cor 16 times, Gal 11 times, Phil one time, 1 Thes one time).<\/p>\nIn addition to the indication that Philippians and 1 Thessalonians use the OT only once each, some other books make explicit use of the OT rarely or never. Colossians, Titus, Philemon, and the Johannine letters do not use the OT at all; 2 Timothy and Jude use the OT only once; while 2 Peter and 1 Timothy make use of it twice.<\/p>\nThe important point is to realize that the OT is used most frequently in circumstances where the audience is familiar with the OT or where the OT is essential for describing the events relating to Christ and the church. The books using the OT most frequently (Mt, Jn, Rom, Heb, 1 Pt, Rv) either stem from or are addressed to a Jewish context or, as in the case of Romans and John, deal specifically with the relation of Jews and Christians. The Gospels make rather extensive use of the OT because the language of the OT is necessary to convey the identity and importance of Jesus in the purposes of God. Similarly 1 Peter uses the OT frequently because the author is trying to convey to his persecuted audience that they are the people of God and the inheritors of the promises of God.<\/p>\nDifficulties in Interpretation<\/p>\nOften when people think of quotations of the OT in the NT they think only in terms of prophecy. Some have been guilty of counting up the OT statements that the NT applies to Christ and the church and then claiming these OT texts as predictions that prove Jesus is the Messiah. Such a procedure is filled with problems because it is too simplistic and does not do justice to either the OT or to the way the NT uses it. Of course, the early church used the OT to show that Jesus fulfilled the promises of God and did God’s work, but the use the church made of the OT was quite varied and much of it cannot be classified as predictive prophecy. Prophecy itself is too complex to be limited to predictive thinking.<\/p>\nSome of the most obvious examples of the difficulties appear in Matthew’s Gospel, although they are by no means confined there. Matthew 2:15—“Out of Egypt I called my son”—is a quotation of Hosea 11:1, but in Hosea these words do not refer to the Messiah. They refer to the nation of Israel. Similarly Matthew 2:18 quotes Jeremiah 31:15 (“A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more,” niv<\/span>) as fulfilled in the slaughter of the innocent babies in Bethlehem, but in Jeremiah the weeping is over the destruction of Jerusalem. John 12:40 views Isaiah 6:10 as fulfilled in Jesus’ ministry, but this verse deals with the call of Isaiah and is not a prediction concerning the ministry of the Messiah. The examples could be multiplied but these should be sufficient to illustrate the problem. For this reason the NT writers have often been accused of twisting the Scriptures, but this charge is as simplistic as the thought that all prophecy is predictive and in fact springs from the same error. Therefore, any attempt to understand the use of the OT in the NT will have to deal with the variety of ways in which the OT is used and with the methods employed by the NT writers.<\/p>\nThere are other difficulties that are encountered as well. Sometimes the NT writer will indicate that some fact related to Christ is a fulfillment of the OT but the explicit text that he had in mind cannot be identified. For example, John 7:38 introduces the words “Out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water” with the statement “as Scripture has said.” No OT text reads this way. Possibly the allusion is to the rock that provided water in the wilderness (Ex 17:1), or to the waters that flowed from the new temple (Zec 14:8) or, more generally, it may be a reference to Isaiah 58:11. Similarly, the difficulty in determining the OT text behind the prophecy that Christ will be called a Nazarene (Mt 2:23) is notorious. Probably the reference is to Isaiah 11:1 and the Hebrew word there translated as “branch,” but the connection is not easily made and is not certain. A third example of this kind of difficulty is in 1 Corinthians 14:34, where Paul indicates that women should be in submission just as the Law says, but there is no OT text expressing this idea. His statement in probably to be understood as a summary rather than a quotation or allusion. Similarly on a few occasions an OT text is seemingly attributed to the wrong OT book. In Mark 1:2-3 an OT quotation is attributed to Isaiah but the quotation is really a conflation (or mixing) of Exodus 23:20, Malachi 3:1, and Isaiah 40:3. Matthew 27:9-10 quotes a passage that is said to be from Jeremiah, when really it is dependent on Zechariah 11:13 and might best be described as a summary of Zechariah 11:12-13, with certain words included from Jeremiah 32:6-9. These two examples do not create a major problem, however, for the determination of the origin of the words may be due to their use in collections of quotations from various prophets, in which case the more prominent prophets would be used to designate origin.<\/p>\nThe wording of the quotations of the OT text does not always conform to the modern form of the OT. Just as today there are numerous translations of the Bible, when the NT was being written there were various forms of the OT text. With regard to the Hebrew text (for the OT was written mostly in Hebrew), there were different traditions. Such differences in the Hebrew traditions would have been relatively small. Because of the increasing importance of Aramaic after the Babylonian captivity and of Greek after the conquests of Alexander the Great, the OT was also known and used in both these languages when the NT was being written. In fact, the Jews found it necessary in their synagogue services after reading the Hebrew OT to paraphrase the reading in Aramaic so that all could understand. These paraphrases were later written down and are known as Targums. The Greek translation of the OT that stems from the third century BC<\/span> is known as the Septuagint, but there were also other Greek translations in use. This being the case, the wording of a NT quotation is not identical in every detail to the text of the Hebrew OT.<\/p>\nAdded to the fact that there were various forms of the text known in first-century AD<\/span> Palestine is the complicating factor that NT writers often did not intend to quote the OT exactly. The use of formal quotation marks is a modern device, and ancient writers were not so taken by technical precision. They were more concerned with the intention of a text and consequently might copy or quote it verbatim, quote it from memory, use or adapt part of a verse, or even change certain words as they borrowed the verse to express their points. (The NT writers often use the OT words describing God’s actions in the past to explain what he has done in their time.) The importance of any differences between the NT quotation and the OT depends on the use to which the quotation is put and the degree to which the use is dependent on textual differences.<\/p>\nSome examples should illustrate the nature of these difficulties. Ephesians 4:8 quotes Psalm 68:18. Whereas the Hebrew and Septuagint read, “You ascended to the heights, you lead captivity captive, you received gifts among mankind,” Ephesians records the verse as “After he ascended into the heights, he<\/em> led captivity captive; he gave<\/em> gifts to men.” Paul is stressing that Christ has given grace to people for ministry. He has either adapted the wording of the OT to make his point or he quoted a variant reading, “he gave<\/em> gifts.” Some versions do have this reading. In fact, the Targum understands this verse as Moses giving the words of the law to the children of men, and Paul may well be adapting this understanding to the new revelation that has come in Christ.<\/p>\nMatthew 1:23 quotes Isaiah 7:14, but there are distinct differences between the Hebrew text and the wording in Matthew. The Hebrew reads, “Behold the young woman will become pregnant and will bear a son and you will call his name Immanuel,” whereas Matthew’s text records “Behold, the virgin<\/em> will become pregnant and will bear a son, and they<\/em> will call his name Immanuel.” The Septuagint does have the specific word “virgin,” like Matthew, but is not the source of Matthew’s quotation since other differences exist. Some have argued that the change from “you will call” to “they will call” was made by Matthew when he applied the words to Jesus. However, there are several traditions known for this part of the quotation and partial support for the reading in Matthew is provided by the text of Isaiah found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.<\/p>\nRomans 11:26-27 is a conflation of Isaiah 59:20-21 and part of Isaiah 27:9, but there are important differences. One of these is that the OT has “the redeemer will come to Zion,” whereas Romans has “the deliverer will come from<\/em> Zion.” The change to “from Zion” could indicate that Paul had a different textual tradition, could be the result of an intentional change by Paul, or more probably, could reflect the wording of Psalm 14:7.<\/p>\nAn awareness of the difficulties involved in the quotations of the OT by the NT writers will prohibit a simplistic approach and will prevent hasty conclusions. Care to ask not only which text was used but also which form of the text was used and how is obviously essential in any serious study. In addition it is necessary to allow for the possibility that the NT writers knew forms of a text that are now lost.<\/p>\nThe Methods of the New Testament Writers<\/p>\nThe methods used by the NT writers were not unique to them. Many of these methods were also employed in first-century Judaism. In fact, both the technique used in quoting and the understanding of the OT text itself in many cases are paralleled in Judaism. For example, from the standpoint of technique used in quoting, the same kinds of formula introductions are used in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the rabbinic writings, and elsewhere. The rabbinic technique of “pearl stringing,” that is, of applying verses from various parts of the OT (the Law, the Prophets, the Writings) to a subject, can be seen especially in Paul’s writings (note Rom 9:12-19 or 11:8-10). Somewhat related is the practice of using quotations that all contain a key word or key words (note 1 Pt 2:6-8, which draws together quotations using the word “stone,” or Rom 15:9-12, which joins OT verses referring to the “nations”).<\/p>\nThe methods used in the NT to interpret an OT text are also displayed in Judaism. Some passages interpret the OT “literally,” such as Jesus’ replies during temptation (see the quotations of Dt 8:3; 6:16; 6:13; in Mt 4:3-10), his teachings on marriage based on Genesis 2:24 (Mt 19:5), or Paul’s use of Habakkuk 2:4 (Rom 1:17) or Genesis 15:6 (Rom 4:3-9). Many such examples could be given. With regard to prophecy, some of these statements are fulfilled in a “literal” or “direct” way in keeping with the intention of the OT (e.g., Mi 5:2, Bethlehem as the birthplace of the Messiah; Mt 2:4-6). Jeremiah 31:31-34, the promise of the new covenant, is viewed as directly fulfilled in Christ (Heb 8:7-13). The prophecy of Joel 2:28-32 concerning the pouring out of the Spirit of the Lord is directly fulfilled in the Pentecost event (Acts 2:17-21), but the changing of the sun to darkness and the moon to blood are certainly not understood literally in connection with this event.<\/p>\nA different method of interpretation is based on the concept of corporate solidarity.<\/em> This technical expression is an attempt to convey the idea that the individuals among God’s people are not merely individuals; they are part of a larger whole. Consequently, what is said about the individual can apply to the whole and vice versa. This is the reason the Servant of the Lord in Isaiah is seen both as the nation (44:1) and as an individual (52:13–53:12). Also the king is sometimes viewed as representative of the nation. The easiest places to see the concept of corporate solidarity are in the effect of the sin of Achan on all the people (Jos 7) or the sin of David in numbering the people (1 Chr 21:3-8).<\/p>\nCorrespondence in history<\/em> is not so much a method of interpretation as it is a way of thinking about God. It assumes that the things that happen to God’s people are the things that have happened to previous generations and that God is faithful and operates in the present as he has in the past. Consequently, the trials and deliverance of God’s people are often expressed with words borrowed from the previous accounts of God’s people. Isaiah describes the anticipated deliverance in terms of a second exodus (11:15-16). Ezekiel describes the king set up over the people in terms of a second David (Ez 37:25). In the NT, Revelation 22 describes the new heavens and the new earth in terms of the Garden of Eden (Gn 2–3). Sometimes this technique is described as “typology,” but this term has been used for so many questionable interpretations that it is misleading. The most important thing about this concept is that it is a view of God and his working among his people.<\/p>\nWith these two concepts, the way that the OT is quoted in the NT can be understood. The conviction that Jesus was the promised deliverer and that the last days had dawned in his ministry are evident everywhere. The quotation of Hosea 11:1 can be used in Matthew 2:15 because of corporate solidarity and correspondence in history. What was said of the nation is true of the one who is its representative, and there is correspondence in their respective histories. Jeremiah 31:15 can be used in Matthew 2:18 because of correspondence in history and especially because Jeremiah looked forward to God’s intention for Israel and prophesied a new covenant (31:17, 31-34). Matthew saw not only the correspondence in history but believed that in Jesus this promised salvation had been granted. John 12:40 can quote Isaiah 6:10 of Jesus’ ministry, not because he twists the meaning of the OT text, but because he saw that what had happened with God’s messenger before happened again and even ultimately<\/em> in Jesus’ ministry. The instances of such correspondences in history are numerous.<\/p>\nThere are other texts where there seems to be an actualization<\/em> of the OT text. Some quotations seem to be “lived out” in the ministry of Jesus. Because of their conviction about Jesus and his kingdom, the NT writers often saw certain OT texts as appropriated and made alive by Jesus. Psalm 118:22 was not intended as a prophecy of the Messiah, but Jesus saw it as descriptive of his ministry (Mt 21:42), and the early church saw this verse as actualized in his death and resurrection (Acts 4:11). Isaiah 53 is another text that the NT views as actualized in Jesus’ ministry (see Acts 8:32-35 and 1 Pt 2:22-25). Some Christians would view Psalm 22 as a prophecy of the crucifixion of Jesus, but it seems instead to be the lament of a righteous OT sufferer. Through correspondence in history, and because Christians saw so much of the psalmist’s plight actualized in Jesus’ crucifixion, the psalm became the easiest way to describe what once again had happened to God’s righteous sufferer. The words of Isaiah 40:3 describe the ministry of John the Baptist (Mt 3:3). Jews had come to see this verse as a prophecy of God’s end-time salvation, and the early church saw John the Baptist fulfilling this forerunner’s task. Luke made this identification (Lk 3:4-6), but he applied the same role to Jesus’ disciples (9:52; 10:1). This seems to be a further example of actualization and correspondence in history. In other places the church has applied to Christians ideas that were previously understood of Christ (e.g., the stone in 1 Pt 2:4-5; the ministry of the Suffering Servant in Acts 13:46-47).<\/p>\nThe most convenient term to describe the way the OT is “fulfilled” in Christ is to say that the OT finds its climax in Jesus. Even where actual quotations are not involved, the OT ideas such as prophet, priest, or king are climaxed in him as the ideal and embodiment of all the OT models. He could tell religious authorities that “one greater than Solomon is here” (Mt 12:42) or “one greater than the temple is here” (Mt 12:6). Those passages involving correspondence in history or actualization also lead to the conviction that he is the climax of the OT Scriptures.<\/p>\nThe Purposes of the Use of the Old Testament<\/p>\nThe variety of methods of interpretation and application of the OT parallels the fact that the OT was used for a variety of purposes. People tend to think only in terms of the use of the OT to show that Jesus was the Messiah, but there are a number of other uses with a variety of goals. Many OT texts are used to show Jesus is the Messiah, the fulfillment of the OT promises (Lk 4:16-21). Without lessening the fulfillment emphasis, however, other verses are applied to Jesus for other purposes: to evangelize (Acts 8:32-25); to demonstrate or convince (Acts 13:33-35); to rebuke (Mk 7:6-7; Rom 11:7-10); and to describe (Rv 1:12-15). On the other hand, many quotations of the OT in the NT are not directly related to the Messiah. OT passages are adapted to provide a word from God on some aspect of life or ethics. For example, Jesus used Genesis 2:24 to substantiate his teaching on divorce as he attempted to deal with the issues raised by the civil regulation of divorce (Dt 24:1; Mt 19:1-12). The stress on the OT commandments shows their importance for Christians (Mt 19:16-22; Rom 13:8-10). Often OT statements deal with specific problems. The problem of pride at Corinth is solved by the quotation of Jeremiah 9:24 (“Let the one boasting, boast in the Lord,” 1 Cor 1:31). First Peter 3:10-12 incorporates Psalm 34:12-16 as ethical instructions, and 3:14-15 borrows from Isaiah 8:12-13 to address the fear of suffering. The spiritual armor in Ephesians 6:14-17 is derived largely from OT passages. Such examples are so numerous that there can be no doubt that the OT is used to describe Christian existence. In fact, nearly every subject discussed in the NT is presented somewhere via OT terms and quotations. Frequently OT passages are used to describe the church as God’s end-time community. Hosea 2:23 is used to show that those who formerly were not God’s people now are (Rom 9:25-26; 1 Pt 2:10). Several OT texts contribute to the description of the church in 1 Peter 2:9. OT texts that speak of the word of God describe the apostles’ preaching (Rom 10:8; 1 Pt 1:24-25). OT quotations describe the sinful condition of humanity (Rom 3:10-20). Salvation is explained through OT concepts and symbols and is based on OT statements (Jn 6:31-33; Gal 3:6-13). The words of Daniel describe the Second Coming (7:13-14; cf. Mt 24:30). Even the worship of early Christians was expressed through use of the OT (see Acts 4:24; Rom 11:34-35).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BIBLE*, Quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament<\/span><\/h3>\nOT passages cited or alluded to in the NT writings.<\/p>\nOne of the most complex problems in interpreting the Bible is in understanding how NT writers quoted the OT. Obviously nothing is so formative and authoritative for the NT writers as Scripture. However, the way that they used OT passages often seems strange to modern readers.<\/p>\nThe OT has provided the words and ideas for much of the NT. Unless one has a Bible that prints OT quotations in distinctive print, this may not be easily seen, for the NT writers often weave the OT words into their own without indicating they are borrowing from the OT. There are over 400 passages of the OT that are explicitly cited in the NT. Almost half of these are introduced by a statement like “Scripture says” to draw attention to the fact that the authority and thought of the OT is being implemented. For the others, however, the OT words are woven into the fabric of the author’s own statement.<\/p>\nIn addition to the over 400 passages cited explicitly, there are well over 1,000 places where there is an allusion to an OT text, event, or person. The difference between a quotation and an allusion is sometimes debated for particular texts, but usually the distinction is that in a quotation the author consciously uses the words of an OT passage, whereas with an allusion he has the texts in mind but is not consciously trying to use the words.<\/p>\nQuotations are easy to identify if there is an introductory formula such as “the Scripture says” (as in Rom 10:11; cf. Is 28:16). Where there is no introductory formula, it is easy to overlook explicit quotations (Rom 10:13; cf. Jl 2:32). The allusions are, of course, harder still to recognize, but they often provide the key to interpretation. For example, John 1:14-18—with its mention of glory, grace and truth, Moses, and the fact that no one has seen God—is much more easily and profoundly understood when read in connection with Exodus 33:17–34:8. In the Exodus passage the glory of God and his grace and truth are revealed to Moses. The author was showing that a much more complete revelation of God was given in Jesus than was given Moses in the account recorded in Exodus.<\/p>\nIn addition, significant light is shed on many NT passages from OT passages with similar ideas and words even where the NT author may not have been consciously alluding to those texts (e.g. Mt 16:19; Is 22:22). What was behind the author’s thinking is not certain, but in such cases the NT reflects the thinking, the culture, and language of the OT period.<\/p>\nDistribution of Old Testament Quotations<\/p>\nThe books of the NT that show the most dependence on the OT are Matthew, John, Romans, Hebrews, 1 Peter, and Revelation. Such a statement can be misleading, however, because the writers have different methods.<\/p>\nMatthew quotes or consciously reflects the wording of OT passages about 62 times, almost half of which have an introductory formula. The book of Revelation, on the other hand, never quotes the OT and never has an introductory formula but is probably more dependent on the OT than any other NT book. The book of Hebrews quotes or consciously reflects the OT about 59 times, again half of which have an introductory formula, but the Gospel of John does so only 18 times, nearly always with an introductory formula. However, the allusions to the OT are present on virtually every page of John’s Gospel, so much so that some scholars have argued that he has modeled his account on the exodus narrative, the Jewish feasts, or OT persons and images. Paul’s Letter to the Romans uses the OT 54 times (about three-fourths of which have introductory formulas), but nowhere else so frequently (e.g., 1 Cor 16 times, Gal 11 times, Phil one time, 1 Thes one time).<\/p>\nIn addition to the indication that Philippians and 1 Thessalonians use the OT only once each, some other books make explicit use of the OT rarely or never. Colossians, Titus, Philemon, and the Johannine letters do not use the OT at all; 2 Timothy and Jude use the OT only once; while 2 Peter and 1 Timothy make use of it twice.<\/p>\nThe important point is to realize that the OT is used most frequently in circumstances where the audience is familiar with the OT or where the OT is essential for describing the events relating to Christ and the church. The books using the OT most frequently (Mt, Jn, Rom, Heb, 1 Pt, Rv) either stem from or are addressed to a Jewish context or, as in the case of Romans and John, deal specifically with the relation of Jews and Christians. The Gospels make rather extensive use of the OT because the language of the OT is necessary to convey the identity and importance of Jesus in the purposes of God. Similarly 1 Peter uses the OT frequently because the author is trying to convey to his persecuted audience that they are the people of God and the inheritors of the promises of God.<\/p>\nDifficulties in Interpretation<\/p>\nOften when people think of quotations of the OT in the NT they think only in terms of prophecy. Some have been guilty of counting up the OT statements that the NT applies to Christ and the church and then claiming these OT texts as predictions that prove Jesus is the Messiah. Such a procedure is filled with problems because it is too simplistic and does not do justice to either the OT or to the way the NT uses it. Of course, the early church used the OT to show that Jesus fulfilled the promises of God and did God’s work, but the use the church made of the OT was quite varied and much of it cannot be classified as predictive prophecy. Prophecy itself is too complex to be limited to predictive thinking.<\/p>\nSome of the most obvious examples of the difficulties appear in Matthew’s Gospel, although they are by no means confined there. Matthew 2:15—“Out of Egypt I called my son”—is a quotation of Hosea 11:1, but in Hosea these words do not refer to the Messiah. They refer to the nation of Israel. Similarly Matthew 2:18 quotes Jeremiah 31:15 (“A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more,” niv<\/span>) as fulfilled in the slaughter of the innocent babies in Bethlehem, but in Jeremiah the weeping is over the destruction of Jerusalem. John 12:40 views Isaiah 6:10 as fulfilled in Jesus’ ministry, but this verse deals with the call of Isaiah and is not a prediction concerning the ministry of the Messiah. The examples could be multiplied but these should be sufficient to illustrate the problem. For this reason the NT writers have often been accused of twisting the Scriptures, but this charge is as simplistic as the thought that all prophecy is predictive and in fact springs from the same error. Therefore, any attempt to understand the use of the OT in the NT will have to deal with the variety of ways in which the OT is used and with the methods employed by the NT writers.<\/p>\nThere are other difficulties that are encountered as well. Sometimes the NT writer will indicate that some fact related to Christ is a fulfillment of the OT but the explicit text that he had in mind cannot be identified. For example, John 7:38 introduces the words “Out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water” with the statement “as Scripture has said.” No OT text reads this way. Possibly the allusion is to the rock that provided water in the wilderness (Ex 17:1), or to the waters that flowed from the new temple (Zec 14:8) or, more generally, it may be a reference to Isaiah 58:11. Similarly, the difficulty in determining the OT text behind the prophecy that Christ will be called a Nazarene (Mt 2:23) is notorious. Probably the reference is to Isaiah 11:1 and the Hebrew word there translated as “branch,” but the connection is not easily made and is not certain. A third example of this kind of difficulty is in 1 Corinthians 14:34, where Paul indicates that women should be in submission just as the Law says, but there is no OT text expressing this idea. His statement in probably to be understood as a summary rather than a quotation or allusion. Similarly on a few occasions an OT text is seemingly attributed to the wrong OT book. In Mark 1:2-3 an OT quotation is attributed to Isaiah but the quotation is really a conflation (or mixing) of Exodus 23:20, Malachi 3:1, and Isaiah 40:3. Matthew 27:9-10 quotes a passage that is said to be from Jeremiah, when really it is dependent on Zechariah 11:13 and might best be described as a summary of Zechariah 11:12-13, with certain words included from Jeremiah 32:6-9. These two examples do not create a major problem, however, for the determination of the origin of the words may be due to their use in collections of quotations from various prophets, in which case the more prominent prophets would be used to designate origin.<\/p>\nThe wording of the quotations of the OT text does not always conform to the modern form of the OT. Just as today there are numerous translations of the Bible, when the NT was being written there were various forms of the OT text. With regard to the Hebrew text (for the OT was written mostly in Hebrew), there were different traditions. Such differences in the Hebrew traditions would have been relatively small. Because of the increasing importance of Aramaic after the Babylonian captivity and of Greek after the conquests of Alexander the Great, the OT was also known and used in both these languages when the NT was being written. In fact, the Jews found it necessary in their synagogue services after reading the Hebrew OT to paraphrase the reading in Aramaic so that all could understand. These paraphrases were later written down and are known as Targums. The Greek translation of the OT that stems from the third century BC<\/span> is known as the Septuagint, but there were also other Greek translations in use. This being the case, the wording of a NT quotation is not identical in every detail to the text of the Hebrew OT.<\/p>\nAdded to the fact that there were various forms of the text known in first-century AD<\/span> Palestine is the complicating factor that NT writers often did not intend to quote the OT exactly. The use of formal quotation marks is a modern device, and ancient writers were not so taken by technical precision. They were more concerned with the intention of a text and consequently might copy or quote it verbatim, quote it from memory, use or adapt part of a verse, or even change certain words as they borrowed the verse to express their points. (The NT writers often use the OT words describing God’s actions in the past to explain what he has done in their time.) The importance of any differences between the NT quotation and the OT depends on the use to which the quotation is put and the degree to which the use is dependent on textual differences.<\/p>\nSome examples should illustrate the nature of these difficulties. Ephesians 4:8 quotes Psalm 68:18. Whereas the Hebrew and Septuagint read, “You ascended to the heights, you lead captivity captive, you received gifts among mankind,” Ephesians records the verse as “After he ascended into the heights, he<\/em> led captivity captive; he gave<\/em> gifts to men.” Paul is stressing that Christ has given grace to people for ministry. He has either adapted the wording of the OT to make his point or he quoted a variant reading, “he gave<\/em> gifts.” Some versions do have this reading. In fact, the Targum understands this verse as Moses giving the words of the law to the children of men, and Paul may well be adapting this understanding to the new revelation that has come in Christ.<\/p>\nMatthew 1:23 quotes Isaiah 7:14, but there are distinct differences between the Hebrew text and the wording in Matthew. The Hebrew reads, “Behold the young woman will become pregnant and will bear a son and you will call his name Immanuel,” whereas Matthew’s text records “Behold, the virgin<\/em> will become pregnant and will bear a son, and they<\/em> will call his name Immanuel.” The Septuagint does have the specific word “virgin,” like Matthew, but is not the source of Matthew’s quotation since other differences exist. Some have argued that the change from “you will call” to “they will call” was made by Matthew when he applied the words to Jesus. However, there are several traditions known for this part of the quotation and partial support for the reading in Matthew is provided by the text of Isaiah found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.<\/p>\nRomans 11:26-27 is a conflation of Isaiah 59:20-21 and part of Isaiah 27:9, but there are important differences. One of these is that the OT has “the redeemer will come to Zion,” whereas Romans has “the deliverer will come from<\/em> Zion.” The change to “from Zion” could indicate that Paul had a different textual tradition, could be the result of an intentional change by Paul, or more probably, could reflect the wording of Psalm 14:7.<\/p>\nAn awareness of the difficulties involved in the quotations of the OT by the NT writers will prohibit a simplistic approach and will prevent hasty conclusions. Care to ask not only which text was used but also which form of the text was used and how is obviously essential in any serious study. In addition it is necessary to allow for the possibility that the NT writers knew forms of a text that are now lost.<\/p>\nThe Methods of the New Testament Writers<\/p>\nThe methods used by the NT writers were not unique to them. Many of these methods were also employed in first-century Judaism. In fact, both the technique used in quoting and the understanding of the OT text itself in many cases are paralleled in Judaism. For example, from the standpoint of technique used in quoting, the same kinds of formula introductions are used in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the rabbinic writings, and elsewhere. The rabbinic technique of “pearl stringing,” that is, of applying verses from various parts of the OT (the Law, the Prophets, the Writings) to a subject, can be seen especially in Paul’s writings (note Rom 9:12-19 or 11:8-10). Somewhat related is the practice of using quotations that all contain a key word or key words (note 1 Pt 2:6-8, which draws together quotations using the word “stone,” or Rom 15:9-12, which joins OT verses referring to the “nations”).<\/p>\nThe methods used in the NT to interpret an OT text are also displayed in Judaism. Some passages interpret the OT “literally,” such as Jesus’ replies during temptation (see the quotations of Dt 8:3; 6:16; 6:13; in Mt 4:3-10), his teachings on marriage based on Genesis 2:24 (Mt 19:5), or Paul’s use of Habakkuk 2:4 (Rom 1:17) or Genesis 15:6 (Rom 4:3-9). Many such examples could be given. With regard to prophecy, some of these statements are fulfilled in a “literal” or “direct” way in keeping with the intention of the OT (e.g., Mi 5:2, Bethlehem as the birthplace of the Messiah; Mt 2:4-6). Jeremiah 31:31-34, the promise of the new covenant, is viewed as directly fulfilled in Christ (Heb 8:7-13). The prophecy of Joel 2:28-32 concerning the pouring out of the Spirit of the Lord is directly fulfilled in the Pentecost event (Acts 2:17-21), but the changing of the sun to darkness and the moon to blood are certainly not understood literally in connection with this event.<\/p>\nA different method of interpretation is based on the concept of corporate solidarity.<\/em> This technical expression is an attempt to convey the idea that the individuals among God’s people are not merely individuals; they are part of a larger whole. Consequently, what is said about the individual can apply to the whole and vice versa. This is the reason the Servant of the Lord in Isaiah is seen both as the nation (44:1) and as an individual (52:13–53:12). Also the king is sometimes viewed as representative of the nation. The easiest places to see the concept of corporate solidarity are in the effect of the sin of Achan on all the people (Jos 7) or the sin of David in numbering the people (1 Chr 21:3-8).<\/p>\nCorrespondence in history<\/em> is not so much a method of interpretation as it is a way of thinking about God. It assumes that the things that happen to God’s people are the things that have happened to previous generations and that God is faithful and operates in the present as he has in the past. Consequently, the trials and deliverance of God’s people are often expressed with words borrowed from the previous accounts of God’s people. Isaiah describes the anticipated deliverance in terms of a second exodus (11:15-16). Ezekiel describes the king set up over the people in terms of a second David (Ez 37:25). In the NT, Revelation 22 describes the new heavens and the new earth in terms of the Garden of Eden (Gn 2–3). Sometimes this technique is described as “typology,” but this term has been used for so many questionable interpretations that it is misleading. The most important thing about this concept is that it is a view of God and his working among his people.<\/p>\nWith these two concepts, the way that the OT is quoted in the NT can be understood. The conviction that Jesus was the promised deliverer and that the last days had dawned in his ministry are evident everywhere. The quotation of Hosea 11:1 can be used in Matthew 2:15 because of corporate solidarity and correspondence in history. What was said of the nation is true of the one who is its representative, and there is correspondence in their respective histories. Jeremiah 31:15 can be used in Matthew 2:18 because of correspondence in history and especially because Jeremiah looked forward to God’s intention for Israel and prophesied a new covenant (31:17, 31-34). Matthew saw not only the correspondence in history but believed that in Jesus this promised salvation had been granted. John 12:40 can quote Isaiah 6:10 of Jesus’ ministry, not because he twists the meaning of the OT text, but because he saw that what had happened with God’s messenger before happened again and even ultimately<\/em> in Jesus’ ministry. The instances of such correspondences in history are numerous.<\/p>\nThere are other texts where there seems to be an actualization<\/em> of the OT text. Some quotations seem to be “lived out” in the ministry of Jesus. Because of their conviction about Jesus and his kingdom, the NT writers often saw certain OT texts as appropriated and made alive by Jesus. Psalm 118:22 was not intended as a prophecy of the Messiah, but Jesus saw it as descriptive of his ministry (Mt 21:42), and the early church saw this verse as actualized in his death and resurrection (Acts 4:11). Isaiah 53 is another text that the NT views as actualized in Jesus’ ministry (see Acts 8:32-35 and 1 Pt 2:22-25). Some Christians would view Psalm 22 as a prophecy of the crucifixion of Jesus, but it seems instead to be the lament of a righteous OT sufferer. Through correspondence in history, and because Christians saw so much of the psalmist’s plight actualized in Jesus’ crucifixion, the psalm became the easiest way to describe what once again had happened to God’s righteous sufferer. The words of Isaiah 40:3 describe the ministry of John the Baptist (Mt 3:3). Jews had come to see this verse as a prophecy of God’s end-time salvation, and the early church saw John the Baptist fulfilling this forerunner’s task. Luke made this identification (Lk 3:4-6), but he applied the same role to Jesus’ disciples (9:52; 10:1). This seems to be a further example of actualization and correspondence in history. In other places the church has applied to Christians ideas that were previously understood of Christ (e.g., the stone in 1 Pt 2:4-5; the ministry of the Suffering Servant in Acts 13:46-47).<\/p>\nThe most convenient term to describe the way the OT is “fulfilled” in Christ is to say that the OT finds its climax in Jesus. Even where actual quotations are not involved, the OT ideas such as prophet, priest, or king are climaxed in him as the ideal and embodiment of all the OT models. He could tell religious authorities that “one greater than Solomon is here” (Mt 12:42) or “one greater than the temple is here” (Mt 12:6). Those passages involving correspondence in history or actualization also lead to the conviction that he is the climax of the OT Scriptures.<\/p>\nThe Purposes of the Use of the Old Testament<\/p>\nThe variety of methods of interpretation and application of the OT parallels the fact that the OT was used for a variety of purposes. People tend to think only in terms of the use of the OT to show that Jesus was the Messiah, but there are a number of other uses with a variety of goals. Many OT texts are used to show Jesus is the Messiah, the fulfillment of the OT promises (Lk 4:16-21). Without lessening the fulfillment emphasis, however, other verses are applied to Jesus for other purposes: to evangelize (Acts 8:32-25); to demonstrate or convince (Acts 13:33-35); to rebuke (Mk 7:6-7; Rom 11:7-10); and to describe (Rv 1:12-15). On the other hand, many quotations of the OT in the NT are not directly related to the Messiah. OT passages are adapted to provide a word from God on some aspect of life or ethics. For example, Jesus used Genesis 2:24 to substantiate his teaching on divorce as he attempted to deal with the issues raised by the civil regulation of divorce (Dt 24:1; Mt 19:1-12). The stress on the OT commandments shows their importance for Christians (Mt 19:16-22; Rom 13:8-10). Often OT statements deal with specific problems. The problem of pride at Corinth is solved by the quotation of Jeremiah 9:24 (“Let the one boasting, boast in the Lord,” 1 Cor 1:31). First Peter 3:10-12 incorporates Psalm 34:12-16 as ethical instructions, and 3:14-15 borrows from Isaiah 8:12-13 to address the fear of suffering. The spiritual armor in Ephesians 6:14-17 is derived largely from OT passages. Such examples are so numerous that there can be no doubt that the OT is used to describe Christian existence. In fact, nearly every subject discussed in the NT is presented somewhere via OT terms and quotations. Frequently OT passages are used to describe the church as God’s end-time community. Hosea 2:23 is used to show that those who formerly were not God’s people now are (Rom 9:25-26; 1 Pt 2:10). Several OT texts contribute to the description of the church in 1 Peter 2:9. OT texts that speak of the word of God describe the apostles’ preaching (Rom 10:8; 1 Pt 1:24-25). OT quotations describe the sinful condition of humanity (Rom 3:10-20). Salvation is explained through OT concepts and symbols and is based on OT statements (Jn 6:31-33; Gal 3:6-13). The words of Daniel describe the Second Coming (7:13-14; cf. Mt 24:30). Even the worship of early Christians was expressed through use of the OT (see Acts 4:24; Rom 11:34-35).<\/p>","summary_ro":"BIBLE*, Quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament OT passages cited or alluded to in the NT writings. One of the most complex problems in interpreting the Bible is in understanding how NT writers quoted the OT. Obviously nothing is so formative and authoritative for the NT writers as Scripture. However, the way that they used OT passages often seems strange to modern readers. The OT has provided the words and ideas for much of the NT. Unless one has a Bible that prints OT quotation...","summary_en":"BIBLE*, Quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament OT passages cited or alluded to in the NT writings. One of the most complex problems in interpreting the Bible is in understanding how NT writers quoted the OT. Obviously nothing is so formative and authoritative for the NT writers as Scripture. However, the way that they used OT passages often seems strange to modern readers. The OT has provided the words and ideas for much of the NT. Unless one has a Bible that prints OT quotation...","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":11886,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"of Man*, Fall","title_en":"of Man*, Fall","content_ro":"<h3>FALL OF MAN*<\/h3>\nTransition from a condition of moral innocence and favor with God to a condition of being condemned to death, which occurred in the history of humankind with Adam’s eating of the forbidden fruit.<\/p>\nBiblical Evidence<\/p>\nThe narrative of Creation in Genesis 1 and 2 affirms the distinctiveness of both man’s nature and task. Man (used in this article as a generic term for male and female human beings) was created in the image of God for the purpose of communion and fellowship with God. As God’s representative, he was given dominion on the earth to cultivate and use its resources for the glory of God.<\/p>\nIn addition to the cultural mandate, man also received a specific command. He was authorized to use the vegetation of the Garden of Eden for food, but he was expressly forbidden to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The purpose of this command was to introduce into the human consciousness the radical antithesis between good and evil and to confirm man in the service of the Creator. As a faithful and loyal servant, man was to enjoy all the blessings bestowed by his Father in heaven and at last be led into the fullness of eternal life with God.<\/p>\nMan was made a living creature, as were the animals, but the core of his life was to be union and communion with God. Fellowship with God was to become Adam’s conscious possession, in contrast to the animals that know neither the possibility of sin nor conscious communion with God. In full awareness of the evil of the alternative, man was to serve God willingly and lovingly. His life before God was therefore to be religious rather than instinctive.<\/p>\nThe purpose of God in giving the command not to eat the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil was to establish humans in the ways of righteousness and faith, but Satan used the command as an occasion to tempt man to rebel against God. Although there was no evil for man in being tempted, it was evil for Satan to tempt man to sin. This means that there was evil in the universe prior to the fall of man. It was the apparent purpose of Satan to subject man to himself, and through man to extend his kingdom of darkness over the earth. The fall of man and the subsequent program of redemption must be understood in the context of the cosmic conflict between God and Satan, in which the ultimate triumph of God is assured. Satan approached Adam by way of Eve, using the serpent as his instrument to entice them to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.<\/p>\nThe difference between good and evil was not concealed from man prior to the fall, though man’s experiential knowledge was only of the good. Adam was to receive instruction concerning the nature of this distinction and the consequences of eating or not eating only from God. As he had received life in the beginning from his Creator, so now he was to live in obedience to every word that proceeded from the mouth of God. The purpose of the temptation was to urge independence from God. Satan called into question the truth of God and challenged his authority. He led man to think that he could determine for himself the difference between good and evil and that he could control the consequences to his own advantage. It was the temptation for man to be a god to himself.<\/p>\nAdam fell when he yielded to the temptation of Satan and, together with his wife, ate of the forbidden fruit. The act of rebellion was an act of disobedience, disloyalty, faithlessness, and unbelief. As the command not to eat summarized and brought to a focus all that was involved in righteousness before God, so the transgression epitomized radical apostasy from God. Undivided obedience to God gave way to whole-souled rebellion and complete revolt: the authority of God was repudiated; the goodness of God was doubted; the wisdom of God was disputed; and the truth of God was contradicted. A whole new complex of affections and emotions took possession of the heart and mind of man.<\/p>\nEffects of the Fall<\/p>\nThe immediate effects of the fall are visible in the loss of boldness and joy in the presence of God and the emergence of fear and shame. They are visible also in the alienation of Adam and Eve from God. This is exemplified in the curse in relation to man, but more pointedly in the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden. The Garden was the dwelling place of righteousness, the sphere of union and communion between man and God. Expulsion was inevitable once the communion was severed by unrighteousness. As God had warned, the consequence of sin was death. Since death intervenes at every point where there is life, it works itself out also in the dissolution of the body in the grave.<\/p>\n\nThe consequences of the fall are not limited to Adam and Eve but extend to all those descended from the first pair by natural generation, because there is a unique relation of solidarity existing between Adam and the rest of the race. Some theologians accent the generic connection between Adam and his descendants, while others focus on the covenant relationship of Adam as the head and representative of his posterity. The consequences of Adam’s transgression for the human race are the imputation of his sin to all his descendants, their consequent liability to death, and their inheritance of a depraved nature.<\/p>\nThe results of the fall are also manifest in the cosmos as the curse works itself out in the resistance offered to the accomplishment of the original cultural mandate. Only with the pain and danger attendant upon childbirth is the world populated, and only with arduous, toilsome labor are the food, clothing, and shelter necessary to sustain life provided.<\/p>\nHowever, the fact that death does not descend immediately<\/em> upon man after the fall as final<\/em> judgment is indicative of God’s saving purpose for man. Adam does not hear the curse of death pronounced until he has heard the promise of a Savior (Gn 3:15).<\/p>\nAfter Genesis 3, the Bible only infrequently refers to the fall of man, but this historical event is the indispensable presupposition of all that follows. The thrust of the Bible is toward the future—the widening effects of sin and the unfolding of God’s remedy.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Adam (Person); Death; Sin.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>FALL OF MAN*<\/h3>\nTransition from a condition of moral innocence and favor with God to a condition of being condemned to death, which occurred in the history of humankind with Adam’s eating of the forbidden fruit.<\/p>\nBiblical Evidence<\/p>\nThe narrative of Creation in Genesis 1 and 2 affirms the distinctiveness of both man’s nature and task. Man (used in this article as a generic term for male and female human beings) was created in the image of God for the purpose of communion and fellowship with God. As God’s representative, he was given dominion on the earth to cultivate and use its resources for the glory of God.<\/p>\nIn addition to the cultural mandate, man also received a specific command. He was authorized to use the vegetation of the Garden of Eden for food, but he was expressly forbidden to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The purpose of this command was to introduce into the human consciousness the radical antithesis between good and evil and to confirm man in the service of the Creator. As a faithful and loyal servant, man was to enjoy all the blessings bestowed by his Father in heaven and at last be led into the fullness of eternal life with God.<\/p>\nMan was made a living creature, as were the animals, but the core of his life was to be union and communion with God. Fellowship with God was to become Adam’s conscious possession, in contrast to the animals that know neither the possibility of sin nor conscious communion with God. In full awareness of the evil of the alternative, man was to serve God willingly and lovingly. His life before God was therefore to be religious rather than instinctive.<\/p>\nThe purpose of God in giving the command not to eat the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil was to establish humans in the ways of righteousness and faith, but Satan used the command as an occasion to tempt man to rebel against God. Although there was no evil for man in being tempted, it was evil for Satan to tempt man to sin. This means that there was evil in the universe prior to the fall of man. It was the apparent purpose of Satan to subject man to himself, and through man to extend his kingdom of darkness over the earth. The fall of man and the subsequent program of redemption must be understood in the context of the cosmic conflict between God and Satan, in which the ultimate triumph of God is assured. Satan approached Adam by way of Eve, using the serpent as his instrument to entice them to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.<\/p>\nThe difference between good and evil was not concealed from man prior to the fall, though man’s experiential knowledge was only of the good. Adam was to receive instruction concerning the nature of this distinction and the consequences of eating or not eating only from God. As he had received life in the beginning from his Creator, so now he was to live in obedience to every word that proceeded from the mouth of God. The purpose of the temptation was to urge independence from God. Satan called into question the truth of God and challenged his authority. He led man to think that he could determine for himself the difference between good and evil and that he could control the consequences to his own advantage. It was the temptation for man to be a god to himself.<\/p>\nAdam fell when he yielded to the temptation of Satan and, together with his wife, ate of the forbidden fruit. The act of rebellion was an act of disobedience, disloyalty, faithlessness, and unbelief. As the command not to eat summarized and brought to a focus all that was involved in righteousness before God, so the transgression epitomized radical apostasy from God. Undivided obedience to God gave way to whole-souled rebellion and complete revolt: the authority of God was repudiated; the goodness of God was doubted; the wisdom of God was disputed; and the truth of God was contradicted. A whole new complex of affections and emotions took possession of the heart and mind of man.<\/p>\nEffects of the Fall<\/p>\nThe immediate effects of the fall are visible in the loss of boldness and joy in the presence of God and the emergence of fear and shame. They are visible also in the alienation of Adam and Eve from God. This is exemplified in the curse in relation to man, but more pointedly in the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden. The Garden was the dwelling place of righteousness, the sphere of union and communion between man and God. Expulsion was inevitable once the communion was severed by unrighteousness. As God had warned, the consequence of sin was death. Since death intervenes at every point where there is life, it works itself out also in the dissolution of the body in the grave.<\/p>\n\nThe consequences of the fall are not limited to Adam and Eve but extend to all those descended from the first pair by natural generation, because there is a unique relation of solidarity existing between Adam and the rest of the race. Some theologians accent the generic connection between Adam and his descendants, while others focus on the covenant relationship of Adam as the head and representative of his posterity. The consequences of Adam’s transgression for the human race are the imputation of his sin to all his descendants, their consequent liability to death, and their inheritance of a depraved nature.<\/p>\nThe results of the fall are also manifest in the cosmos as the curse works itself out in the resistance offered to the accomplishment of the original cultural mandate. Only with the pain and danger attendant upon childbirth is the world populated, and only with arduous, toilsome labor are the food, clothing, and shelter necessary to sustain life provided.<\/p>\nHowever, the fact that death does not descend immediately<\/em> upon man after the fall as final<\/em> judgment is indicative of God’s saving purpose for man. Adam does not hear the curse of death pronounced until he has heard the promise of a Savior (Gn 3:15).<\/p>\nAfter Genesis 3, the Bible only infrequently refers to the fall of man, but this historical event is the indispensable presupposition of all that follows. The thrust of the Bible is toward the future—the widening effects of sin and the unfolding of God’s remedy.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Adam (Person); Death; Sin.<\/p>","summary_ro":"FALL OF MAN* Transition from a condition of moral innocence and favor with God to a condition of being condemned to death, which occurred in the history of humankind with Adam’s eating of the forbidden fruit. Biblical Evidence The narrative of Creation in Genesis 1 and 2 affirms the distinctiveness of both man’s nature and task. Man (used in this article as a generic term for male and female human beings) was created in the image of God for the purpose of communion and fellowship with God. As...","summary_en":"FALL OF MAN* Transition from a condition of moral innocence and favor with God to a condition of being condemned to death, which occurred in the history of humankind with Adam’s eating of the forbidden fruit. Biblical Evidence The narrative of Creation in Genesis 1 and 2 affirms the distinctiveness of both man’s nature and task. Man (used in this article as a generic term for male and female human beings) was created in the image of God for the purpose of communion and fellowship with God. As...","source":"Articles\/F.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":13525,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Book of Genesis","title_en":"Book of Genesis","content_ro":"<h3>GENESIS, Book of<\/h3>\nFirst book of the Bible.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Name<\/p>\n• Author<\/p>\n• Date<\/p>\n• Purpose<\/p>\n• Structure<\/p>\n• Content<\/p>\nName<\/p>\nThe name Genesis comes into English as a transliteration of the Greek word meaning “origin” or “beginning.” This name was given to the book in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, known as the Septuagint. Genesis reflects both the content of the book and the Hebrew name for it, which is taken from its first word, bere’shith<\/span>,<\/em> “in the beginning.”<\/p>\nAuthor<\/p>\nThe authorship of Genesis is closely related to the authorship of the entire Pentateuch (lit. “five-volumed,” the first five books of the Bible, which in Hebrew are called the Torah). It is clear that the Bible regards the human author of these books as Moses. On several occasions the Lord commanded Moses to write down various things: “in a book” (Ex 17:14) “write these words” (34:27). The Pentateuch reports that “Moses wrote all the words of the Lord<\/span>” (24:4); he wrote the itinerary of the exodus wanderings (Nm 33:2); “Moses wrote this law” (Dt 31:9). (Here it is not certain that all five books are meant, but it must refer to at least the greater part of Deuteronomy.) In Exodus 24:7 it is said that Moses read the Book of the Covenant, which he must have just completed.<\/p>\nThe rest of the OT bears witness to the writing of the Pentateuch by Moses. David referred to “the law of Moses” (1 Kgs 2:3). In the time of Josiah, there was found in the temple the “Book of the Law of the Lord<\/span> . . . given through Moses” (2 Chr 34:14, nlt<\/span>). Day by day Ezra read from “the Book of the Law of God” (Neh 8:18, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nIn the NT, Jesus refers to “the book of Moses” (Mk 12:26; Lk 20:37) and otherwise mentions the commands or statements of Moses (Mt 8:4; 19:8; Mk 7:10; cf. Lk 16:31; 24:44). The Jews also quoted from the Torah as coming from Moses, and Jesus did not contradict them.<\/p>\nOf Genesis in particular, it may be said that Moses had the opportunity and ability to write the book. He could have written it during his years in Egypt or while exiled with the Kenites. As the recognized leader of the Israelites, he would have had access to, or perhaps even custody of, the records that Jacob brought from Canaan. He was “instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians” (Acts 7:22) and probably could have written in several languages and in several scripts (hieroglyphic, cuneiform, Old Hebrew). Although Moses was admirably fitted for the task of writing, one must remember that he was not putting together a human composition but was writing under the inspiration of God (2 Pt 1:21). We may with confidence conclude that Moses was the human author of Genesis.<\/p>\nThe liberal view of the authorship of Genesis is that the book is an editorial composite—a view first put forward by a French physician, Jean Astruc, who suggested that the different names for God indicated different documents or sources for the writing of the book. The German higher critics expanded the view of the use of documents in the writing of Genesis and developed it into the Graf-Wellhausen-Kuenen, or Documentary, Hypothesis, which may also be called the JEDP theory of the authorship of the book. This view holds that there were four basic documents: (1) J, which uses the name YHWH (Jehovah or Yahweh) for God, dates from about the ninth century BC<\/span> and comes from Judah; (2) E uses the name Elohim, dates from the eighth century, and comes from the northern kingdom; (3) D is Deuteronomy and is supposed to come from the time of Josiah, about 621 BC<\/span>; and (4) P is the priestly element, which deals with matters of the priesthood and ritual, dating to the fifth century BC<\/span> or later. Some may date portions of Genesis as late as the Hellenistic period. According to this theory, the various documents were blended together by editors, so that there was a JE, JED, and so on.<\/p>\nThe science of archaeology discredited many of the extreme postulations of these critics, and the work of W. F. Albright and his followers did much to restore confidence in the historicity of Genesis. Within the last several decades, the patriarchal narratives and the account of Joseph have again come under strong attack, but these views are extreme, and much of the evidence adduced by Albright and earlier scholars like R. D. Wilson, W. H. Green, and others still has validity.<\/p>\nDate<\/p>\nThe date of the book is also a matter of debate. Even among those who accept Mosaic authorship there is debate as to when Moses lived. Based on the biblical data, Moses should have lived in the 15th century BC<\/span> (cf. Jgs 11:26; 1 Kgs 6:1), but many scholars incline toward a 13th-century date. As outlined above, the liberal view of the date of Genesis would be from the ninth to the fifth centuries BC<\/span>, with the final editing coming around the fifth century or perhaps even later.<\/p>\nPurpose<\/p>\nGenesis sketches the origin of many things: the universe, the earth, plants, animals, and mankind. It gives the beginnings of human institutions, professions, and crafts. It describes the origin of sin and death, and illustrates the insidious working of Satan in human life. Above all, Genesis relates the beginning of the history of redemption with the announcement of a Redeemer who was to come (Gn 3:15). It names the early progenitors in the lineage of the Messiah and the beginning of the Hebrew people through whom the Bible and the Savior came. Genesis also gives a selective history of people and events as viewed from the perspective of the purposes of God.<\/p>\nStructure<\/p>\nThe book is divided into 11 parts of uneven length, each set off by the expression “these are the generations [descendants, history] of” (2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1; 37:2). Only three times does the formula coincide with the first verse of a chapter. Usually called a heading or superscription, the expression serves as a kind of link between what precedes and what follows.<\/p>\n\nContent<\/p>\n<h5>The Creation (1:1–2:25)<\/h5>\nThese two chapters have been a scientific-theological battleground for many years, as researchers and students have tried to probe the origins of the universe and of life. Much of the evidence is not subject to scientific scrutiny, for science by definition requires that the evidence must be reproducible by experiment.<\/p>\nThe statement of Genesis 1:1 remains the grandest, most precise, and most accurate statement of origins: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” He did this ex nihilo<\/em> (“out of nothing”) by his word (Heb 11:3); he spoke the word of command and it was done (Gn 1:3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20; Ps 33:6, 9).<\/p>\nThe date of the beginning is unknown. Uniformitarian cosmogonists (students of the origins of the universe who believe that natural events have always followed a uniform pattern; cf. 2 Pt 3:3-7) have speculated that the beginning of the universe was billions of years ago. But some creationists posit a world thousands of years old.<\/p>\nTo accommodate geological ages and the existence of extinct animals, some interpreters have proposed a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, with Genesis 1:2–2:3 representing a second or new creation. But this is conjecture. So is the idea that each day represents a geological age.<\/p>\nAs the text stands, there is a correlation between the first three days and the second three days. Day one saw the creation of light; day four, the light bearers. Day two was the time of the creation of the firmament (better, “expanse”), which divided the waters; day five, birds and swarming water creatures. On day three, God made the dry land and plants; on day six he created the land animals and man. He made man in the image of God (Gn 1:26), “a little less than God” (Ps 8:5), and gave him dominion over the earth. He made everything “according to their kinds,” so that each kind is distinct and unique. The perfection of his work is affirmed in that “God saw that it was good” (Gn 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21; “very good,” v 31). The seventh day was a time of cessation from the activity of creating and served as a type for mankind’s day of rest (2:1-3).<\/p>\nCritical scholarship eyes 2:4-25 as a doublet in conflict with Genesis 1:1–2:3. To conservative scholars, the second chapter is the same account from a different perspective. Chapter 1 gives the Creation from the standpoint of sequence; chapter 2 shows it in view of the centrality of mankind in God’s creative work.<\/p>\nChapter 2 gives details of the creation of man of “dust from the ground” (v 7) and woman from a rib of the man (vv 21-22). She was created to be “a companion who will help him” (vv 18-20). They were created as mature adults, with the gift of speech and with great intelligence. Adam had imagination and vocabulary sufficient for naming all of the animal species (v 19).<\/p>\nThe location of the Garden of Eden is given (vv 10-14). Two of the four rivers, the Tigris and the Euphrates, can be identified with certainty. So man lived in this beautiful garden in the bliss of innocence.<\/p>\n<h5>The History of Humankind from Eden to Babel (3:1–11:26)<\/h5>\n<h6>The Fall<\/h6>\nThe loss of Eden and the break in fellowship with God is the saddest chapter in human history. The serpent, the devil, approached Eve with the same philosophy he always uses: doubt of God’s word (Gn 3:1), denial of death (v 4), and the suggestion of equality with God (v 5). He gained access to her will by deceiving her with the promise that the fruit would make her as wise as God is (Gn 3:5; cf. 1 Jn 2:16). Eve was deceived, but when she offered the fruit to Adam, he took it willingly, knowing what he was doing (Gn 3:6; cf. 1 Tm 2:14). Later, he tried to blame God for giving him the wife who gave him the fruit (Gn 3:12). Fellowship with God was broken (v 8), yet God came seeking Adam and found him.<\/p>\nWith sin came judgment, and the Lord pronounced righteous judgment on the serpent, the woman, and the man. The earth was also “subjected to frustration” and now groans as it awaits renewal (Rom 8:21-22). God gave hope to man and a promise of a Redeemer (Gn 3:15), who was to bruise the serpent’s head. Adam and Eve were forced out of the Garden, and it was made inaccessible to them.<\/p>\nThe impatience of humankind is shown in Eve’s expectation that her son Cain was the promised Deliverer. Instead, he developed a wrong-hearted attitude toward God and became so jealous of his younger brother that he murdered him. Apprehended by God and confronted with his crime, Cain showed only self-pity and went east from Eden, where he built a city (4:1-16). Chapter 4 closes with another contrast: the brazen Lamech, who called for vengeance, while others began to call upon the name of the Lord.<\/p>\n<h6>The Generations of Adam<\/h6>\nThis genealogical table (5:1-32) brings humankind to the time of Noah and the Flood. The longevity of the antediluvian patriarchs seems very striking to us, but one must remember that the earth had not yet been subjected to pollution and that the effects of sin on the human race were still nominal. The refrain “and he died” reminds us of man’s mortality. For Enoch, however, there was something better: “He enjoyed a close relationship with God throughout his life. Then, suddenly, he disappeared because God took him” (5:24, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h6>The Flood<\/h6>\nWith increased population came an eruption of sin (6:1-5). As men multiplied, so did their corruption. The universal condemnation of verse 5 shows a world ripe for judgment. Noah, however, “found favor with the Lord<\/span>,” for he was a righteous and blameless man who walked with God (6:8-9).<\/p>\nThe Lord planned to annihilate the human race, but he determined to save Noah and his family. Intending to flood the earth, God instructed Noah to build an ark. Noah was directed to take animals aboard the ark, two by two, male and female, for the preservation of each species. When all was in readiness, the Flood came: “the underground waters burst forth on the earth, and the rain fell in mighty torrents from the sky” (7:11, nlt<\/span>). It rained for 40 days and 40 nights. The highest mountains were covered, and life outside the ark perished. “But God remembered Noah” and sent a wind to evaporate the waters (8:1). Eventually the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat (v 4). Noah made a sacrifice to the Lord, and the Lord determined that he would never again bring such destruction upon the earth.<\/p>\nThe Flood is another of God’s acts that has been much debated. Many have argued for a local flood, which affected only part of Mesopotamia. Archaeologists have pointed to various flood strata in the excavation of Mesopotamian city-mounds as evidence for the account of the flood and have cited the various flood stories from that area as the source of the Genesis record. The epic of Gilgamesh gives an interesting tale of this hero, who went on a mission to visit Utnapishtim, the cuneiform Noah, in quest of eternal life. The flood story told by Utnapishtim has many parallels to Genesis, but there are greater contrasts, which demonstrate that the Bible preserves the true account.<\/p>\nBoth the Genesis account and the references to it in the NT (cf. 2 Pt 3:6) favor the view that the deluge was not a minor episode in the Tigris-Euphrates area but was an unprecedented worldwide catastrophe. Christian geologists affirm that the Flood had far-reaching effects on the earth itself. Flood stories are almost universally known, lending support to the conclusion that the Flood covered the whole earth. Following the Flood, God blessed Noah and his sons, Ham, Shem, and Japheth. God made a covenant with Noah, promising that he would never again send a worldwide flood. As a sign of this, he established the rainbow.<\/p>\nNoah was the first tiller of the soil, and he planted a vineyard (9:20). Noah became drunk from wine he made and lay uncovered in his tent. Ham saw him and reported this to his brothers, who discreetly covered him. Ham and his son Canaan were cursed; Shem and Japheth were blessed.<\/p>\n<h6>The History of the Nations<\/h6>\n“This is the history of the families of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, the three sons of Noah. Many children were born to them after the Flood” (10:1, nlt<\/span>). This chapter lists the descendants of Noah’s three sons, in the order of Japheth (vv 2-5), Ham (vv 6-20), and Shem (vv 21-31). Many of the names of their descendants are preserved in tribes and nations of the world.<\/p>\n<h6>The Tower of Babel<\/h6>\nThe building of the Tower of Babel (“Gate of God”) illustrates man’s perversity and his tendency to want independence from God. The desire of man to displace God follows the fateful example of Lucifer and is a basic tenet of many cults. God thwarted the designs of the builders of Babel by confusing their languages, so that the project came to a halt (11:1-9). The site of this tower is not known with certainty. Some associate it with Birs Nimrud, not far from the ruins of the city of Babylon. Genesis 11:10-25 picks up the line of Shem and carries it down to Terah, the father of Abram.<\/p>\n<h5>The History of Abraham (11:27–25:10) and Isaac (21:1–28:5)<\/h5>\nAbram came from Ur of the Chaldees, a prosperous city. The city had an imposing ziggurat (temple-tower), with many temples, storehouses, and residences. Abram and Sarai, his half sister and wife, went with his father to Haran in Syria, which like Ur was a center of the worship of the moon god, Sin (or Annar).<\/p>\n<h6>Abram’s Call<\/h6>\nThe call of God came to Abram directing him to leave his relatives and move to a land that the Lord would show him (12:1; cf. Acts 7:2-3). Abram obeyed. At the age of 75, he, Sarai, and his nephew Lot left Haran and went to Shechem, where the Lord appeared to him and promised that land to his descendants.<\/p>\nFamine drove Abram down to Egypt (Gn 12:10-20). Because of Sarai’s beauty, he feared that someone might kill him to get her, so he passed her off as his sister. She was taken into the pharaoh’s harem. When the Lord plagued Pharaoh because of this, Abram’s lie was discovered and Sarai was returned to him.<\/p>\n<h6>Abram and Lot<\/h6>\nAbram and Lot returned to Canaan, where strife broke out between Abram’s herdsmen and those of Lot. Abram suggested that they should separate, and he gave Lot the choice of territory. Lot chose the well-watered Jordan Valley and the cities of the plain, Sodom and Gomorrah (ch 13).<\/p>\n<h6>The Invasion of the Four Kings from the East<\/h6>\nThe four kings who invaded along the King’s Highway in Transjordan cannot be identified with certainty. Those kings were successful in their attack against the five cities of the plain, and they moved off with much booty and many captives, including Lot. Abram took 318 retainers, born in his household, and set off after them. By surprise attack, Abram recovered both Lot and the loot. On his return he was met by Melchizedek, king of Jerusalem, to whom Abram paid tithes (ch 14).<\/p>\n<h6>The Covenant<\/h6>\nThe Lord promised Abram a son as heir, and in an impressive nighttime ceremony, God made a covenant with Abram and promised him the land from the River of Egypt (Wadi el Arish) to the Euphrates (ch 15). Because of her own barrenness, Sarai gave her Egyptian maid, Hagar, to Abram. Hagar gave birth to Ishmael, the progenitor of the Arab peoples. When trouble arose between the women, Sarai sent Hagar away, which was her right according to Near Eastern customs (as illustrated by the Nuzi tablets). God showed mercy to Hagar and promised that she would have a great posterity (ch 16).<\/p>\nGod repeated his promise to Abram concerning his descendants and changed the names of Abram (“exalted father”) and Sarai to Abraham (“father of many”) and Sarah (“princess”). A covenant sign of circumcision was given to Abraham (ch 17). This operation had already been practiced among the Egyptians for several centuries.<\/p>\n<h6>The Destruction of the Cities of the Plain<\/h6>\nThe Lord and two angels appeared to Abraham and announced the birth of the promised heir within a year, as well as proclaimed the impending destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, concerning which Abraham bargained with God (18:22-33). Lot and his immediate family were rescued from Sodom, and the cities were destroyed by God with brimstone and fire (19:24-25). Lot’s two daughters, wishing to preserve their family line, got their father drunk and had sexual relations with him. Moab and Ammon, enemies of Israel in later times, were the result.<\/p>\nIn Genesis 20:1-18, Abraham again represented Sarah as his sister and got into trouble with Abimelech, king of Gerar.<\/p>\n<h6>Isaac<\/h6>\nWhen Isaac was born (21:1-3), trouble again broke out between Sarah and Hagar. Hagar was driven out a second time, and once more was befriended by the Lord.<\/p>\nA disagreement arose between Abraham and Abimelech concerning a well, but they made a covenant of peace at Beersheba (21:25-34).<\/p>\nGod tested Abraham’s faith by asking him to sacrifice Isaac on Mt Moriah, which probably is the same site David later bought from Araunah the Jebusite (2 Sm 24:16-25), the place where the temple was to stand. As Abraham was about to use the knife, God called to him and showed him a ram caught in a thicket. Isaac was freed and the animal was sacrificed in his stead.<\/p>\nSarah died at Hebron, and Abraham purchased the cave of Machpelah as a burial place from Ephron the Hittite (ch 23), in a transaction typical of Near Eastern business dealings. To find a wife for Isaac, Abraham sent his servant Eliezer back to the area of Haran, and the Lord directed Eliezer to Rebekah (ch 24).<\/p>\nChapter 25 records the marriage of Abraham to Keturah, who bore him a number of children. Abraham died at the age of 175 years and was buried in the cave of Machpelah by his two sons, Isaac and Ishmael.<\/p>\n<h5>The History of Jacob and Esau (25:19–37:1)<\/h5>\nRebekah gave birth to twin sons, Esau and Jacob. When the boys were grown, Esau sold his birthright to Jacob for a meal of red pottage (25:27-34).<\/p>\nWhen famine came to the land, Isaac went to Gerar, as his father had done (ch 20), and repeated his father’s lie by calling his wife his sister (26:1-11). Trouble arose with the Philistines over wells, but Isaac was a peaceable man and preferred digging new wells rather than fighting over old ones (vv 17-33).<\/p>\nIn Isaac’s old age, when his sight had failed, Rebekah connived with Jacob to trick Isaac into giving to Jacob the blessing of the firstborn, which was rightfully Esau’s. This oral blessing had legal validity and was irrevocable, according to the ancient Nuzi tablets. Fearing for Jacob’s life at the hands of Esau, Rebekah arranged to send Jacob to Haran to find a wife from among her own people. At Bethel, God appeared to Jacob in a dream of a ladder leading up to heaven; God renewed with Jacob the promise made to Abraham and Isaac (28:10-22).<\/p>\nJacob reached Haran, found his uncle Laban, and was employed by him (ch 29). His wages for seven years of labor were to be Laban’s younger daughter, Rachel, as his wife. But Laban substituted Leah, so that Jacob had to work another seven years for Rachel. The Lord prospered Jacob, but he continually had difficulties with Laban. The Lord directed Jacob back to Canaan (31:3), so he left secretly with his wives, children, and property. Laban pursued them because his household gods were missing (possession of these “gods” made the holder heir to the owner’s estate, according to Nuzi custom). Rachel had taken them but successfully concealed them from her father, and Laban went back to Haran.<\/p>\nFearing a meeting with Esau as they passed through Edom, Jacob sent gifts to his brother and divided his own party into two camps for security. On this return journey, Jacob had an unexpected wrestling bout with the Angel of the Lord, and he was left with a limp and a new name, Israel (ch 32).<\/p>\nThe meeting with Esau was friendly, and Jacob went on to Shechem (ch 33), where his sons killed the male Shechemites because of the rape of their sister Dinah (ch 34). God told Jacob to go to Bethel and build an altar to the Lord. All idols of foreign gods were buried (35:1-4). At Bethel, God reaffirmed his promise of a posterity and the land (vv 9-15). Rachel died on the way to Bethlehem, while giving birth to Benjamin, Jacob’s 12th and last son. Isaac died at Hebron at age 180 and was buried in the cave of Machpelah by Esau and Jacob.<\/p>\nGenesis 36 records “the generations of Esau” (v 1). Here Esau is also named Edom (“Red”; cf. 25:30).<\/p>\n<h5>The History of Joseph (37:2–50:26)<\/h5>\nJoseph was Jacob’s favorite son and thus incurred the jealousy of his brothers. This was heightened by Joseph’s dreams of lordship over them. Their resentment of Joseph came to a climax when Jacob gave Joseph a beautiful coat. The brothers determined to kill Joseph, but they compromised by selling him to a caravan of merchants, who took him to Egypt and sold him as a slave to Potiphar, an Egyptian captain of the guard (37:36; 39:1).<\/p>\nChapter 38 relates a historic case of levirate marriage. Judah failed to give his widowed daughter-in-law to his third son. She deceived him into fathering twin sons and forced him to acknowledge his faults. The elder son, Perez, is named in Luke’s genealogy of Jesus (Lk 3:33).<\/p>\nThe Lord blessed Joseph, who soon was put in charge of Potiphar’s household (Gn 39). The young man attracted the attention of Potiphar’s wife, who, after many attempts to seduce him, at last accused him of attempted rape. Sentenced on this charge, Joseph met with favor in prison, where he had opportunity to interpret dreams for two of the pharaoh’s servants (ch 40). When the king had dreams that his magicians and wise men could not interpret, Joseph was summoned from jail. Joseph told Pharaoh that the dreams meant seven years of plenty, followed by seven years of famine. Joseph was then exalted to the office of vizier, or prime minister, second only to the king, and put in charge of the administration of the land (41:37-44).<\/p>\nWhen the famine came to Palestine, Jacob sent his sons to Egypt to purchase grain. Joseph recognized his brothers but did not reveal his identity to them. Joseph put them to the test by accusing them of being spies (42:9), by keeping one of the brothers (Simeon) hostage (v 19), and by demanding that if they came to Egypt again, they must bring their youngest brother with them (42:20; 43:3). The famine became so severe in Canaan (43:1) that Jacob at last allowed Benjamin to go with his brothers to Egypt. The brothers were again set up by Joseph, who had his silver cup put into Benjamin’s grain sack and then had him apprehended as a thief (ch 44).<\/p>\nAt this point Joseph revealed his identity to his brothers (45:4-15) and there was much rejoicing. Joseph pointed out that it was God who had sent him to Egypt (vv 7-8), in order to preserve the lives of all the family. Jacob was then sent for (46:1), and Joseph met him in the land of Goshen (46:28-29). The Israelites were assigned land in the region of Goshen, where they prospered (47:27).<\/p>\nIn Jacob’s final illness, Joseph brought his two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, to his father for his blessing. Jacob gave the primary blessing to the second-born, Ephraim (48:13-20). Jacob blessed each of his own sons and then died at the age of at least 130 years. Joseph arranged for Jacob’s body to be prepared for burial according to Egyptian custom (50:2-3). After the burial of their father in the cave of Machpelah at Hebron, Joseph’s brothers worried about vengeance, but Joseph declared, “As far as I am concerned, God turned into good what you meant for evil. He brought me to the high position I have today so I could save the lives of many people” (v 20, nlt<\/span>). Joseph died at age 110 with the prophetic request that when the Israelites went up from Egypt they would take his bones with them (50:25; cf. Ex 13:19; Jos 24:32).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Abraham; Adam (Person); Covenant; Creation; Eve; Fall of Man; Flood, The; Isaac; Jacob #1; Joseph #1; Nations; Noah #1; Patriarchs, Period of the.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>GENESIS, Book of<\/h3>\nFirst book of the Bible.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Name<\/p>\n• Author<\/p>\n• Date<\/p>\n• Purpose<\/p>\n• Structure<\/p>\n• Content<\/p>\nName<\/p>\nThe name Genesis comes into English as a transliteration of the Greek word meaning “origin” or “beginning.” This name was given to the book in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, known as the Septuagint. Genesis reflects both the content of the book and the Hebrew name for it, which is taken from its first word, bere’shith<\/span>,<\/em> “in the beginning.”<\/p>\nAuthor<\/p>\nThe authorship of Genesis is closely related to the authorship of the entire Pentateuch (lit. “five-volumed,” the first five books of the Bible, which in Hebrew are called the Torah). It is clear that the Bible regards the human author of these books as Moses. On several occasions the Lord commanded Moses to write down various things: “in a book” (Ex 17:14) “write these words” (34:27). The Pentateuch reports that “Moses wrote all the words of the Lord<\/span>” (24:4); he wrote the itinerary of the exodus wanderings (Nm 33:2); “Moses wrote this law” (Dt 31:9). (Here it is not certain that all five books are meant, but it must refer to at least the greater part of Deuteronomy.) In Exodus 24:7 it is said that Moses read the Book of the Covenant, which he must have just completed.<\/p>\nThe rest of the OT bears witness to the writing of the Pentateuch by Moses. David referred to “the law of Moses” (1 Kgs 2:3). In the time of Josiah, there was found in the temple the “Book of the Law of the Lord<\/span> . . . given through Moses” (2 Chr 34:14, nlt<\/span>). Day by day Ezra read from “the Book of the Law of God” (Neh 8:18, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nIn the NT, Jesus refers to “the book of Moses” (Mk 12:26; Lk 20:37) and otherwise mentions the commands or statements of Moses (Mt 8:4; 19:8; Mk 7:10; cf. Lk 16:31; 24:44). The Jews also quoted from the Torah as coming from Moses, and Jesus did not contradict them.<\/p>\nOf Genesis in particular, it may be said that Moses had the opportunity and ability to write the book. He could have written it during his years in Egypt or while exiled with the Kenites. As the recognized leader of the Israelites, he would have had access to, or perhaps even custody of, the records that Jacob brought from Canaan. He was “instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians” (Acts 7:22) and probably could have written in several languages and in several scripts (hieroglyphic, cuneiform, Old Hebrew). Although Moses was admirably fitted for the task of writing, one must remember that he was not putting together a human composition but was writing under the inspiration of God (2 Pt 1:21). We may with confidence conclude that Moses was the human author of Genesis.<\/p>\nThe liberal view of the authorship of Genesis is that the book is an editorial composite—a view first put forward by a French physician, Jean Astruc, who suggested that the different names for God indicated different documents or sources for the writing of the book. The German higher critics expanded the view of the use of documents in the writing of Genesis and developed it into the Graf-Wellhausen-Kuenen, or Documentary, Hypothesis, which may also be called the JEDP theory of the authorship of the book. This view holds that there were four basic documents: (1) J, which uses the name YHWH (Jehovah or Yahweh) for God, dates from about the ninth century BC<\/span> and comes from Judah; (2) E uses the name Elohim, dates from the eighth century, and comes from the northern kingdom; (3) D is Deuteronomy and is supposed to come from the time of Josiah, about 621 BC<\/span>; and (4) P is the priestly element, which deals with matters of the priesthood and ritual, dating to the fifth century BC<\/span> or later. Some may date portions of Genesis as late as the Hellenistic period. According to this theory, the various documents were blended together by editors, so that there was a JE, JED, and so on.<\/p>\nThe science of archaeology discredited many of the extreme postulations of these critics, and the work of W. F. Albright and his followers did much to restore confidence in the historicity of Genesis. Within the last several decades, the patriarchal narratives and the account of Joseph have again come under strong attack, but these views are extreme, and much of the evidence adduced by Albright and earlier scholars like R. D. Wilson, W. H. Green, and others still has validity.<\/p>\nDate<\/p>\nThe date of the book is also a matter of debate. Even among those who accept Mosaic authorship there is debate as to when Moses lived. Based on the biblical data, Moses should have lived in the 15th century BC<\/span> (cf. Jgs 11:26; 1 Kgs 6:1), but many scholars incline toward a 13th-century date. As outlined above, the liberal view of the date of Genesis would be from the ninth to the fifth centuries BC<\/span>, with the final editing coming around the fifth century or perhaps even later.<\/p>\nPurpose<\/p>\nGenesis sketches the origin of many things: the universe, the earth, plants, animals, and mankind. It gives the beginnings of human institutions, professions, and crafts. It describes the origin of sin and death, and illustrates the insidious working of Satan in human life. Above all, Genesis relates the beginning of the history of redemption with the announcement of a Redeemer who was to come (Gn 3:15). It names the early progenitors in the lineage of the Messiah and the beginning of the Hebrew people through whom the Bible and the Savior came. Genesis also gives a selective history of people and events as viewed from the perspective of the purposes of God.<\/p>\nStructure<\/p>\nThe book is divided into 11 parts of uneven length, each set off by the expression “these are the generations [descendants, history] of” (2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1; 37:2). Only three times does the formula coincide with the first verse of a chapter. Usually called a heading or superscription, the expression serves as a kind of link between what precedes and what follows.<\/p>\n\nContent<\/p>\n<h5>The Creation (1:1–2:25)<\/h5>\nThese two chapters have been a scientific-theological battleground for many years, as researchers and students have tried to probe the origins of the universe and of life. Much of the evidence is not subject to scientific scrutiny, for science by definition requires that the evidence must be reproducible by experiment.<\/p>\nThe statement of Genesis 1:1 remains the grandest, most precise, and most accurate statement of origins: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” He did this ex nihilo<\/em> (“out of nothing”) by his word (Heb 11:3); he spoke the word of command and it was done (Gn 1:3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20; Ps 33:6, 9).<\/p>\nThe date of the beginning is unknown. Uniformitarian cosmogonists (students of the origins of the universe who believe that natural events have always followed a uniform pattern; cf. 2 Pt 3:3-7) have speculated that the beginning of the universe was billions of years ago. But some creationists posit a world thousands of years old.<\/p>\nTo accommodate geological ages and the existence of extinct animals, some interpreters have proposed a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, with Genesis 1:2–2:3 representing a second or new creation. But this is conjecture. So is the idea that each day represents a geological age.<\/p>\nAs the text stands, there is a correlation between the first three days and the second three days. Day one saw the creation of light; day four, the light bearers. Day two was the time of the creation of the firmament (better, “expanse”), which divided the waters; day five, birds and swarming water creatures. On day three, God made the dry land and plants; on day six he created the land animals and man. He made man in the image of God (Gn 1:26), “a little less than God” (Ps 8:5), and gave him dominion over the earth. He made everything “according to their kinds,” so that each kind is distinct and unique. The perfection of his work is affirmed in that “God saw that it was good” (Gn 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21; “very good,” v 31). The seventh day was a time of cessation from the activity of creating and served as a type for mankind’s day of rest (2:1-3).<\/p>\nCritical scholarship eyes 2:4-25 as a doublet in conflict with Genesis 1:1–2:3. To conservative scholars, the second chapter is the same account from a different perspective. Chapter 1 gives the Creation from the standpoint of sequence; chapter 2 shows it in view of the centrality of mankind in God’s creative work.<\/p>\nChapter 2 gives details of the creation of man of “dust from the ground” (v 7) and woman from a rib of the man (vv 21-22). She was created to be “a companion who will help him” (vv 18-20). They were created as mature adults, with the gift of speech and with great intelligence. Adam had imagination and vocabulary sufficient for naming all of the animal species (v 19).<\/p>\nThe location of the Garden of Eden is given (vv 10-14). Two of the four rivers, the Tigris and the Euphrates, can be identified with certainty. So man lived in this beautiful garden in the bliss of innocence.<\/p>\n<h5>The History of Humankind from Eden to Babel (3:1–11:26)<\/h5>\n<h6>The Fall<\/h6>\nThe loss of Eden and the break in fellowship with God is the saddest chapter in human history. The serpent, the devil, approached Eve with the same philosophy he always uses: doubt of God’s word (Gn 3:1), denial of death (v 4), and the suggestion of equality with God (v 5). He gained access to her will by deceiving her with the promise that the fruit would make her as wise as God is (Gn 3:5; cf. 1 Jn 2:16). Eve was deceived, but when she offered the fruit to Adam, he took it willingly, knowing what he was doing (Gn 3:6; cf. 1 Tm 2:14). Later, he tried to blame God for giving him the wife who gave him the fruit (Gn 3:12). Fellowship with God was broken (v 8), yet God came seeking Adam and found him.<\/p>\nWith sin came judgment, and the Lord pronounced righteous judgment on the serpent, the woman, and the man. The earth was also “subjected to frustration” and now groans as it awaits renewal (Rom 8:21-22). God gave hope to man and a promise of a Redeemer (Gn 3:15), who was to bruise the serpent’s head. Adam and Eve were forced out of the Garden, and it was made inaccessible to them.<\/p>\nThe impatience of humankind is shown in Eve’s expectation that her son Cain was the promised Deliverer. Instead, he developed a wrong-hearted attitude toward God and became so jealous of his younger brother that he murdered him. Apprehended by God and confronted with his crime, Cain showed only self-pity and went east from Eden, where he built a city (4:1-16). Chapter 4 closes with another contrast: the brazen Lamech, who called for vengeance, while others began to call upon the name of the Lord.<\/p>\n<h6>The Generations of Adam<\/h6>\nThis genealogical table (5:1-32) brings humankind to the time of Noah and the Flood. The longevity of the antediluvian patriarchs seems very striking to us, but one must remember that the earth had not yet been subjected to pollution and that the effects of sin on the human race were still nominal. The refrain “and he died” reminds us of man’s mortality. For Enoch, however, there was something better: “He enjoyed a close relationship with God throughout his life. Then, suddenly, he disappeared because God took him” (5:24, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h6>The Flood<\/h6>\nWith increased population came an eruption of sin (6:1-5). As men multiplied, so did their corruption. The universal condemnation of verse 5 shows a world ripe for judgment. Noah, however, “found favor with the Lord<\/span>,” for he was a righteous and blameless man who walked with God (6:8-9).<\/p>\nThe Lord planned to annihilate the human race, but he determined to save Noah and his family. Intending to flood the earth, God instructed Noah to build an ark. Noah was directed to take animals aboard the ark, two by two, male and female, for the preservation of each species. When all was in readiness, the Flood came: “the underground waters burst forth on the earth, and the rain fell in mighty torrents from the sky” (7:11, nlt<\/span>). It rained for 40 days and 40 nights. The highest mountains were covered, and life outside the ark perished. “But God remembered Noah” and sent a wind to evaporate the waters (8:1). Eventually the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat (v 4). Noah made a sacrifice to the Lord, and the Lord determined that he would never again bring such destruction upon the earth.<\/p>\nThe Flood is another of God’s acts that has been much debated. Many have argued for a local flood, which affected only part of Mesopotamia. Archaeologists have pointed to various flood strata in the excavation of Mesopotamian city-mounds as evidence for the account of the flood and have cited the various flood stories from that area as the source of the Genesis record. The epic of Gilgamesh gives an interesting tale of this hero, who went on a mission to visit Utnapishtim, the cuneiform Noah, in quest of eternal life. The flood story told by Utnapishtim has many parallels to Genesis, but there are greater contrasts, which demonstrate that the Bible preserves the true account.<\/p>\nBoth the Genesis account and the references to it in the NT (cf. 2 Pt 3:6) favor the view that the deluge was not a minor episode in the Tigris-Euphrates area but was an unprecedented worldwide catastrophe. Christian geologists affirm that the Flood had far-reaching effects on the earth itself. Flood stories are almost universally known, lending support to the conclusion that the Flood covered the whole earth. Following the Flood, God blessed Noah and his sons, Ham, Shem, and Japheth. God made a covenant with Noah, promising that he would never again send a worldwide flood. As a sign of this, he established the rainbow.<\/p>\nNoah was the first tiller of the soil, and he planted a vineyard (9:20). Noah became drunk from wine he made and lay uncovered in his tent. Ham saw him and reported this to his brothers, who discreetly covered him. Ham and his son Canaan were cursed; Shem and Japheth were blessed.<\/p>\n<h6>The History of the Nations<\/h6>\n“This is the history of the families of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, the three sons of Noah. Many children were born to them after the Flood” (10:1, nlt<\/span>). This chapter lists the descendants of Noah’s three sons, in the order of Japheth (vv 2-5), Ham (vv 6-20), and Shem (vv 21-31). Many of the names of their descendants are preserved in tribes and nations of the world.<\/p>\n<h6>The Tower of Babel<\/h6>\nThe building of the Tower of Babel (“Gate of God”) illustrates man’s perversity and his tendency to want independence from God. The desire of man to displace God follows the fateful example of Lucifer and is a basic tenet of many cults. God thwarted the designs of the builders of Babel by confusing their languages, so that the project came to a halt (11:1-9). The site of this tower is not known with certainty. Some associate it with Birs Nimrud, not far from the ruins of the city of Babylon. Genesis 11:10-25 picks up the line of Shem and carries it down to Terah, the father of Abram.<\/p>\n<h5>The History of Abraham (11:27–25:10) and Isaac (21:1–28:5)<\/h5>\nAbram came from Ur of the Chaldees, a prosperous city. The city had an imposing ziggurat (temple-tower), with many temples, storehouses, and residences. Abram and Sarai, his half sister and wife, went with his father to Haran in Syria, which like Ur was a center of the worship of the moon god, Sin (or Annar).<\/p>\n<h6>Abram’s Call<\/h6>\nThe call of God came to Abram directing him to leave his relatives and move to a land that the Lord would show him (12:1; cf. Acts 7:2-3). Abram obeyed. At the age of 75, he, Sarai, and his nephew Lot left Haran and went to Shechem, where the Lord appeared to him and promised that land to his descendants.<\/p>\nFamine drove Abram down to Egypt (Gn 12:10-20). Because of Sarai’s beauty, he feared that someone might kill him to get her, so he passed her off as his sister. She was taken into the pharaoh’s harem. When the Lord plagued Pharaoh because of this, Abram’s lie was discovered and Sarai was returned to him.<\/p>\n<h6>Abram and Lot<\/h6>\nAbram and Lot returned to Canaan, where strife broke out between Abram’s herdsmen and those of Lot. Abram suggested that they should separate, and he gave Lot the choice of territory. Lot chose the well-watered Jordan Valley and the cities of the plain, Sodom and Gomorrah (ch 13).<\/p>\n<h6>The Invasion of the Four Kings from the East<\/h6>\nThe four kings who invaded along the King’s Highway in Transjordan cannot be identified with certainty. Those kings were successful in their attack against the five cities of the plain, and they moved off with much booty and many captives, including Lot. Abram took 318 retainers, born in his household, and set off after them. By surprise attack, Abram recovered both Lot and the loot. On his return he was met by Melchizedek, king of Jerusalem, to whom Abram paid tithes (ch 14).<\/p>\n<h6>The Covenant<\/h6>\nThe Lord promised Abram a son as heir, and in an impressive nighttime ceremony, God made a covenant with Abram and promised him the land from the River of Egypt (Wadi el Arish) to the Euphrates (ch 15). Because of her own barrenness, Sarai gave her Egyptian maid, Hagar, to Abram. Hagar gave birth to Ishmael, the progenitor of the Arab peoples. When trouble arose between the women, Sarai sent Hagar away, which was her right according to Near Eastern customs (as illustrated by the Nuzi tablets). God showed mercy to Hagar and promised that she would have a great posterity (ch 16).<\/p>\nGod repeated his promise to Abram concerning his descendants and changed the names of Abram (“exalted father”) and Sarai to Abraham (“father of many”) and Sarah (“princess”). A covenant sign of circumcision was given to Abraham (ch 17). This operation had already been practiced among the Egyptians for several centuries.<\/p>\n<h6>The Destruction of the Cities of the Plain<\/h6>\nThe Lord and two angels appeared to Abraham and announced the birth of the promised heir within a year, as well as proclaimed the impending destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, concerning which Abraham bargained with God (18:22-33). Lot and his immediate family were rescued from Sodom, and the cities were destroyed by God with brimstone and fire (19:24-25). Lot’s two daughters, wishing to preserve their family line, got their father drunk and had sexual relations with him. Moab and Ammon, enemies of Israel in later times, were the result.<\/p>\nIn Genesis 20:1-18, Abraham again represented Sarah as his sister and got into trouble with Abimelech, king of Gerar.<\/p>\n<h6>Isaac<\/h6>\nWhen Isaac was born (21:1-3), trouble again broke out between Sarah and Hagar. Hagar was driven out a second time, and once more was befriended by the Lord.<\/p>\nA disagreement arose between Abraham and Abimelech concerning a well, but they made a covenant of peace at Beersheba (21:25-34).<\/p>\nGod tested Abraham’s faith by asking him to sacrifice Isaac on Mt Moriah, which probably is the same site David later bought from Araunah the Jebusite (2 Sm 24:16-25), the place where the temple was to stand. As Abraham was about to use the knife, God called to him and showed him a ram caught in a thicket. Isaac was freed and the animal was sacrificed in his stead.<\/p>\nSarah died at Hebron, and Abraham purchased the cave of Machpelah as a burial place from Ephron the Hittite (ch 23), in a transaction typical of Near Eastern business dealings. To find a wife for Isaac, Abraham sent his servant Eliezer back to the area of Haran, and the Lord directed Eliezer to Rebekah (ch 24).<\/p>\nChapter 25 records the marriage of Abraham to Keturah, who bore him a number of children. Abraham died at the age of 175 years and was buried in the cave of Machpelah by his two sons, Isaac and Ishmael.<\/p>\n<h5>The History of Jacob and Esau (25:19–37:1)<\/h5>\nRebekah gave birth to twin sons, Esau and Jacob. When the boys were grown, Esau sold his birthright to Jacob for a meal of red pottage (25:27-34).<\/p>\nWhen famine came to the land, Isaac went to Gerar, as his father had done (ch 20), and repeated his father’s lie by calling his wife his sister (26:1-11). Trouble arose with the Philistines over wells, but Isaac was a peaceable man and preferred digging new wells rather than fighting over old ones (vv 17-33).<\/p>\nIn Isaac’s old age, when his sight had failed, Rebekah connived with Jacob to trick Isaac into giving to Jacob the blessing of the firstborn, which was rightfully Esau’s. This oral blessing had legal validity and was irrevocable, according to the ancient Nuzi tablets. Fearing for Jacob’s life at the hands of Esau, Rebekah arranged to send Jacob to Haran to find a wife from among her own people. At Bethel, God appeared to Jacob in a dream of a ladder leading up to heaven; God renewed with Jacob the promise made to Abraham and Isaac (28:10-22).<\/p>\nJacob reached Haran, found his uncle Laban, and was employed by him (ch 29). His wages for seven years of labor were to be Laban’s younger daughter, Rachel, as his wife. But Laban substituted Leah, so that Jacob had to work another seven years for Rachel. The Lord prospered Jacob, but he continually had difficulties with Laban. The Lord directed Jacob back to Canaan (31:3), so he left secretly with his wives, children, and property. Laban pursued them because his household gods were missing (possession of these “gods” made the holder heir to the owner’s estate, according to Nuzi custom). Rachel had taken them but successfully concealed them from her father, and Laban went back to Haran.<\/p>\nFearing a meeting with Esau as they passed through Edom, Jacob sent gifts to his brother and divided his own party into two camps for security. On this return journey, Jacob had an unexpected wrestling bout with the Angel of the Lord, and he was left with a limp and a new name, Israel (ch 32).<\/p>\nThe meeting with Esau was friendly, and Jacob went on to Shechem (ch 33), where his sons killed the male Shechemites because of the rape of their sister Dinah (ch 34). God told Jacob to go to Bethel and build an altar to the Lord. All idols of foreign gods were buried (35:1-4). At Bethel, God reaffirmed his promise of a posterity and the land (vv 9-15). Rachel died on the way to Bethlehem, while giving birth to Benjamin, Jacob’s 12th and last son. Isaac died at Hebron at age 180 and was buried in the cave of Machpelah by Esau and Jacob.<\/p>\nGenesis 36 records “the generations of Esau” (v 1). Here Esau is also named Edom (“Red”; cf. 25:30).<\/p>\n<h5>The History of Joseph (37:2–50:26)<\/h5>\nJoseph was Jacob’s favorite son and thus incurred the jealousy of his brothers. This was heightened by Joseph’s dreams of lordship over them. Their resentment of Joseph came to a climax when Jacob gave Joseph a beautiful coat. The brothers determined to kill Joseph, but they compromised by selling him to a caravan of merchants, who took him to Egypt and sold him as a slave to Potiphar, an Egyptian captain of the guard (37:36; 39:1).<\/p>\nChapter 38 relates a historic case of levirate marriage. Judah failed to give his widowed daughter-in-law to his third son. She deceived him into fathering twin sons and forced him to acknowledge his faults. The elder son, Perez, is named in Luke’s genealogy of Jesus (Lk 3:33).<\/p>\nThe Lord blessed Joseph, who soon was put in charge of Potiphar’s household (Gn 39). The young man attracted the attention of Potiphar’s wife, who, after many attempts to seduce him, at last accused him of attempted rape. Sentenced on this charge, Joseph met with favor in prison, where he had opportunity to interpret dreams for two of the pharaoh’s servants (ch 40). When the king had dreams that his magicians and wise men could not interpret, Joseph was summoned from jail. Joseph told Pharaoh that the dreams meant seven years of plenty, followed by seven years of famine. Joseph was then exalted to the office of vizier, or prime minister, second only to the king, and put in charge of the administration of the land (41:37-44).<\/p>\nWhen the famine came to Palestine, Jacob sent his sons to Egypt to purchase grain. Joseph recognized his brothers but did not reveal his identity to them. Joseph put them to the test by accusing them of being spies (42:9), by keeping one of the brothers (Simeon) hostage (v 19), and by demanding that if they came to Egypt again, they must bring their youngest brother with them (42:20; 43:3). The famine became so severe in Canaan (43:1) that Jacob at last allowed Benjamin to go with his brothers to Egypt. The brothers were again set up by Joseph, who had his silver cup put into Benjamin’s grain sack and then had him apprehended as a thief (ch 44).<\/p>\nAt this point Joseph revealed his identity to his brothers (45:4-15) and there was much rejoicing. Joseph pointed out that it was God who had sent him to Egypt (vv 7-8), in order to preserve the lives of all the family. Jacob was then sent for (46:1), and Joseph met him in the land of Goshen (46:28-29). The Israelites were assigned land in the region of Goshen, where they prospered (47:27).<\/p>\nIn Jacob’s final illness, Joseph brought his two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, to his father for his blessing. Jacob gave the primary blessing to the second-born, Ephraim (48:13-20). Jacob blessed each of his own sons and then died at the age of at least 130 years. Joseph arranged for Jacob’s body to be prepared for burial according to Egyptian custom (50:2-3). After the burial of their father in the cave of Machpelah at Hebron, Joseph’s brothers worried about vengeance, but Joseph declared, “As far as I am concerned, God turned into good what you meant for evil. He brought me to the high position I have today so I could save the lives of many people” (v 20, nlt<\/span>). Joseph died at age 110 with the prophetic request that when the Israelites went up from Egypt they would take his bones with them (50:25; cf. Ex 13:19; Jos 24:32).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Abraham; Adam (Person); Covenant; Creation; Eve; Fall of Man; Flood, The; Isaac; Jacob #1; Joseph #1; Nations; Noah #1; Patriarchs, Period of the.<\/p>","summary_ro":"GENESIS, Book of First book of the Bible. Preview • Name • Author • Date • Purpose • Structure • Content Name The name Genesis comes into English as a transliteration of the Greek word meaning “origin” or “beginning.” This name was given to the book in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, known as the Septuagint. Genesis reflects both the content of the book and the Hebrew name for it, which is taken from its first word, bere’shith, “in the beginning.” Author The authorship of Gene...","summary_en":"GENESIS, Book of First book of the Bible. Preview • Name • Author • Date • Purpose • Structure • Content Name The name Genesis comes into English as a transliteration of the Greek word meaning “origin” or “beginning.” This name was given to the book in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, known as the Septuagint. Genesis reflects both the content of the book and the Hebrew name for it, which is taken from its first word, bere’shith, “in the beginning.” Author The authorship of Gene...","source":"Articles\/G.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":14218,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Names of God","title_en":"Names of God","content_ro":"<h3>GOD, Names of<\/h3>\nGod’s self-identifications expressing various aspects of his being.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• The Biblical Idea of Name<\/p>\n• The Names of God in the Old Testament<\/p>\n• The Names of God in the New Testament<\/p>\nThe Biblical Idea of Name<\/p>\nIn the Scriptures the name and person of God are inseparably related. This is in keeping with the biblical conception of what a name signifies.<\/p>\nIn the Hebrew language, the term for “name” most probably meant “sign” or “distinctive mark.” In the Greek language, “name” (<\/em>onoma<\/span>)<\/em> is derived from a verb that means “to know.” A name, therefore, indicates that by which a person or object is to be known. But the idea of name is not to be taken in the sense of a label or an arbitrary means of identifying or specifying a person, place, or object. “Name” in biblical usage correctly describes the person, place, or object and indicates the essential character of that to which the name is given. Adam named the animals according to their nature (Gn 2:19-20); Noah means “one who brings relief and comfort” (5:29); Jesus means “savior” (Mt 1:21). When a person was given a new position or a radical change took place in his life, a new name was given to indicate that new aspect—for example, Abraham (“father of many,” Gn 17:5), and Israel (“one who strives with God” or “God strives,” 32:28). The name of a person or people expressed what the person or people thought the proper description or statement of character was.<\/p>\nWith regard to the names of God, there are considerable differences, and these are most clearly seen when biblical scholars and theologians confront the question of whether the names of God are ascriptions given by God concerning himself or they are ascriptions given to God by people who observed his acts and reflected on his character as discerned through a study of divine deeds. Here are some examples of various kinds of divine names:<\/p>\n1. Proper names: El, Yahweh, Adonai, Theos (God), Kurios (Lord).<\/p>\n<li>2. Personal names: Father, Abba, Son, Jesus, Holy Spirit.<\/li>\n<li>3. Titles: Creator, Messiah\/Christ, Paraclete\/Comforter.<\/li>\n<li>4. Essential names: Light, Love, Spirit.<\/li>\n<li>5. Descriptive names: Rock, Ba’al, Master, Rabboni, Shepherd.<\/li>\nThe Names of God in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<h5>El and Related Names<\/h5>\nThe name ’El<\/span> is found over 200 times in the Hebrew Bible. It is best translated as “God.” The term ’el<\/span> has a number of possible meanings. The root is thought by some to be ’ul<\/span>,<\/em> which means “to be first” or “to be strong.” Others suggest the root is ’alah<\/span>,<\/em> which means “to precede” and suggests “leader” or “commander.” It can also mean “to be afraid.” Thus God as ’alah<\/span>,<\/em> as the strong one, is to be feared. Still others suggest the preposition ’el<\/span> (“to, toward”) as the root; the idea then is of “one giving self to others” or of “one to whom others go for help.” Some scholars suggest that the word ’alim<\/span>,<\/em> meaning “to bind,” should be considered as a root also—that is, “the strong one binds and holds firm control.” Common to these four suggested root meanings is the idea of strength, power, and of supreme excellence and greatness.<\/p>\n’El<\/span> in the OT is used particularly in the earlier books, where it describes God’s exercising dynamic power as distinguished from authority. ’El<\/span> speaks of God as the great doer and producer. He is the One who exercises such power that whatever is made, done, kept, or destroyed is his doing (cf. Ex 15). ’El<\/span> is also used to express the idea that God is not to be identified as part of creation but as the One who is above, behind, and beyond creation (Ps 19:1).<\/p>\n’Elohim<\/span> is also commonly used as the name of God, occurring over 2,500 times in the OT. There are differences of opinion concerning the exact origin and meaning of this plural name. Some have suggested that ’Elohim<\/span> is the plural form of ’El<\/span>,<\/em> but it seems more likely that it is a plural of ’Eloah<\/span>,<\/em> which appears in the poetical writings. Some critical writers have suggested that this plural form is borrowed from pagan polytheistic sources, but no such plural form is found among pagans as the name of a deity. Others have suggested that the plural form is used to indicate the triune nature of God, and support for this has been seen in the use of a singular verb with this plural noun. The biblical doctrine of the Trinity, as it is developed throughout the Scriptures, does not appear to be based on the use of this plural form of God’s name, even though the two positions are not contradictory.<\/p>\nThe plural form, ’Elohim<\/span>,<\/em> is best understood as expressing intensity. God makes himself known by this name as the Lord of intense and extensive glory and richness as he exercises his preeminence and power in the created cosmos. Hence, when the Scripture speaks of creation, it states, “In the beginning ’Elohim<\/span> created the heavens and the earth” (Gn 1:1). This name is repeated 35 times in Genesis 1 and 2 in connection with God’s power as revealed in Creation. In the book of Deuteronomy the name ’Elohim<\/span> is used repeatedly to stress the majestic power of God that was shown in Israel’s release from bondage in Egypt, preservation in the wilderness, and preparation for entrance into the Promised Land. In this context, God (<\/em>’Elohim<\/span>)<\/em> is also recognized as the Lawgiver who will powerfully execute judgment on covenant breakers. The psalmists also used this named repeatedly as they acknowledged and praised God the majestic ruler who had demonstrated his omnipotence in many dimensions of life (see Ps 68, in which ’Elohim<\/span> appears 26 times.)<\/p>\nSome scholars point to the use of ’Elohim<\/span> when God spoke to Abraham and said he would be ’Elohim<\/span> to the patriarch and his seed; that is, God would be in a covenant relationship to them (Gn 17:1-8). Included in this relationship is the idea that God is ever ready to use his power on behalf of those who are in covenant with him. Thus, ’<\/span>Elohim<\/span> also expresses the concept of God’s faithfulness in regard to the covenant and the promises and blessings involved in it.<\/p>\nThe name ’<\/span>Eloah<\/span> occurs mainly in the poetical writings, no fewer than 41 times in Job. Isaiah used it to express the incomparable character of God (Is 44:8). In like manner David asked, “Who is God [’<\/span>Eloah<\/span>], but the Lord<\/span>?” (2 Sm 22:32). Moses was the first to use the name ’<\/span>Eloah<\/span> in his song (Dt 32:15-17), referring to Israel’s God in the context of the “no-gods,” which had been chosen in place of the Rock of salvation and the incomparable One. This name was probably used to stress the fact that God is the only true and living One, the One to be adored and worshiped; he is to be revered with a holy fear.<\/p>\nAnother closely related name is ’Elah<\/span>,<\/em> found in Ezra and Daniel. Some think ’Elah<\/span> is a Chaldee or Aramaic form of ’Eloah<\/span>.<\/em> Its root is said to be ’alah<\/span>,<\/em> which means “to fear” or “to be perplexed.” God as ’Elah<\/span> is the God to be feared and worshiped accordingly. In view of this meaning, it can be understood why, in the time of Israel’s exile and immediately after their return, this name was commonly used.<\/p>\nThree other names of God include the term ’El<\/span>:<\/em><\/p>\n’El ‘Elyon<\/span> is the name used to designate the God of Melchizedek (Gn 14:18-22) as God Most High. In Psalms 57:2 and 78:56 the Hebrew reads ’Elohim ‘Elyon<\/span>.<\/em> It is believed that the term ‘Elyon<\/span> is derived from the verb ‘alah<\/span>,<\/em> meaning “go up, be elevated, to be exalted.” There are a number of instances where the term ‘Elyon<\/span> is used alone, but the context indicates that it is then used as a synonym for God (e.g., Nm 24:16; Ps 83:18; Is 14:14). The term ‘elyon<\/span> is used quite frequently as an adjective; it is then translated as “high, highest, upper, uppermost.” The basic ascription given to God when this name is employed is to One who is above all things as the maker, possessor, and ruler. He is incomparable in every way; he is subject to no one and no thing; he is the Exalted One.<\/p>\n’El Shaddai<\/span> is used in the longer form seven times in the Scriptures (Gn 17:1; 28:3; 35:11; 43:14; 48:3; Ex 6:3; Ez 10:5). In the shorter form (<\/em>Shaddai<\/span>),<\/em> it appears more frequently: in Job 30 times; in Psalms 19:1 and 68:14; once in Ruth (1:21), Isaiah (13:6), Ezekiel (1:24), and Joel (1:15). In these passages the combined ideas of God as the all-powerful, all-sufficient, transcendent, sovereign ruler and disposer are present. This meaning is generally accepted, but there are differences as to the exact meaning of the term Shaddai<\/span>.<\/em> Some have begun with shad<\/span> as the first concept to be considered; its meaning is “breast, pap, or teat,” and it is considered a “precious metaphor” of the God who nourishes, supplies, and satisfies. The root of shad<\/span> (<\/em>shadah<\/span>),<\/em> in Semitic usage, is to moisten. This meaning is not the preferred one in the context of which ’El Shaddai<\/span> appears; nor is shed<\/span> (demon), which some scholars have sought to use because it appears in Deuteronomy 32:17 and Psalm 106:37 speaking of Israel’s idolatry. In addition to the fact that shed<\/span> is spelled differently, the connection between the concept of demon and God as all-powerful is difficult to establish. More acceptable is the suggestion that Shaddai<\/span> is a composite term of sha<\/span> (“the one who”) and dai<\/span> (“is sufficient”). The later Greek versions have adopted this meaning. The most preferred explanation is that Shaddai<\/span> is derived from the verb shadad<\/span> (“to overpower, to deal violently, or to devastate”). A clear connection between shadad<\/span> and Shaddai<\/span> is said to be found in Isaiah 13:6 and Joel 1:15. God as ’El Shaddai<\/span> is presented as the all-powerful One, totally self-sufficient, absolute ruler, and the One who can and does make final disposition. The Septuagint has adapted this meaning; it translates ’El Shaddai<\/span> as Pantokrator<\/span>,<\/em> the “All-Ruler” or “Sovereign One.”<\/p>\n’El ‘Olam<\/span> is used to refer to God as the everlasting or eternal One, a clear instance where the name of God and an attribute of God are combined. The term ‘olam<\/span> has a wide range of uses. It is usually defined in lexicons as meaning “long duration, antiquity, and indefinite futurity.” It is used to speak of God’s existence, of God’s covenant and promises, and of the Messiah’s reign. Speaking to God, the psalmist said, “You are from ‘olam<\/span> (everlasting) to ‘olam<\/span> (everlasting)” (Ps 90:2), and the prophet Isaiah spoke of God as the everlasting Creator (Is 40:28) and as everlasting strength (26:4), and Jeremiah spoke of God as everlasting King (Jer 10:10). God’s everlastingness or eternity speaks of his infinity in relation to time. ‘Olam<\/span>,<\/em> as ascribed to God, should not be thought of as duration prolonged indefinitely backward and forward. Rather, the word speaks to God’s transcending all temporal limits; in addition, ‘olam<\/span> refers to the quality of God that differs essentially from time. The Scriptures speak of ’El ‘Olam<\/span> in contexts where the believer’s assurance of well-being, security, and hope are presented as prized possessions.<\/p>\n’El Gibbor<\/span> is a name that speaks of God’s power and might. Gibbor<\/span> alone is used in reference to mighty and heroic men. The two terms together always refer to God, and in some instances Haggadol<\/span> (“the greatest”) is added (Dt 10:17; Jer 32:18) to emphasize the greatness and awesome majesty of God. ’El Gibbor<\/span> is also used to describe the Messiah in Isaiah 9:6 (cf. Ps 45:4).<\/p>\n’El Ro’i<\/span> is used once to describe God as the seeing One. Hagar described the Lord this way when she was found in the wilderness (Gn 16:13). Psalm 139:1-2 expresses this concept of God as the all-seeing One from whose eye nothing is hidden (cf. Ps 33:18).<\/p>\nYahweh<\/span> is a distinctly proper name of God. It is never used to refer to any pagan gods; neither is it used in regard to men. It appears 6,823 times in the OT, occurring first in Genesis 2:4, where it is joined with ’Elohim<\/span>.<\/em> Yahweh<\/span> is used 164 times in Genesis, and it appears 1,800 times in Exodus through Joshua. It never appears in a declined form in the Hebrew language, and it never occurs in the plural form or with suffixes. It is abbreviated as Yah<\/span> and Yahu<\/span> (cf. Ex 15:2; Ps 68:4; Is 12:2; etc.).<\/p>\nThe exact meaning of the name Yahweh<\/span> is difficult to determine. Some have sought the root in the verb hayah<\/span> (“to be”) or in an ancient form of that same verb, hawah<\/span>.<\/em> There is no agreement as to whether the qal<\/span> or hiphil<\/span> form of the verb should be considered as the root. Those who opt for the hiphil<\/span> form read Yahweh<\/span> to mean “cause to be”; thus Exodus 3:14 would read, “I will cause to be what has come to be.” Others look to the qal<\/span> form and then translate the name as “I Am” or “I Shall Be.” Still others are inclined to disassociate the name from the verb hayah<\/span> and regard it as an original and independent term, expressing the uniqueness of Israel’s gracious God.<\/p>\n\nTranslators of the OT have not agreed upon the correct translation of the name Yahweh<\/span>.<\/em> Since it is translated into the Greek as kurios<\/span>,<\/em> which means “Lord,” many have rendered Yahweh<\/span> as “Lord<\/span>.” But ’Adonai<\/span>,<\/em> which is best rendered “Lord,” appears with Yahweh<\/span> in various instances. The kjv<\/span>, for example, translates Yahweh<\/span> as “God,” and ’Adonai<\/span> as “Lord.” Some modern translators have chosen to use Yahweh<\/span> (see jb<\/span> and njb<\/span>). The name Jehovah, as used in the asv<\/span> (1901), has been judged unacceptable. This name arose due to the Jewish practice of not pronouncing Yahweh<\/span> because of Leviticus 24:16, “He that blasphemes the name of Yahweh<\/span> shall surely be put to death.” This warning against a vain or blasphemous use of the name was taken in an absolute sense, especially after Israel’s deportation (cf. Am 6:10). Hence, when reading the OT the Jews substituted either ’Elohim<\/span> or ’Adonai<\/span> for Yahweh<\/span>.<\/em> From this, the practice of adding the vowels of ’Adonai<\/span> to YHWH (JeHoWaH) became established.<\/p>\nThe interpretation of Exodus 6:2-3 has caused much debate. “And God said to Moses, ‘I am Yahweh<\/span>;<\/em> I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as ’<\/span>El Shaddai<\/span>,<\/em> but by my name Yahweh<\/span> I did not make myself known to them.’ ” This passage has been understood to mean that the name Yahweh<\/span> was not known or used prior to the time of Moses. But that is not what the passage states; rather, it speaks of the patriarchs not knowing God as Yahweh<\/span>.<\/em> They knew him as ’El Shaddai<\/span> in actual revelatory historical deeds. They had not come to know God according to his unique character, that is, as Yahweh<\/span>.<\/em> In other words, God had always been Yahweh<\/span>;<\/em> he is saying to Moses that the descendants of the patriarchs would come to know the full, rich meaning of the name by the way God dealt with them.<\/p>\nThis name Yahweh<\/span> reveals God’s nature in the highest and fullest sense possible. It includes, or presupposes, the meaning of the other names. Yahweh<\/span> particularly stresses the absolute faithfulness of God. God had promised the patriarchs that he would be their God, that he would be with them and deliver and bless them, keep them, and give them a land as a place of service and inheritance. Moses is told by God that Israel is about to behold and experience the unchangeableness of God as he steadfastly and wondrously remembers his word and executes it to the fullest degree. God would prove to be a faithful, redeeming, upholding, restoring God. In working out this redemption, God would demonstrate that he is all that his name implies: merciful, gracious, patient, full of loving-kindness, truthful, faithful, forgiving, just, and righteous (Ex 34:5-6). Truly, Jacob had received an insight into the meaning of the name when he exclaimed, “I wait for thy salvation, O Yahweh<\/span>” (Gn 49:18).<\/p>\nYahweh<\/span>,<\/em> then, is the name par excellence of Israel’s God. As Yahweh<\/span>,<\/em> he is a faithful covenant God who, having given his word of love and life, keeps that word by bestowing love and life abundantly on his own.<\/p>\nIn view of the richness of the name Yahweh<\/span>,<\/em> it can be understood why there were stringent rules regarding its proper use (Lv 24:11, 16). It also explains why thankful, rejoicing, worshiping Israelites used the abbreviated form of Yahweh<\/span> in song when they sang Hallelujah: “Praise Yah” (Pss 104:35; 106:1; 149:1; 150:1).<\/p>\nYahweh<\/span> is used in a number of phrases that are considered names of or ascriptions of God. The most common of these compound names is Yahweh Tseba’oth<\/span> (“hosts”). The word “hosts” is used frequently in the Pentateuch to refer to the armies of Israel (cf. Nm 10:14-28). This is because the word is derived from the verb saba<\/span>’<\/span>,<\/em> which means “to wage” war. It also means “to serve” in some contexts; for example, Numbers 8:24 clearly has reference to the service performed in the tabernacle. The noun tseba’oth<\/span> first occurs in Genesis 2:1, where it refers to the many components of the earth and heaven. Some would limit the reference in these contexts to the stars. Still others would suggest that the tseba’oth<\/span> refers to the angels, appealing to Psalm 33:6 for confirmation.<\/p>\nThe compound name Yahweh Tseba’oth<\/span> first appears in 1 Samuel 1:3. In view of the frequent use of tseba’oth<\/span> in 1—2 Samuel to refer to armies (1 Sm 12:9; 14:50; 17:55; 2 Sm 2:8; 8:16; 10:16), it is thought that the compound name refers to Yahweh<\/span> as the God of armies, that is, God has his armies to serve him. These are considered to be armies of angels who are ministering servants to God. It has been correctly pointed out that the compound name Yahweh Tseba’oth<\/span> is used most frequently by the prophets (Jeremiah, 88 times; Zechariah, 55 times; Malachi, 25 times; Haggai, 14 times) at times when God’s people had either suffered defeat at the hands of enemy armies or were threatened by defeat. Therefore, the compound name was used to remind them that their covenant God had great hosts to fight and work for him on behalf of his people. Thus, though Israel’s armies failed, their covenant God was sufficient for every possible circumstance. And it was to this Yahweh Tseba’oth<\/span> that Israel’s commanders were to give allegiance (Jos 5:14-15), and in whose name Israel was blessed (2 Sm 6:18).<\/p>\nSeveral other compound names occur infrequently:<\/p>\nYahweh-Nissi<\/span> (nissi<\/span>,<\/em> “my banner”) is the name that Moses called on when he built an altar celebrating Israel’s God-given victory over the Amalekites (Ex 17:15). Isaiah uses the term nissi<\/span> when speaking of the coming Messiah who is to be the conqueror (Is 11:10).<\/p>\nYahweh-Rapha<\/span> (rapha’<\/span>,<\/em> “healer”) appears in Exodus 15:26, when Israel is assured that God, their healer, will prevent the diseases of Egypt from affecting Israel. Although the name is only used once, God was often called upon and praised as the healing One (e.g., Ps 103:3; Is 30:26; Jer 6:14).<\/p>\nYahweh-Rohi<\/span> (ro‘i<\/span>,<\/em> “my shepherd”) appears in Psalm 23:1. The concept of Yahweh<\/span> as shepherd is explicated in Ezekiel 34. “I myself will be the Shepherd of my sheep” (v 15). Jesus demonstrated this concept’s full meaning when as a shepherd he gave his life for his sheep.<\/p>\nYahweh-Jireh<\/span> (yir’eh<\/span>,<\/em> “to see ahead or to provide”) appears in Genesis 22:14. Abraham gave this name to the place where God provided a substitute for his son Isaac, whom Abraham was to offer as a sacrifice to God. Yahweh-Shalom<\/span> (shalom<\/span>,<\/em> “peace”) is the name Gideon gave to the altar he built when the angel of the Lord came to give him orders to fight the Midianites (Jgs 6:24).<\/p>\nYahweh<\/span> appears with a few forms of the term tsadaq<\/span>,<\/em> “righteousness.” Yahweh<\/span> is spoken of as our righteousness in Jeremiah 23:6; the thought evidently is that David’s Righteous Branch (the Messiah) will attribute God’s righteousness to those who are incorporated in the new covenant. This concept is expressed in the Pentateuch a number of times when it is said that God has provided a way for living righteously; that is, God provides a way of sanctification (cf. Lv 20:8; 22:9).<\/p>\n’Adonai<\/span> as a name for God appears about 360 times in the OT, though it is not uniformly used. It is first found in Genesis 15:2 and 8, when Abram requests more definite information concerning a son and the Promised Land. It appears only 14 times after that in the Pentateuch. It appears repeatedly in the Psalms (over 50 times), and certain of the prophets use it frequently (Isaiah, 47 times; Jeremiah, 29 times; Ezekiel, over 150 times; and Amos, 27 times).<\/p>\nThe word ’adan<\/span>,<\/em> meaning “master, ruler, owner, lord,” is thought to be the root of the noun ’adon<\/span>,<\/em> which is frequently used of men. For example, in Genesis and 1—2 Samuel the term is used often for men who own slaves or are in positions of authority. ’Adonai<\/span> is correctly described as the name of personal communication between the believer and God. In such communication the worshiper acknowledged God’s intense majesty and greatness and also the sense of belonging to this God. ’Adonai<\/span>,<\/em> coming from human lips, expressed honor for God and humble submission on the part of the believing person. ’Adonai<\/span>,<\/em> thus, is the name that expresses faith, assurance, security, ready service, and thanksgiving (Pss 16:2; 57:9-10).<\/p>\n<h5>Old Testament Name Combinations<\/h5>\nIn the OT the names of God appear in various combinations. For example ’Elohim-Yahweh<\/span>,<\/em> ’Elohim-Yahweh-’Adonai<\/span>,<\/em> and ’Elohim-’Adonai<\/span> are very common. These combinations were an effort to express the fullness of God’s being and character as these had been revealed. Names of God in combination with “Israel” occur also as, for example, with Yahweh<\/span>-God-Israel (Jgs 5:3; Is 17:6). God is also invoked in relation to Israel without the mention of one of his names—for example, Qedosh Yisrael<\/span> (“Holy One of Israel,” Is 43:14) and ’Abir Yisrael<\/span> (“Mighty One of Israel,” Gn 49:24; Ps 132:2; Is 49:26). By means of these phrases, the covenantal relationship between God and his people was expressed and God’s unchanging character was positively acknowledged.<\/p>\n<h5>Old Testament Personal Names<\/h5>\nThe personal names of God are Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and variations of these.<\/p>\nThe term ’Abh<\/span> (“father”) appears more frequently in Genesis than in any other book, and in the Pentateuch more than in any other division of the OT. But it is not used there of God but rather of one who has generated children (i.e., the male parent), the progenitor—head, chief, and ruler of the family group or clan. It is used often in the sense of the responsible one through whom God has spoken, with whom God has dealt, and through whom he has given a rich heritage to the children and descendants of the patriarchs.<\/p>\nIn the poetical books, God is referred to as Father but is not directly named as such. Job is asked, “Has the rain a father?” (Jb 38:28). The reference is to God as the maker, source, and controller of rain. In Psalm 68:5 God in his holy dwelling place is the “Father of the fatherless”; the parallel phrase, “protector of widows,” indicates the sense. Psalm 89:26 says that David will cry to God, “Thou art my Father,” and the parallels use the terms “God” and “Rock of my salvation.” The idea here is of God as Creator and Savior who raised up, delivered, and protected David. In Psalm 103:13, “Father” is used analogously, “As a father pities his children.”<\/p>\nIsaiah uses the term “Father” in relation to God four times. Three times it refers to the One who has made, saved, formed, kept, and directed Israel (Is 63:16; 64:8). Isaiah says the promised child is to be named Everlasting Father (9:6). Used in this sense, the term establishes the Son’s equality with the Father in stature, function, ability, and responsibility. Jeremiah also refers to God as Father in Jeremiah 3:4, 19, meaning the origin, keeper, and friend of his people Israel. Malachi 1:6 and 2:10 speak of God as the parent who deserves honor from his children and as the origin and ruler of all people.<\/p>\nThe term “son” is one of the most-used terms in the OT; it commonly occurs in the sense of offspring and descendant. It also appears in the sense of follower or successor. There are a few indirect references to the second person of the Trinity.<\/p>\nThe messianic Psalm 2 has such a reference: “You are my son” (v 7). It is stated in the context of the king speaking to one who rules and is to rule with and under the sovereign. The immediate reference may be to the theocratic king; however, the reference is revealed in the NT to be the second person of the Trinity (Acts 13:33). Thus, the term “son” is applied to the promised Messiah who is set forth as the divine sovereign ruler and judge of the nations. The Son is perceived to be equal with the Father in deity and function. Not all biblical scholars accept this interpretation, but support is found in such NT passages as Hebrews 1:8 which quotes Psalm 45:6. As stated above, Isaiah speaks of the son to be given (Is 9:6), the One born of the virgin (7:14), who is Immanuel, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.<\/p>\nThe name “Holy Spirit” occurs only a few times in the OT. The Spirit is referred to frequently by terms and phrases such as “the Spirit of God” (Gn 1:2), “the Spirit of the Lord God” (Is 61:1), “the Spirit of the Lord” (Ez 37:1), “the Spirit” (Nm 11:17; 27:18), “my Spirit” (Gn 6:3), and “your Spirit” (Ps 51:11). Though the character of the Spirit is not developed as clearly in the OT as in the NT, it can be safely stated that the relationship posited between God and the Spirit is such that there is no doubt that the OT teaches the deity of the Spirit. The character and function of the Spirit is referred to especially in relation to the work of creation (Gn 1:2; Ps 33:6; etc.) and the equipping of servants for the service of God—for example, craftsmanship (Ex 35:31), leadership (Nm 11:17; 27:18), and prophecy (1 Sm 10:6; 2 Sm 23:2; 2 Chr 15:1; Ez 11:5).<\/p>\nThe Names of God in the New Testament<\/p>\n<h5>Proper Names of God<\/h5>\nTheos<\/span> is the NT equivalent of the OT names ’El<\/span>and ’Elohim<\/span>;<\/em> ‘Elyon<\/span> appears in the NT as Hupsistos<\/span>,<\/em> the Highest (Mk 5:7; Lk 1:32, 76). Pantokrator<\/span> (‘El Shaddai<\/span>) appears with Theos<\/span> (2 Cor 6:18; Rv 16:7). This name was used not only to express God’s transcendency, power, sovereignty, and lordship, but also to express that God is one who has a close relationship with his people. This fact is established by the very frequent use of personal pronouns with Theos<\/span>.<\/em> The name Theos<\/span> appears over 1,000 times in the NT.<\/p>\nKurios<\/span>,<\/em> “Lord,” is used to express the OT names Yahweh<\/span> and ‘Adonai<\/span> in the Septuagint, and the NT follows it. Kurios<\/span> means “power,” so the meaning is not the same as with Yahweh<\/span>;<\/em> yet the NT does give Kurios<\/span> the full weight of meaning that the OT gave to Yahweh<\/span>,<\/em> especially when used of Jesus Christ (cf. Acts 2:36; Phil 2:9-11; etc.)<\/p>\nDespotes<\/span> is used five times of God or Jesus in the NT (Lk 2:29; Acts 4:24; 2 Pt 2:11; Jude 1:4; Rv 6:10). It expresses the idea of authority. The idea of brutality conveyed by the modern concept “despot” is absent from the NT usage even when applied to men, where its central thought is ownership (2 Tm 2:21).<\/p>\n<h5>Personal Names of God<\/h5>\nIn the baptismal formula, which is part of the Great Commission (Mt 28:19-20), the three personal names of God appear: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These names carry the OT meaning, but since the relationship of the three Persons is explicated, the NT meaning of the names is enriched.<\/p>\n“Jesus” is the personal name of the Son, the second person of the triune Godhead. It means “savior” (Mt 1:21). The root of this name “to save” gave rise to names such as Joshua, Hoshea, and Hosea. The basic meaning of the OT root is “to bring into a safe, wide-open place.” Joshua, bringing Israel into Canaan, personally did what his name meant. The NT explanation (“save from sin”) is not contrary to the OT meaning. To be saved from sin is to be restored to fellowship with God and to enter into the paradise of the heavenly kingdom.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Christology; God, Being and Attributes of; Holy Spirit; Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of; Messiah; Names, Significance of.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>GOD, Names of<\/h3>\nGod’s self-identifications expressing various aspects of his being.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• The Biblical Idea of Name<\/p>\n• The Names of God in the Old Testament<\/p>\n• The Names of God in the New Testament<\/p>\nThe Biblical Idea of Name<\/p>\nIn the Scriptures the name and person of God are inseparably related. This is in keeping with the biblical conception of what a name signifies.<\/p>\nIn the Hebrew language, the term for “name” most probably meant “sign” or “distinctive mark.” In the Greek language, “name” (<\/em>onoma<\/span>)<\/em> is derived from a verb that means “to know.” A name, therefore, indicates that by which a person or object is to be known. But the idea of name is not to be taken in the sense of a label or an arbitrary means of identifying or specifying a person, place, or object. “Name” in biblical usage correctly describes the person, place, or object and indicates the essential character of that to which the name is given. Adam named the animals according to their nature (Gn 2:19-20); Noah means “one who brings relief and comfort” (5:29); Jesus means “savior” (Mt 1:21). When a person was given a new position or a radical change took place in his life, a new name was given to indicate that new aspect—for example, Abraham (“father of many,” Gn 17:5), and Israel (“one who strives with God” or “God strives,” 32:28). The name of a person or people expressed what the person or people thought the proper description or statement of character was.<\/p>\nWith regard to the names of God, there are considerable differences, and these are most clearly seen when biblical scholars and theologians confront the question of whether the names of God are ascriptions given by God concerning himself or they are ascriptions given to God by people who observed his acts and reflected on his character as discerned through a study of divine deeds. Here are some examples of various kinds of divine names:<\/p>\n1. Proper names: El, Yahweh, Adonai, Theos (God), Kurios (Lord).<\/p>\n<li>2. Personal names: Father, Abba, Son, Jesus, Holy Spirit.<\/li>\n<li>3. Titles: Creator, Messiah\/Christ, Paraclete\/Comforter.<\/li>\n<li>4. Essential names: Light, Love, Spirit.<\/li>\n<li>5. Descriptive names: Rock, Ba’al, Master, Rabboni, Shepherd.<\/li>\nThe Names of God in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<h5>El and Related Names<\/h5>\nThe name ’El<\/span> is found over 200 times in the Hebrew Bible. It is best translated as “God.” The term ’el<\/span> has a number of possible meanings. The root is thought by some to be ’ul<\/span>,<\/em> which means “to be first” or “to be strong.” Others suggest the root is ’alah<\/span>,<\/em> which means “to precede” and suggests “leader” or “commander.” It can also mean “to be afraid.” Thus God as ’alah<\/span>,<\/em> as the strong one, is to be feared. Still others suggest the preposition ’el<\/span> (“to, toward”) as the root; the idea then is of “one giving self to others” or of “one to whom others go for help.” Some scholars suggest that the word ’alim<\/span>,<\/em> meaning “to bind,” should be considered as a root also—that is, “the strong one binds and holds firm control.” Common to these four suggested root meanings is the idea of strength, power, and of supreme excellence and greatness.<\/p>\n’El<\/span> in the OT is used particularly in the earlier books, where it describes God’s exercising dynamic power as distinguished from authority. ’El<\/span> speaks of God as the great doer and producer. He is the One who exercises such power that whatever is made, done, kept, or destroyed is his doing (cf. Ex 15). ’El<\/span> is also used to express the idea that God is not to be identified as part of creation but as the One who is above, behind, and beyond creation (Ps 19:1).<\/p>\n’Elohim<\/span> is also commonly used as the name of God, occurring over 2,500 times in the OT. There are differences of opinion concerning the exact origin and meaning of this plural name. Some have suggested that ’Elohim<\/span> is the plural form of ’El<\/span>,<\/em> but it seems more likely that it is a plural of ’Eloah<\/span>,<\/em> which appears in the poetical writings. Some critical writers have suggested that this plural form is borrowed from pagan polytheistic sources, but no such plural form is found among pagans as the name of a deity. Others have suggested that the plural form is used to indicate the triune nature of God, and support for this has been seen in the use of a singular verb with this plural noun. The biblical doctrine of the Trinity, as it is developed throughout the Scriptures, does not appear to be based on the use of this plural form of God’s name, even though the two positions are not contradictory.<\/p>\nThe plural form, ’Elohim<\/span>,<\/em> is best understood as expressing intensity. God makes himself known by this name as the Lord of intense and extensive glory and richness as he exercises his preeminence and power in the created cosmos. Hence, when the Scripture speaks of creation, it states, “In the beginning ’Elohim<\/span> created the heavens and the earth” (Gn 1:1). This name is repeated 35 times in Genesis 1 and 2 in connection with God’s power as revealed in Creation. In the book of Deuteronomy the name ’Elohim<\/span> is used repeatedly to stress the majestic power of God that was shown in Israel’s release from bondage in Egypt, preservation in the wilderness, and preparation for entrance into the Promised Land. In this context, God (<\/em>’Elohim<\/span>)<\/em> is also recognized as the Lawgiver who will powerfully execute judgment on covenant breakers. The psalmists also used this named repeatedly as they acknowledged and praised God the majestic ruler who had demonstrated his omnipotence in many dimensions of life (see Ps 68, in which ’Elohim<\/span> appears 26 times.)<\/p>\nSome scholars point to the use of ’Elohim<\/span> when God spoke to Abraham and said he would be ’Elohim<\/span> to the patriarch and his seed; that is, God would be in a covenant relationship to them (Gn 17:1-8). Included in this relationship is the idea that God is ever ready to use his power on behalf of those who are in covenant with him. Thus, ’<\/span>Elohim<\/span> also expresses the concept of God’s faithfulness in regard to the covenant and the promises and blessings involved in it.<\/p>\nThe name ’<\/span>Eloah<\/span> occurs mainly in the poetical writings, no fewer than 41 times in Job. Isaiah used it to express the incomparable character of God (Is 44:8). In like manner David asked, “Who is God [’<\/span>Eloah<\/span>], but the Lord<\/span>?” (2 Sm 22:32). Moses was the first to use the name ’<\/span>Eloah<\/span> in his song (Dt 32:15-17), referring to Israel’s God in the context of the “no-gods,” which had been chosen in place of the Rock of salvation and the incomparable One. This name was probably used to stress the fact that God is the only true and living One, the One to be adored and worshiped; he is to be revered with a holy fear.<\/p>\nAnother closely related name is ’Elah<\/span>,<\/em> found in Ezra and Daniel. Some think ’Elah<\/span> is a Chaldee or Aramaic form of ’Eloah<\/span>.<\/em> Its root is said to be ’alah<\/span>,<\/em> which means “to fear” or “to be perplexed.” God as ’Elah<\/span> is the God to be feared and worshiped accordingly. In view of this meaning, it can be understood why, in the time of Israel’s exile and immediately after their return, this name was commonly used.<\/p>\nThree other names of God include the term ’El<\/span>:<\/em><\/p>\n’El ‘Elyon<\/span> is the name used to designate the God of Melchizedek (Gn 14:18-22) as God Most High. In Psalms 57:2 and 78:56 the Hebrew reads ’Elohim ‘Elyon<\/span>.<\/em> It is believed that the term ‘Elyon<\/span> is derived from the verb ‘alah<\/span>,<\/em> meaning “go up, be elevated, to be exalted.” There are a number of instances where the term ‘Elyon<\/span> is used alone, but the context indicates that it is then used as a synonym for God (e.g., Nm 24:16; Ps 83:18; Is 14:14). The term ‘elyon<\/span> is used quite frequently as an adjective; it is then translated as “high, highest, upper, uppermost.” The basic ascription given to God when this name is employed is to One who is above all things as the maker, possessor, and ruler. He is incomparable in every way; he is subject to no one and no thing; he is the Exalted One.<\/p>\n’El Shaddai<\/span> is used in the longer form seven times in the Scriptures (Gn 17:1; 28:3; 35:11; 43:14; 48:3; Ex 6:3; Ez 10:5). In the shorter form (<\/em>Shaddai<\/span>),<\/em> it appears more frequently: in Job 30 times; in Psalms 19:1 and 68:14; once in Ruth (1:21), Isaiah (13:6), Ezekiel (1:24), and Joel (1:15). In these passages the combined ideas of God as the all-powerful, all-sufficient, transcendent, sovereign ruler and disposer are present. This meaning is generally accepted, but there are differences as to the exact meaning of the term Shaddai<\/span>.<\/em> Some have begun with shad<\/span> as the first concept to be considered; its meaning is “breast, pap, or teat,” and it is considered a “precious metaphor” of the God who nourishes, supplies, and satisfies. The root of shad<\/span> (<\/em>shadah<\/span>),<\/em> in Semitic usage, is to moisten. This meaning is not the preferred one in the context of which ’El Shaddai<\/span> appears; nor is shed<\/span> (demon), which some scholars have sought to use because it appears in Deuteronomy 32:17 and Psalm 106:37 speaking of Israel’s idolatry. In addition to the fact that shed<\/span> is spelled differently, the connection between the concept of demon and God as all-powerful is difficult to establish. More acceptable is the suggestion that Shaddai<\/span> is a composite term of sha<\/span> (“the one who”) and dai<\/span> (“is sufficient”). The later Greek versions have adopted this meaning. The most preferred explanation is that Shaddai<\/span> is derived from the verb shadad<\/span> (“to overpower, to deal violently, or to devastate”). A clear connection between shadad<\/span> and Shaddai<\/span> is said to be found in Isaiah 13:6 and Joel 1:15. God as ’El Shaddai<\/span> is presented as the all-powerful One, totally self-sufficient, absolute ruler, and the One who can and does make final disposition. The Septuagint has adapted this meaning; it translates ’El Shaddai<\/span> as Pantokrator<\/span>,<\/em> the “All-Ruler” or “Sovereign One.”<\/p>\n’El ‘Olam<\/span> is used to refer to God as the everlasting or eternal One, a clear instance where the name of God and an attribute of God are combined. The term ‘olam<\/span> has a wide range of uses. It is usually defined in lexicons as meaning “long duration, antiquity, and indefinite futurity.” It is used to speak of God’s existence, of God’s covenant and promises, and of the Messiah’s reign. Speaking to God, the psalmist said, “You are from ‘olam<\/span> (everlasting) to ‘olam<\/span> (everlasting)” (Ps 90:2), and the prophet Isaiah spoke of God as the everlasting Creator (Is 40:28) and as everlasting strength (26:4), and Jeremiah spoke of God as everlasting King (Jer 10:10). God’s everlastingness or eternity speaks of his infinity in relation to time. ‘Olam<\/span>,<\/em> as ascribed to God, should not be thought of as duration prolonged indefinitely backward and forward. Rather, the word speaks to God’s transcending all temporal limits; in addition, ‘olam<\/span> refers to the quality of God that differs essentially from time. The Scriptures speak of ’El ‘Olam<\/span> in contexts where the believer’s assurance of well-being, security, and hope are presented as prized possessions.<\/p>\n’El Gibbor<\/span> is a name that speaks of God’s power and might. Gibbor<\/span> alone is used in reference to mighty and heroic men. The two terms together always refer to God, and in some instances Haggadol<\/span> (“the greatest”) is added (Dt 10:17; Jer 32:18) to emphasize the greatness and awesome majesty of God. ’El Gibbor<\/span> is also used to describe the Messiah in Isaiah 9:6 (cf. Ps 45:4).<\/p>\n’El Ro’i<\/span> is used once to describe God as the seeing One. Hagar described the Lord this way when she was found in the wilderness (Gn 16:13). Psalm 139:1-2 expresses this concept of God as the all-seeing One from whose eye nothing is hidden (cf. Ps 33:18).<\/p>\nYahweh<\/span> is a distinctly proper name of God. It is never used to refer to any pagan gods; neither is it used in regard to men. It appears 6,823 times in the OT, occurring first in Genesis 2:4, where it is joined with ’Elohim<\/span>.<\/em> Yahweh<\/span> is used 164 times in Genesis, and it appears 1,800 times in Exodus through Joshua. It never appears in a declined form in the Hebrew language, and it never occurs in the plural form or with suffixes. It is abbreviated as Yah<\/span> and Yahu<\/span> (cf. Ex 15:2; Ps 68:4; Is 12:2; etc.).<\/p>\nThe exact meaning of the name Yahweh<\/span> is difficult to determine. Some have sought the root in the verb hayah<\/span> (“to be”) or in an ancient form of that same verb, hawah<\/span>.<\/em> There is no agreement as to whether the qal<\/span> or hiphil<\/span> form of the verb should be considered as the root. Those who opt for the hiphil<\/span> form read Yahweh<\/span> to mean “cause to be”; thus Exodus 3:14 would read, “I will cause to be what has come to be.” Others look to the qal<\/span> form and then translate the name as “I Am” or “I Shall Be.” Still others are inclined to disassociate the name from the verb hayah<\/span> and regard it as an original and independent term, expressing the uniqueness of Israel’s gracious God.<\/p>\n\nTranslators of the OT have not agreed upon the correct translation of the name Yahweh<\/span>.<\/em> Since it is translated into the Greek as kurios<\/span>,<\/em> which means “Lord,” many have rendered Yahweh<\/span> as “Lord<\/span>.” But ’Adonai<\/span>,<\/em> which is best rendered “Lord,” appears with Yahweh<\/span> in various instances. The kjv<\/span>, for example, translates Yahweh<\/span> as “God,” and ’Adonai<\/span> as “Lord.” Some modern translators have chosen to use Yahweh<\/span> (see jb<\/span> and njb<\/span>). The name Jehovah, as used in the asv<\/span> (1901), has been judged unacceptable. This name arose due to the Jewish practice of not pronouncing Yahweh<\/span> because of Leviticus 24:16, “He that blasphemes the name of Yahweh<\/span> shall surely be put to death.” This warning against a vain or blasphemous use of the name was taken in an absolute sense, especially after Israel’s deportation (cf. Am 6:10). Hence, when reading the OT the Jews substituted either ’Elohim<\/span> or ’Adonai<\/span> for Yahweh<\/span>.<\/em> From this, the practice of adding the vowels of ’Adonai<\/span> to YHWH (JeHoWaH) became established.<\/p>\nThe interpretation of Exodus 6:2-3 has caused much debate. “And God said to Moses, ‘I am Yahweh<\/span>;<\/em> I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as ’<\/span>El Shaddai<\/span>,<\/em> but by my name Yahweh<\/span> I did not make myself known to them.’ ” This passage has been understood to mean that the name Yahweh<\/span> was not known or used prior to the time of Moses. But that is not what the passage states; rather, it speaks of the patriarchs not knowing God as Yahweh<\/span>.<\/em> They knew him as ’El Shaddai<\/span> in actual revelatory historical deeds. They had not come to know God according to his unique character, that is, as Yahweh<\/span>.<\/em> In other words, God had always been Yahweh<\/span>;<\/em> he is saying to Moses that the descendants of the patriarchs would come to know the full, rich meaning of the name by the way God dealt with them.<\/p>\nThis name Yahweh<\/span> reveals God’s nature in the highest and fullest sense possible. It includes, or presupposes, the meaning of the other names. Yahweh<\/span> particularly stresses the absolute faithfulness of God. God had promised the patriarchs that he would be their God, that he would be with them and deliver and bless them, keep them, and give them a land as a place of service and inheritance. Moses is told by God that Israel is about to behold and experience the unchangeableness of God as he steadfastly and wondrously remembers his word and executes it to the fullest degree. God would prove to be a faithful, redeeming, upholding, restoring God. In working out this redemption, God would demonstrate that he is all that his name implies: merciful, gracious, patient, full of loving-kindness, truthful, faithful, forgiving, just, and righteous (Ex 34:5-6). Truly, Jacob had received an insight into the meaning of the name when he exclaimed, “I wait for thy salvation, O Yahweh<\/span>” (Gn 49:18).<\/p>\nYahweh<\/span>,<\/em> then, is the name par excellence of Israel’s God. As Yahweh<\/span>,<\/em> he is a faithful covenant God who, having given his word of love and life, keeps that word by bestowing love and life abundantly on his own.<\/p>\nIn view of the richness of the name Yahweh<\/span>,<\/em> it can be understood why there were stringent rules regarding its proper use (Lv 24:11, 16). It also explains why thankful, rejoicing, worshiping Israelites used the abbreviated form of Yahweh<\/span> in song when they sang Hallelujah: “Praise Yah” (Pss 104:35; 106:1; 149:1; 150:1).<\/p>\nYahweh<\/span> is used in a number of phrases that are considered names of or ascriptions of God. The most common of these compound names is Yahweh Tseba’oth<\/span> (“hosts”). The word “hosts” is used frequently in the Pentateuch to refer to the armies of Israel (cf. Nm 10:14-28). This is because the word is derived from the verb saba<\/span>’<\/span>,<\/em> which means “to wage” war. It also means “to serve” in some contexts; for example, Numbers 8:24 clearly has reference to the service performed in the tabernacle. The noun tseba’oth<\/span> first occurs in Genesis 2:1, where it refers to the many components of the earth and heaven. Some would limit the reference in these contexts to the stars. Still others would suggest that the tseba’oth<\/span> refers to the angels, appealing to Psalm 33:6 for confirmation.<\/p>\nThe compound name Yahweh Tseba’oth<\/span> first appears in 1 Samuel 1:3. In view of the frequent use of tseba’oth<\/span> in 1—2 Samuel to refer to armies (1 Sm 12:9; 14:50; 17:55; 2 Sm 2:8; 8:16; 10:16), it is thought that the compound name refers to Yahweh<\/span> as the God of armies, that is, God has his armies to serve him. These are considered to be armies of angels who are ministering servants to God. It has been correctly pointed out that the compound name Yahweh Tseba’oth<\/span> is used most frequently by the prophets (Jeremiah, 88 times; Zechariah, 55 times; Malachi, 25 times; Haggai, 14 times) at times when God’s people had either suffered defeat at the hands of enemy armies or were threatened by defeat. Therefore, the compound name was used to remind them that their covenant God had great hosts to fight and work for him on behalf of his people. Thus, though Israel’s armies failed, their covenant God was sufficient for every possible circumstance. And it was to this Yahweh Tseba’oth<\/span> that Israel’s commanders were to give allegiance (Jos 5:14-15), and in whose name Israel was blessed (2 Sm 6:18).<\/p>\nSeveral other compound names occur infrequently:<\/p>\nYahweh-Nissi<\/span> (nissi<\/span>,<\/em> “my banner”) is the name that Moses called on when he built an altar celebrating Israel’s God-given victory over the Amalekites (Ex 17:15). Isaiah uses the term nissi<\/span> when speaking of the coming Messiah who is to be the conqueror (Is 11:10).<\/p>\nYahweh-Rapha<\/span> (rapha’<\/span>,<\/em> “healer”) appears in Exodus 15:26, when Israel is assured that God, their healer, will prevent the diseases of Egypt from affecting Israel. Although the name is only used once, God was often called upon and praised as the healing One (e.g., Ps 103:3; Is 30:26; Jer 6:14).<\/p>\nYahweh-Rohi<\/span> (ro‘i<\/span>,<\/em> “my shepherd”) appears in Psalm 23:1. The concept of Yahweh<\/span> as shepherd is explicated in Ezekiel 34. “I myself will be the Shepherd of my sheep” (v 15). Jesus demonstrated this concept’s full meaning when as a shepherd he gave his life for his sheep.<\/p>\nYahweh-Jireh<\/span> (yir’eh<\/span>,<\/em> “to see ahead or to provide”) appears in Genesis 22:14. Abraham gave this name to the place where God provided a substitute for his son Isaac, whom Abraham was to offer as a sacrifice to God. Yahweh-Shalom<\/span> (shalom<\/span>,<\/em> “peace”) is the name Gideon gave to the altar he built when the angel of the Lord came to give him orders to fight the Midianites (Jgs 6:24).<\/p>\nYahweh<\/span> appears with a few forms of the term tsadaq<\/span>,<\/em> “righteousness.” Yahweh<\/span> is spoken of as our righteousness in Jeremiah 23:6; the thought evidently is that David’s Righteous Branch (the Messiah) will attribute God’s righteousness to those who are incorporated in the new covenant. This concept is expressed in the Pentateuch a number of times when it is said that God has provided a way for living righteously; that is, God provides a way of sanctification (cf. Lv 20:8; 22:9).<\/p>\n’Adonai<\/span> as a name for God appears about 360 times in the OT, though it is not uniformly used. It is first found in Genesis 15:2 and 8, when Abram requests more definite information concerning a son and the Promised Land. It appears only 14 times after that in the Pentateuch. It appears repeatedly in the Psalms (over 50 times), and certain of the prophets use it frequently (Isaiah, 47 times; Jeremiah, 29 times; Ezekiel, over 150 times; and Amos, 27 times).<\/p>\nThe word ’adan<\/span>,<\/em> meaning “master, ruler, owner, lord,” is thought to be the root of the noun ’adon<\/span>,<\/em> which is frequently used of men. For example, in Genesis and 1—2 Samuel the term is used often for men who own slaves or are in positions of authority. ’Adonai<\/span> is correctly described as the name of personal communication between the believer and God. In such communication the worshiper acknowledged God’s intense majesty and greatness and also the sense of belonging to this God. ’Adonai<\/span>,<\/em> coming from human lips, expressed honor for God and humble submission on the part of the believing person. ’Adonai<\/span>,<\/em> thus, is the name that expresses faith, assurance, security, ready service, and thanksgiving (Pss 16:2; 57:9-10).<\/p>\n<h5>Old Testament Name Combinations<\/h5>\nIn the OT the names of God appear in various combinations. For example ’Elohim-Yahweh<\/span>,<\/em> ’Elohim-Yahweh-’Adonai<\/span>,<\/em> and ’Elohim-’Adonai<\/span> are very common. These combinations were an effort to express the fullness of God’s being and character as these had been revealed. Names of God in combination with “Israel” occur also as, for example, with Yahweh<\/span>-God-Israel (Jgs 5:3; Is 17:6). God is also invoked in relation to Israel without the mention of one of his names—for example, Qedosh Yisrael<\/span> (“Holy One of Israel,” Is 43:14) and ’Abir Yisrael<\/span> (“Mighty One of Israel,” Gn 49:24; Ps 132:2; Is 49:26). By means of these phrases, the covenantal relationship between God and his people was expressed and God’s unchanging character was positively acknowledged.<\/p>\n<h5>Old Testament Personal Names<\/h5>\nThe personal names of God are Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and variations of these.<\/p>\nThe term ’Abh<\/span> (“father”) appears more frequently in Genesis than in any other book, and in the Pentateuch more than in any other division of the OT. But it is not used there of God but rather of one who has generated children (i.e., the male parent), the progenitor—head, chief, and ruler of the family group or clan. It is used often in the sense of the responsible one through whom God has spoken, with whom God has dealt, and through whom he has given a rich heritage to the children and descendants of the patriarchs.<\/p>\nIn the poetical books, God is referred to as Father but is not directly named as such. Job is asked, “Has the rain a father?” (Jb 38:28). The reference is to God as the maker, source, and controller of rain. In Psalm 68:5 God in his holy dwelling place is the “Father of the fatherless”; the parallel phrase, “protector of widows,” indicates the sense. Psalm 89:26 says that David will cry to God, “Thou art my Father,” and the parallels use the terms “God” and “Rock of my salvation.” The idea here is of God as Creator and Savior who raised up, delivered, and protected David. In Psalm 103:13, “Father” is used analogously, “As a father pities his children.”<\/p>\nIsaiah uses the term “Father” in relation to God four times. Three times it refers to the One who has made, saved, formed, kept, and directed Israel (Is 63:16; 64:8). Isaiah says the promised child is to be named Everlasting Father (9:6). Used in this sense, the term establishes the Son’s equality with the Father in stature, function, ability, and responsibility. Jeremiah also refers to God as Father in Jeremiah 3:4, 19, meaning the origin, keeper, and friend of his people Israel. Malachi 1:6 and 2:10 speak of God as the parent who deserves honor from his children and as the origin and ruler of all people.<\/p>\nThe term “son” is one of the most-used terms in the OT; it commonly occurs in the sense of offspring and descendant. It also appears in the sense of follower or successor. There are a few indirect references to the second person of the Trinity.<\/p>\nThe messianic Psalm 2 has such a reference: “You are my son” (v 7). It is stated in the context of the king speaking to one who rules and is to rule with and under the sovereign. The immediate reference may be to the theocratic king; however, the reference is revealed in the NT to be the second person of the Trinity (Acts 13:33). Thus, the term “son” is applied to the promised Messiah who is set forth as the divine sovereign ruler and judge of the nations. The Son is perceived to be equal with the Father in deity and function. Not all biblical scholars accept this interpretation, but support is found in such NT passages as Hebrews 1:8 which quotes Psalm 45:6. As stated above, Isaiah speaks of the son to be given (Is 9:6), the One born of the virgin (7:14), who is Immanuel, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.<\/p>\nThe name “Holy Spirit” occurs only a few times in the OT. The Spirit is referred to frequently by terms and phrases such as “the Spirit of God” (Gn 1:2), “the Spirit of the Lord God” (Is 61:1), “the Spirit of the Lord” (Ez 37:1), “the Spirit” (Nm 11:17; 27:18), “my Spirit” (Gn 6:3), and “your Spirit” (Ps 51:11). Though the character of the Spirit is not developed as clearly in the OT as in the NT, it can be safely stated that the relationship posited between God and the Spirit is such that there is no doubt that the OT teaches the deity of the Spirit. The character and function of the Spirit is referred to especially in relation to the work of creation (Gn 1:2; Ps 33:6; etc.) and the equipping of servants for the service of God—for example, craftsmanship (Ex 35:31), leadership (Nm 11:17; 27:18), and prophecy (1 Sm 10:6; 2 Sm 23:2; 2 Chr 15:1; Ez 11:5).<\/p>\nThe Names of God in the New Testament<\/p>\n<h5>Proper Names of God<\/h5>\nTheos<\/span> is the NT equivalent of the OT names ’El<\/span>and ’Elohim<\/span>;<\/em> ‘Elyon<\/span> appears in the NT as Hupsistos<\/span>,<\/em> the Highest (Mk 5:7; Lk 1:32, 76). Pantokrator<\/span> (‘El Shaddai<\/span>) appears with Theos<\/span> (2 Cor 6:18; Rv 16:7). This name was used not only to express God’s transcendency, power, sovereignty, and lordship, but also to express that God is one who has a close relationship with his people. This fact is established by the very frequent use of personal pronouns with Theos<\/span>.<\/em> The name Theos<\/span> appears over 1,000 times in the NT.<\/p>\nKurios<\/span>,<\/em> “Lord,” is used to express the OT names Yahweh<\/span> and ‘Adonai<\/span> in the Septuagint, and the NT follows it. Kurios<\/span> means “power,” so the meaning is not the same as with Yahweh<\/span>;<\/em> yet the NT does give Kurios<\/span> the full weight of meaning that the OT gave to Yahweh<\/span>,<\/em> especially when used of Jesus Christ (cf. Acts 2:36; Phil 2:9-11; etc.)<\/p>\nDespotes<\/span> is used five times of God or Jesus in the NT (Lk 2:29; Acts 4:24; 2 Pt 2:11; Jude 1:4; Rv 6:10). It expresses the idea of authority. The idea of brutality conveyed by the modern concept “despot” is absent from the NT usage even when applied to men, where its central thought is ownership (2 Tm 2:21).<\/p>\n<h5>Personal Names of God<\/h5>\nIn the baptismal formula, which is part of the Great Commission (Mt 28:19-20), the three personal names of God appear: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These names carry the OT meaning, but since the relationship of the three Persons is explicated, the NT meaning of the names is enriched.<\/p>\n“Jesus” is the personal name of the Son, the second person of the triune Godhead. It means “savior” (Mt 1:21). The root of this name “to save” gave rise to names such as Joshua, Hoshea, and Hosea. The basic meaning of the OT root is “to bring into a safe, wide-open place.” Joshua, bringing Israel into Canaan, personally did what his name meant. The NT explanation (“save from sin”) is not contrary to the OT meaning. To be saved from sin is to be restored to fellowship with God and to enter into the paradise of the heavenly kingdom.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Christology; God, Being and Attributes of; Holy Spirit; Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of; Messiah; Names, Significance of.<\/p>","summary_ro":"GOD, Names of God’s self-identifications expressing various aspects of his being. Preview • The Biblical Idea of Name • The Names of God in the Old Testament • The Names of God in the New Testament The Biblical Idea of Name In the Scriptures the name and person of God are inseparably related. This is in keeping with the biblical conception of what a name signifies. In the Hebrew language, the term for “name” most probably meant “sign” or “distinctive mark.” In the Greek language, “name” (onom...","summary_en":"GOD, Names of God’s self-identifications expressing various aspects of his being. Preview • The Biblical Idea of Name • The Names of God in the Old Testament • The Names of God in the New Testament The Biblical Idea of Name In the Scriptures the name and person of God are inseparably related. This is in keeping with the biblical conception of what a name signifies. In the Hebrew language, the term for “name” most probably meant “sign” or “distinctive mark.” In the Greek language, “name” (onom...","source":"Articles\/G.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":15877,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Hebrew Language","title_en":"Hebrew Language","content_ro":"<h3>HEBREW LANGUAGE<\/h3>\nLanguage of the Jewish people. The name Hebrew is not applied by the OT to its own language, although the NT does use the name that way. In the OT, “Hebrew” means the individual or people who used the language. The language itself is called “the language of Canaan” (Is 19:18, nlt<\/span> mg) or “the language of Judah” (Neh 13:24).<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Origin and History<\/p>\n• Family of Languages<\/p>\n• Character<\/p>\n• Hebrew Script and Grammar<\/p>\n• Style<\/p>\n• Legacy<\/p>\nOrigin and History<\/p>\nIn the Middle Ages a common view was that Hebrew was the primitive language of humankind. Even in colonial America, Hebrew was still referred to as “the mother of all languages.” Linguistic scholarship has now made this theory untenable.<\/p>\nHebrew is actually one of several Canaanite dialects that included Phoenician, Ugaritic, and Moabite. Other Canaanite dialects (for example, Ammonite) existed but have left insufficient inscriptions for scholarly investigation. Such dialects were already present in the land of Canaan before its conquest by the Israelites.<\/p>\nUntil about 1974, the oldest witnesses to Canaanite language were found in the Ugarit and Amarna records dating from the 14th and 15th centuries BC<\/span>. A few Canaanite words and expressions appeared in earlier Egyptian records, but the origin of Canaanite has been uncertain. Between 1974 and 1976, however, nearly 17,000 tablets were dug up at Tell Mardikh (ancient Ebla) in northern Syria, written in a previously unknown Semitic dialect. Because they possibly date back to 2400 BC<\/span> (perhaps even earlier), many scholars think that language may be the “Old Canaanite” that gave rise to Hebrew. By 1977, when another 1,000 tablets were unearthed, only about 100 inscriptions from Ebla had been reported on. Languages change over a long period of time. For example, the English used in the time of Alfred the Great (ninth century AD<\/span>) seems almost like a foreign language to contemporary English speakers. Although Hebrew was no exception to the general principle, like other Semitic languages it remained remarkably stable over many centuries. Poems such as the Song of Deborah (Jgs 5) tended to preserve the language’s oldest form. Changes that took place later in the long history of the language are shown in the presence of archaic words (often preserved in poetic language) and a general difference in style. For example, the book of Job reflects a more archaic style than the book of Esther.<\/p>\nVarious Hebrew dialects apparently existed side by side in OT times, as reflected in the episode involving the pronunciation of the Hebrew word “shibboleth\/sibboleth” (Jgs 12:4-6). It seems that the Israelites east of the Jordan pronounced the initial letter with a strong “sh” sound, while those in Canaan gave it the simple “s” sound. Scholars have also identified features of Hebrew that could be described as reflecting the northern or southern parts of the country.<\/p>\nFamily of Languages<\/p>\nHebrew belongs to the Semitic family of languages; these languages were used from the Mediterranean Sea to the mountains east of the Euphrates River valley, and from Armenia (Turkey) in the north to the southern extremity of the Arabian peninsula. Semitic languages are classified as Southern (Arabic and Ethiopic), Eastern (Akkadian), and Northwestern (Aramaic, Syriac, and Canaanite—Hebrew, Phoenician, Ugaritic, and Moabite).<\/p>\nCharacter<\/p>\nHebrew, like the other early Semitic languages, concentrates on observation more than reflection. That is, things are generally observed according to their appearance as phenomena, not analyzed as to their inward being or essence. Effects are observed but not traced through a series of causes.<\/p>\nHebrew’s vividness, conciseness, and simplicity make the language difficult to translate fully. It is amazingly concise and direct. For example, Psalm 23 contains 55 words; most translations require about twice that many to translate it. The first two lines, with slashes separating the individual Hebrew words in the original, read:<\/p>\nThe Lord\/[is] my shepherd\/<\/p>\nI shall want\/not<\/p>\nThus eight English words are required to translate four Hebrew words.<\/p>\nHebrew does not use separate, distinct expressions for every shade of thought. Someone has said, “The Semites have been the quarries whose great rough blocks the Greeks have trimmed, polished, and fitted together. The former gave religion; the latter philosophy.”<\/p>\nHebrew is a pictorial language in which the past is not merely described but verbally painted. Not just a landscape is presented but a moving panorama. The course of events is reenacted in the mind’s sight. (Note the frequent use of “behold,” a Hebraism carried over to the NT.) Such common Hebraic expressions as “he arose and went,” “he opened his lips and spoke,” “he lifted up his eyes and saw,” and “he lifted up his voice and wept” illustrate the pictorial strength of the language.<\/p>\nMany profound theological expressions of the OT are tightly bound up with Hebrew language and grammar. Even the most sacred name of God himself, “the Lord<\/span>” (Yahweh), is directly related to the Hebrew verb “to be” (or perhaps “to cause to be”). Many other names of persons and places in the OT can best be understood only with a working knowledge of Hebrew.<\/p>\nHebrew Script and Grammar<\/p>\n<h5>Alphabet and Script<\/h5>\nThe Hebrew alphabet consists of 22 consonants; signs for vowels were devised and added late in the language’s history. The origin of the alphabet is unknown. The oldest examples of a Canaanite alphabet were preserved in the Ugaritic cuneiform alphabet of the 14th century BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nThe old style of writing the letters is called the Phoenician or paleo-Hebrew script. It is the predecessor of the Greek and other Western alphabets. The script used in modern Hebrew Bibles (Aramaic or square script) came into vogue after Israel’s exile into Babylon (sixth century BC<\/span>). The older style was still used sporadically in the early Christian era on coins and for writing God’s name (as in the Dead Sea Scrolls). Hebrew has always been written right to left.<\/p>\n\n<h5>Consonants<\/h5>\nThe Canaanite alphabet of the Phoenician and Moabite languages had 22 consonants. The older Canaanite language reflected in Ugaritic had more consonants. Arabic also preserves some Old Canaanite consonants found in Ugaritic but missing in Hebrew.<\/p>\n<h5>Vowels<\/h5>\nIn the original consonantal Hebrew script, vowels were simply understood by the writer or reader. On the basis of tradition and context, the reader would supply whatever vowels were needed, much as is done in English abbreviations (“bldg.” for “building”; “blvd.” for “boulevard”). After the collapse of the nation in AD<\/span> 70, the dispersion of the Jews and the destruction of Jerusalem led to Hebrew’s becoming a “dead language,” no longer widely spoken. Loss of traditional pronunciation and understanding then became more of a possibility, so Jewish scribes felt a need for permanently establishing the vowel sounds.<\/p>\nFirst, vowel letters called “mothers of reading” (matres lectionis)<\/em> were added. These were consonants used especially to indicate long vowels. These were added before the Christian era, as the Dead Sea Scrolls reveal.<\/p>\nLater (about the fifth century AD<\/span>), the scribes called Masoretes added vowel signs to indicate short vowels. At least three different systems of vowel signs were employed at different times and places. The text used today represents the system devised by Masoretic scribes who worked in the city of Tiberias. The vowels, each of which may be long or short, are indicated by dots or dashes placed above or below the consonants. Certain combinations of dots and dashes represent very short vowel sounds, or “half-vowels.”<\/p>\n<h5>Linkage<\/h5>\nHebrew joins together many words that in Western languages would be written separately. Some prepositions (be<\/span>-, “in”; le<\/span>-, “to”; ke<\/span>-, “like”) are prefixed directly to the noun or verb that they introduce, as are the definite article ha<\/span>-, “the” and the conjunction wa<\/span>-, “and.” Suffixes are used for pronouns, either in the possessive or accusative relationship. The same word may simultaneously have both a prefix and a suffix.<\/p>\n<h5>Nouns<\/h5>\nHebrew has no neuter gender; everything is masculine or feminine. Inanimate objects may be either masculine or feminine, depending on the formation or character of the word. Usually, abstract ideas or words indicating a group are feminine. Nouns are derived from roots and are formed in various ways, either by vowel modification or by adding prefixes or suffixes to the root. Contrary to Greek and many Western languages, compound nouns are not characteristic of Hebrew.<\/p>\nThe Hebrew plural is formed by adding -im<\/span> for masculine nouns (<\/em>seraphim, cherubim<\/span>)<\/em> and -oth<\/span> for feminine nouns.<\/p>\nThree original case endings indicating nominative, genitive, and accusative have dropped away during the evolution of Hebrew. To compensate for the lack of case endings, Hebrew resorts to various indicators. Indirect objects are indicated by the preposition le<\/span>-, “to”; direct objects by the objective sign ’eth<\/span>;<\/em> the genitive relationship by putting the word before the genitive in the “construct state,” or shortened form.<\/p>\n<h5>Adjectives<\/h5>\nHebrew is deficient in adjectives. “A double heart” is indicated in the original Hebrew by “a heart and a heart” (Ps 12:2), and “two differing weights” is actually “a stone and a stone” (Dt 25:13); “the whole royal family” is “the seed of the kingdom” (2 Kgs 11:1).<\/p>\nAdjectives that do exist in Hebrew have no comparative or superlative forms. Relationship is indicated by the preposition “from.” “Better than you” is expressed literally in Hebrew “good from you.” “The serpent was more subtle than any other beast” is literally “the serpent was subtle from every beast” (Gn 3:1). The superlative is expressed by several different constructions. The idea “very deep” is literally “deep, deep” (Eccl 7:24); the “best song” is literally “song of songs” (compare “king of kings”); “holiest” is literally “holy, holy, holy” (Is 6:3).<\/p>\n<h5>Verbs<\/h5>\nHebrew verbs are formed from a root usually consisting of three letters. From such roots, verbal forms are developed by a change of vowels or by adding prefixes or suffixes. The root consonants provide the semantic backbone of the language and give a stability of meaning not characteristic of Western languages. The vowels are quite flexible, giving Hebrew considerable elasticity.<\/p>\nHebrew verb usage is not characterized by precise definition of tenses. Hebrew tenses, especially in poetry, are largely determined by context. The two tense formations are the perfect (completed action) and imperfect (incomplete action). The imperfect is ambiguous. It represents the indicative mood (present, past, future) but may also represent such moods as the imperative, optative, and jussive or cohortative. A distinctive usage of the perfect tense is the “prophetic perfect,” where the perfect form represents a future event considered so sure that it is expressed as past (e.g., see Is 5:13, kjv<\/span>).<\/p>\nStyle<\/p>\n<h5>Vocabulary<\/h5>\nMost Hebrew roots originally expressed some physical action or denoted some natural object. The verb “to decide” originally meant “to cut”; “to be true” originally meant “to be firmly fixed”; “to be right” meant “to be straight”; “to be honorable” meant “to be heavy.”<\/p>\nAbstract terms are alien to the character of Hebrew; for example, biblical Hebrew has no specific words for “theology,” “philosophy,” or “religion.” Intellectual or theological concepts are expressed by concrete terms. The abstract idea of sin is represented by such words as “to miss the mark” or “crooked” or “rebellion” or “trespass” (“to cross over”). Mind or intellect is expressed by “heart” or “kidneys,” and emotion or compassion by “bowels” (see Is 63:15, kjv<\/span>). Other concrete terms in Hebrew are “horn” for strength or vigor, “bones” for self, and “seed” for descendants. A mental quality is often depicted by the part of the body thought of as its most appropriate embodiment. Strength can be represented by “arm” or “hand,” anger by “nostril,” displeasure by “falling face,” acceptance by “shining face,” thinking by “say.”<\/p>\nSome translators have attempted to represent a Hebrew word always by the same English word, but that leads to serious problems. Sometimes there is considerable disagreement on the exact shade of meaning of a Hebrew word in a given passage. A single root frequently represents a variety of meanings, depending on usage and context. The word for “bless” can also mean “curse, greet, favor, praise.” The word for “judgment” is used also for “justice, verdict, penalty, ordinance, duty, custom, manner.” The word for “strength” or “power” also means “army, virtue, worth, courage.”<\/p>\nFurther ambiguity arises from the fact that some Hebrew consonants stand for two different original consonants that have merged in the evolution of the language. Two words that on the surface appear to be identical may be traced back to two different roots. For an example of this phenomenon in English, compare “bass” (a fish) with “bass” (a vocalist).<\/p>\n<h5>Syntax<\/h5>\nHebrew syntax is relatively uncomplicated. Few subordinating conjunctions (“if,” “when,” “because,” etc.) are used; sentences are usually coordinated by using the simple conjunction “and.” English translations of biblical texts generally try to show the logical connection between successive sentences, even though it is not always clear. In Genesis 1:2–3:1, all but three of the 56 verses begin with “and,” yet the nlt<\/span> translates that conjunction variously as “then” (1:3), “so” (v 27), “so” (2:1), and “instead” (v 6).<\/p>\nHebrew style is enlivened by use of direct discourse. The narrator does not simply state that “such and such a person said that . . .” (indirect discourse). Instead, the parties speak for themselves (direct discourse), creating a freshness that remains even after repeated reading.<\/p>\n<h5>Poetry<\/h5>\nHebrew poetry uses a variety of rhetorical devices. Some of them—such as assonance, alliteration, and acrostics—can be appreciated only in the original Hebrew. But parallelism, the most important characteristic of Hebrew poetry, is evident even in English translation. Among the many forms of parallelism possible, four common categories exist: (1) synonymous, a repeating style in which parallel lines say the same thing in different words; (2) antithetic, a contrasting style in which contrary thoughts are expressed; (3) completive, with a completing parallel line filling out the thought of the first; (4) climactic, in which an ascending parallel line picks up something from the first line and repeats it. Numerous other forms of parallelism enrich Hebrew poetry. The possible varations of parallelism are almost endless.<\/p>\n<h5>Figures of Speech<\/h5>\nHebrew abounds in expressive figures of speech based on the Hebrew people’s character and way of life. Certain odd but well-known expressions found in English literature come from the Hebrew style, like “apple of his eye” (Dt 32:10; Ps 17:8; Prv 7:2; Zec 2:8) and “skin of my teeth” (Job 19:20). Some of the more striking Hebrew modes of expression are hard to transfer into English, such as “to uncover the ear,” meaning “to disclose, reveal.” Others are more familiar, like “to stiffen the neck” for “to be stubborn, rebellious”; “to bend or incline the ear” for “to listen closely.”<\/p>\nLegacy<\/p>\nEnglish and a number of other modern languages have been enriched by Hebrew. English even contains a number of Hebrew “loan words.” Some of these have had wide influence (“amen,” “hallelujah,” “jubilee”). Many Hebrew proper nouns are used in modern languages for persons and places, such as David, Jonathan\/John, Miriam\/Mary, Bethlehem (the name of several towns and cities in the United States).<\/p>\nMany common Hebrew expressions have been unconsciously accepted into English figures of speech, as in “mouth of the cave” and “face of the earth.” Some figures, such as “east of Eden,” have been used as titles for books and films.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>HEBREW LANGUAGE<\/h3>\nLanguage of the Jewish people. The name Hebrew is not applied by the OT to its own language, although the NT does use the name that way. In the OT, “Hebrew” means the individual or people who used the language. The language itself is called “the language of Canaan” (Is 19:18, nlt<\/span> mg) or “the language of Judah” (Neh 13:24).<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Origin and History<\/p>\n• Family of Languages<\/p>\n• Character<\/p>\n• Hebrew Script and Grammar<\/p>\n• Style<\/p>\n• Legacy<\/p>\nOrigin and History<\/p>\nIn the Middle Ages a common view was that Hebrew was the primitive language of humankind. Even in colonial America, Hebrew was still referred to as “the mother of all languages.” Linguistic scholarship has now made this theory untenable.<\/p>\nHebrew is actually one of several Canaanite dialects that included Phoenician, Ugaritic, and Moabite. Other Canaanite dialects (for example, Ammonite) existed but have left insufficient inscriptions for scholarly investigation. Such dialects were already present in the land of Canaan before its conquest by the Israelites.<\/p>\nUntil about 1974, the oldest witnesses to Canaanite language were found in the Ugarit and Amarna records dating from the 14th and 15th centuries BC<\/span>. A few Canaanite words and expressions appeared in earlier Egyptian records, but the origin of Canaanite has been uncertain. Between 1974 and 1976, however, nearly 17,000 tablets were dug up at Tell Mardikh (ancient Ebla) in northern Syria, written in a previously unknown Semitic dialect. Because they possibly date back to 2400 BC<\/span> (perhaps even earlier), many scholars think that language may be the “Old Canaanite” that gave rise to Hebrew. By 1977, when another 1,000 tablets were unearthed, only about 100 inscriptions from Ebla had been reported on. Languages change over a long period of time. For example, the English used in the time of Alfred the Great (ninth century AD<\/span>) seems almost like a foreign language to contemporary English speakers. Although Hebrew was no exception to the general principle, like other Semitic languages it remained remarkably stable over many centuries. Poems such as the Song of Deborah (Jgs 5) tended to preserve the language’s oldest form. Changes that took place later in the long history of the language are shown in the presence of archaic words (often preserved in poetic language) and a general difference in style. For example, the book of Job reflects a more archaic style than the book of Esther.<\/p>\nVarious Hebrew dialects apparently existed side by side in OT times, as reflected in the episode involving the pronunciation of the Hebrew word “shibboleth\/sibboleth” (Jgs 12:4-6). It seems that the Israelites east of the Jordan pronounced the initial letter with a strong “sh” sound, while those in Canaan gave it the simple “s” sound. Scholars have also identified features of Hebrew that could be described as reflecting the northern or southern parts of the country.<\/p>\nFamily of Languages<\/p>\nHebrew belongs to the Semitic family of languages; these languages were used from the Mediterranean Sea to the mountains east of the Euphrates River valley, and from Armenia (Turkey) in the north to the southern extremity of the Arabian peninsula. Semitic languages are classified as Southern (Arabic and Ethiopic), Eastern (Akkadian), and Northwestern (Aramaic, Syriac, and Canaanite—Hebrew, Phoenician, Ugaritic, and Moabite).<\/p>\nCharacter<\/p>\nHebrew, like the other early Semitic languages, concentrates on observation more than reflection. That is, things are generally observed according to their appearance as phenomena, not analyzed as to their inward being or essence. Effects are observed but not traced through a series of causes.<\/p>\nHebrew’s vividness, conciseness, and simplicity make the language difficult to translate fully. It is amazingly concise and direct. For example, Psalm 23 contains 55 words; most translations require about twice that many to translate it. The first two lines, with slashes separating the individual Hebrew words in the original, read:<\/p>\nThe Lord\/[is] my shepherd\/<\/p>\nI shall want\/not<\/p>\nThus eight English words are required to translate four Hebrew words.<\/p>\nHebrew does not use separate, distinct expressions for every shade of thought. Someone has said, “The Semites have been the quarries whose great rough blocks the Greeks have trimmed, polished, and fitted together. The former gave religion; the latter philosophy.”<\/p>\nHebrew is a pictorial language in which the past is not merely described but verbally painted. Not just a landscape is presented but a moving panorama. The course of events is reenacted in the mind’s sight. (Note the frequent use of “behold,” a Hebraism carried over to the NT.) Such common Hebraic expressions as “he arose and went,” “he opened his lips and spoke,” “he lifted up his eyes and saw,” and “he lifted up his voice and wept” illustrate the pictorial strength of the language.<\/p>\nMany profound theological expressions of the OT are tightly bound up with Hebrew language and grammar. Even the most sacred name of God himself, “the Lord<\/span>” (Yahweh), is directly related to the Hebrew verb “to be” (or perhaps “to cause to be”). Many other names of persons and places in the OT can best be understood only with a working knowledge of Hebrew.<\/p>\nHebrew Script and Grammar<\/p>\n<h5>Alphabet and Script<\/h5>\nThe Hebrew alphabet consists of 22 consonants; signs for vowels were devised and added late in the language’s history. The origin of the alphabet is unknown. The oldest examples of a Canaanite alphabet were preserved in the Ugaritic cuneiform alphabet of the 14th century BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nThe old style of writing the letters is called the Phoenician or paleo-Hebrew script. It is the predecessor of the Greek and other Western alphabets. The script used in modern Hebrew Bibles (Aramaic or square script) came into vogue after Israel’s exile into Babylon (sixth century BC<\/span>). The older style was still used sporadically in the early Christian era on coins and for writing God’s name (as in the Dead Sea Scrolls). Hebrew has always been written right to left.<\/p>\n\n<h5>Consonants<\/h5>\nThe Canaanite alphabet of the Phoenician and Moabite languages had 22 consonants. The older Canaanite language reflected in Ugaritic had more consonants. Arabic also preserves some Old Canaanite consonants found in Ugaritic but missing in Hebrew.<\/p>\n<h5>Vowels<\/h5>\nIn the original consonantal Hebrew script, vowels were simply understood by the writer or reader. On the basis of tradition and context, the reader would supply whatever vowels were needed, much as is done in English abbreviations (“bldg.” for “building”; “blvd.” for “boulevard”). After the collapse of the nation in AD<\/span> 70, the dispersion of the Jews and the destruction of Jerusalem led to Hebrew’s becoming a “dead language,” no longer widely spoken. Loss of traditional pronunciation and understanding then became more of a possibility, so Jewish scribes felt a need for permanently establishing the vowel sounds.<\/p>\nFirst, vowel letters called “mothers of reading” (matres lectionis)<\/em> were added. These were consonants used especially to indicate long vowels. These were added before the Christian era, as the Dead Sea Scrolls reveal.<\/p>\nLater (about the fifth century AD<\/span>), the scribes called Masoretes added vowel signs to indicate short vowels. At least three different systems of vowel signs were employed at different times and places. The text used today represents the system devised by Masoretic scribes who worked in the city of Tiberias. The vowels, each of which may be long or short, are indicated by dots or dashes placed above or below the consonants. Certain combinations of dots and dashes represent very short vowel sounds, or “half-vowels.”<\/p>\n<h5>Linkage<\/h5>\nHebrew joins together many words that in Western languages would be written separately. Some prepositions (be<\/span>-, “in”; le<\/span>-, “to”; ke<\/span>-, “like”) are prefixed directly to the noun or verb that they introduce, as are the definite article ha<\/span>-, “the” and the conjunction wa<\/span>-, “and.” Suffixes are used for pronouns, either in the possessive or accusative relationship. The same word may simultaneously have both a prefix and a suffix.<\/p>\n<h5>Nouns<\/h5>\nHebrew has no neuter gender; everything is masculine or feminine. Inanimate objects may be either masculine or feminine, depending on the formation or character of the word. Usually, abstract ideas or words indicating a group are feminine. Nouns are derived from roots and are formed in various ways, either by vowel modification or by adding prefixes or suffixes to the root. Contrary to Greek and many Western languages, compound nouns are not characteristic of Hebrew.<\/p>\nThe Hebrew plural is formed by adding -im<\/span> for masculine nouns (<\/em>seraphim, cherubim<\/span>)<\/em> and -oth<\/span> for feminine nouns.<\/p>\nThree original case endings indicating nominative, genitive, and accusative have dropped away during the evolution of Hebrew. To compensate for the lack of case endings, Hebrew resorts to various indicators. Indirect objects are indicated by the preposition le<\/span>-, “to”; direct objects by the objective sign ’eth<\/span>;<\/em> the genitive relationship by putting the word before the genitive in the “construct state,” or shortened form.<\/p>\n<h5>Adjectives<\/h5>\nHebrew is deficient in adjectives. “A double heart” is indicated in the original Hebrew by “a heart and a heart” (Ps 12:2), and “two differing weights” is actually “a stone and a stone” (Dt 25:13); “the whole royal family” is “the seed of the kingdom” (2 Kgs 11:1).<\/p>\nAdjectives that do exist in Hebrew have no comparative or superlative forms. Relationship is indicated by the preposition “from.” “Better than you” is expressed literally in Hebrew “good from you.” “The serpent was more subtle than any other beast” is literally “the serpent was subtle from every beast” (Gn 3:1). The superlative is expressed by several different constructions. The idea “very deep” is literally “deep, deep” (Eccl 7:24); the “best song” is literally “song of songs” (compare “king of kings”); “holiest” is literally “holy, holy, holy” (Is 6:3).<\/p>\n<h5>Verbs<\/h5>\nHebrew verbs are formed from a root usually consisting of three letters. From such roots, verbal forms are developed by a change of vowels or by adding prefixes or suffixes. The root consonants provide the semantic backbone of the language and give a stability of meaning not characteristic of Western languages. The vowels are quite flexible, giving Hebrew considerable elasticity.<\/p>\nHebrew verb usage is not characterized by precise definition of tenses. Hebrew tenses, especially in poetry, are largely determined by context. The two tense formations are the perfect (completed action) and imperfect (incomplete action). The imperfect is ambiguous. It represents the indicative mood (present, past, future) but may also represent such moods as the imperative, optative, and jussive or cohortative. A distinctive usage of the perfect tense is the “prophetic perfect,” where the perfect form represents a future event considered so sure that it is expressed as past (e.g., see Is 5:13, kjv<\/span>).<\/p>\nStyle<\/p>\n<h5>Vocabulary<\/h5>\nMost Hebrew roots originally expressed some physical action or denoted some natural object. The verb “to decide” originally meant “to cut”; “to be true” originally meant “to be firmly fixed”; “to be right” meant “to be straight”; “to be honorable” meant “to be heavy.”<\/p>\nAbstract terms are alien to the character of Hebrew; for example, biblical Hebrew has no specific words for “theology,” “philosophy,” or “religion.” Intellectual or theological concepts are expressed by concrete terms. The abstract idea of sin is represented by such words as “to miss the mark” or “crooked” or “rebellion” or “trespass” (“to cross over”). Mind or intellect is expressed by “heart” or “kidneys,” and emotion or compassion by “bowels” (see Is 63:15, kjv<\/span>). Other concrete terms in Hebrew are “horn” for strength or vigor, “bones” for self, and “seed” for descendants. A mental quality is often depicted by the part of the body thought of as its most appropriate embodiment. Strength can be represented by “arm” or “hand,” anger by “nostril,” displeasure by “falling face,” acceptance by “shining face,” thinking by “say.”<\/p>\nSome translators have attempted to represent a Hebrew word always by the same English word, but that leads to serious problems. Sometimes there is considerable disagreement on the exact shade of meaning of a Hebrew word in a given passage. A single root frequently represents a variety of meanings, depending on usage and context. The word for “bless” can also mean “curse, greet, favor, praise.” The word for “judgment” is used also for “justice, verdict, penalty, ordinance, duty, custom, manner.” The word for “strength” or “power” also means “army, virtue, worth, courage.”<\/p>\nFurther ambiguity arises from the fact that some Hebrew consonants stand for two different original consonants that have merged in the evolution of the language. Two words that on the surface appear to be identical may be traced back to two different roots. For an example of this phenomenon in English, compare “bass” (a fish) with “bass” (a vocalist).<\/p>\n<h5>Syntax<\/h5>\nHebrew syntax is relatively uncomplicated. Few subordinating conjunctions (“if,” “when,” “because,” etc.) are used; sentences are usually coordinated by using the simple conjunction “and.” English translations of biblical texts generally try to show the logical connection between successive sentences, even though it is not always clear. In Genesis 1:2–3:1, all but three of the 56 verses begin with “and,” yet the nlt<\/span> translates that conjunction variously as “then” (1:3), “so” (v 27), “so” (2:1), and “instead” (v 6).<\/p>\nHebrew style is enlivened by use of direct discourse. The narrator does not simply state that “such and such a person said that . . .” (indirect discourse). Instead, the parties speak for themselves (direct discourse), creating a freshness that remains even after repeated reading.<\/p>\n<h5>Poetry<\/h5>\nHebrew poetry uses a variety of rhetorical devices. Some of them—such as assonance, alliteration, and acrostics—can be appreciated only in the original Hebrew. But parallelism, the most important characteristic of Hebrew poetry, is evident even in English translation. Among the many forms of parallelism possible, four common categories exist: (1) synonymous, a repeating style in which parallel lines say the same thing in different words; (2) antithetic, a contrasting style in which contrary thoughts are expressed; (3) completive, with a completing parallel line filling out the thought of the first; (4) climactic, in which an ascending parallel line picks up something from the first line and repeats it. Numerous other forms of parallelism enrich Hebrew poetry. The possible varations of parallelism are almost endless.<\/p>\n<h5>Figures of Speech<\/h5>\nHebrew abounds in expressive figures of speech based on the Hebrew people’s character and way of life. Certain odd but well-known expressions found in English literature come from the Hebrew style, like “apple of his eye” (Dt 32:10; Ps 17:8; Prv 7:2; Zec 2:8) and “skin of my teeth” (Job 19:20). Some of the more striking Hebrew modes of expression are hard to transfer into English, such as “to uncover the ear,” meaning “to disclose, reveal.” Others are more familiar, like “to stiffen the neck” for “to be stubborn, rebellious”; “to bend or incline the ear” for “to listen closely.”<\/p>\nLegacy<\/p>\nEnglish and a number of other modern languages have been enriched by Hebrew. English even contains a number of Hebrew “loan words.” Some of these have had wide influence (“amen,” “hallelujah,” “jubilee”). Many Hebrew proper nouns are used in modern languages for persons and places, such as David, Jonathan\/John, Miriam\/Mary, Bethlehem (the name of several towns and cities in the United States).<\/p>\nMany common Hebrew expressions have been unconsciously accepted into English figures of speech, as in “mouth of the cave” and “face of the earth.” Some figures, such as “east of Eden,” have been used as titles for books and films.<\/p>","summary_ro":"HEBREW LANGUAGE Language of the Jewish people. The name Hebrew is not applied by the OT to its own language, although the NT does use the name that way. In the OT, “Hebrew” means the individual or people who used the language. The language itself is called “the language of Canaan” (Is 19:18, nlt mg) or “the language of Judah” (Neh 13:24). Preview • Origin and History • Family of Languages • Character • Hebrew Script and Grammar • Style • Legacy Origin and History In the Middle Ages a common v...","summary_en":"HEBREW LANGUAGE Language of the Jewish people. The name Hebrew is not applied by the OT to its own language, although the NT does use the name that way. In the OT, “Hebrew” means the individual or people who used the language. The language itself is called “the language of Canaan” (Is 19:18, nlt mg) or “the language of Judah” (Neh 13:24). Preview • Origin and History • Family of Languages • Character • Hebrew Script and Grammar • Style • Legacy Origin and History In the Middle Ages a common v...","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":16876,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"of Heaven* Host, Host","title_en":"of Heaven* Host, Host","content_ro":"<h3>HOST, HOST OF HEAVEN*<\/h3>\nHebrew expressions found frequently in the OT and literally meaning “army” and “army of the skies.” “Host” is basically a military term, occurring nearly 500 times in the OT, and can mean “army” (2 Kgs 18:17), “angels,” “heavenly bodies,” or “creation.”<\/p>\nThe phrase “host of heaven” has various applications in the Bible. Ancient writers sometimes referred symbolically to the sun, moon, and stars as an army (Dt 4:19; Jgs 5:20). In the astrological cults of antiquity, it was believed that celestial bodies were animated by spirits and thus constituted a living army that controlled heavenly destiny. The worship of the host of heaven was one of the earliest forms of idolatry, and was common among the Israelites in their times of regression from serving God (Jer 19:13; Acts 7:42). Although warned against such pagan beliefs (Dt 4:19; 17:3), the Israelites fell into the practice of worshiping heavenly bodies, particularly during the Assyrian and Babylonian periods (2 Kgs 17:16; 21:3-5; 2 Chr 33:3-5; Jer 8:2; Zep 1:5). The corrective to this pagan practice is belief in the Lord as the Creator of heaven and earth, the Almighty, the one who marshaled the heavenly bodies at his command and ordained them to perform a special function (Gn 1:14-19; 2:1; Neh 9:6; Pss 33:6; 103:21; 148:2; Is 40:26; 45:12).<\/p>\nGod is frequently called “the Lord God of hosts,” that is, of the celestial armies (Jer 5:14; 38:17; 44:7; Hos 12:5). The heavenly host includes angels or messengers who are associated with the Lord’s work in heaven and on earth. God presides over a heavenly council composed of angels or “sons of God” (Gn 1:26; 1 Kgs 22:19; Jb 1:6; Ps 82; Is 6) whose messengers are sent from the Lord’s council to accomplish his purpose (Gn 28:12-15; Lk 2:13).<\/p>\nThough the hosts are sometimes understood as the stars or angels, the tribes of Israel are also called “the host of the Lord.” The “host of heaven” in Daniel 8:10-11 appears to be figurative language referring to Israel, “the holy people,” and God, the King of Israel, is called “the Prince of the host.”<\/p>\nThe Greek words translated “host” occur only twice in the NT (Lk 2:13; Acts 7:42). “Lord of hosts” is used by Paul and James (Rom 9:29; Jas 5:4) as a title for the Lord. The term expresses God’s sovereign might and majesty in history, but the precise identification of the “hosts” that stand at his command is uncertain.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Hosts, Lord of.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>HOST, HOST OF HEAVEN*<\/h3>\nHebrew expressions found frequently in the OT and literally meaning “army” and “army of the skies.” “Host” is basically a military term, occurring nearly 500 times in the OT, and can mean “army” (2 Kgs 18:17), “angels,” “heavenly bodies,” or “creation.”<\/p>\nThe phrase “host of heaven” has various applications in the Bible. Ancient writers sometimes referred symbolically to the sun, moon, and stars as an army (Dt 4:19; Jgs 5:20). In the astrological cults of antiquity, it was believed that celestial bodies were animated by spirits and thus constituted a living army that controlled heavenly destiny. The worship of the host of heaven was one of the earliest forms of idolatry, and was common among the Israelites in their times of regression from serving God (Jer 19:13; Acts 7:42). Although warned against such pagan beliefs (Dt 4:19; 17:3), the Israelites fell into the practice of worshiping heavenly bodies, particularly during the Assyrian and Babylonian periods (2 Kgs 17:16; 21:3-5; 2 Chr 33:3-5; Jer 8:2; Zep 1:5). The corrective to this pagan practice is belief in the Lord as the Creator of heaven and earth, the Almighty, the one who marshaled the heavenly bodies at his command and ordained them to perform a special function (Gn 1:14-19; 2:1; Neh 9:6; Pss 33:6; 103:21; 148:2; Is 40:26; 45:12).<\/p>\nGod is frequently called “the Lord God of hosts,” that is, of the celestial armies (Jer 5:14; 38:17; 44:7; Hos 12:5). The heavenly host includes angels or messengers who are associated with the Lord’s work in heaven and on earth. God presides over a heavenly council composed of angels or “sons of God” (Gn 1:26; 1 Kgs 22:19; Jb 1:6; Ps 82; Is 6) whose messengers are sent from the Lord’s council to accomplish his purpose (Gn 28:12-15; Lk 2:13).<\/p>\nThough the hosts are sometimes understood as the stars or angels, the tribes of Israel are also called “the host of the Lord.” The “host of heaven” in Daniel 8:10-11 appears to be figurative language referring to Israel, “the holy people,” and God, the King of Israel, is called “the Prince of the host.”<\/p>\nThe Greek words translated “host” occur only twice in the NT (Lk 2:13; Acts 7:42). “Lord of hosts” is used by Paul and James (Rom 9:29; Jas 5:4) as a title for the Lord. The term expresses God’s sovereign might and majesty in history, but the precise identification of the “hosts” that stand at his command is uncertain.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Hosts, Lord of.<\/p>","summary_ro":"HOST, HOST OF HEAVEN* Hebrew expressions found frequently in the OT and literally meaning “army” and “army of the skies.” “Host” is basically a military term, occurring nearly 500 times in the OT, and can mean “army” (2 Kgs 18:17), “angels,” “heavenly bodies,” or “creation.” The phrase “host of heaven” has various applications in the Bible. Ancient writers sometimes referred symbolically to the sun, moon, and stars as an army (Dt 4:19; Jgs 5:20). In the astrological cults of antiquity, it was...","summary_en":"HOST, HOST OF HEAVEN* Hebrew expressions found frequently in the OT and literally meaning “army” and “army of the skies.” “Host” is basically a military term, occurring nearly 500 times in the OT, and can mean “army” (2 Kgs 18:17), “angels,” “heavenly bodies,” or “creation.” The phrase “host of heaven” has various applications in the Bible. Ancient writers sometimes referred symbolically to the sun, moon, and stars as an army (Dt 4:19; Jgs 5:20). In the astrological cults of antiquity, it was...","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":24148,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Man","title_en":"Man","content_ro":"<h3>MAN<\/h3>\nHuman being, whether male or female.<\/p>\nThe biblical teaching on man begins with a right notion concerning God. The biblical perspective of anthropology (i.e., the study of man) is centrally displayed in the context of an elevated theology (i.e., the study of God). A high and reverent view of God leads to a noble and dignified view of man, whereas a poorly developed concept of God often produces a distorted perspective on man. Hence, man may be viewed more importantly than he ought, or man may be seen less important than is biblical. Either view is subbiblical. The place to begin a study of man (which in this article is used as a generic term for both male and female human beings) is with a view of God, his Creator.<\/p>\nMan’s Origin<\/p>\nAgainst the naturalistic, materialistic theories of origins, the biblical view starts with the assertion that the eternal God has created man, the most significant of all his created works. It is not necessary for one to subscribe to a particular chronological scenario for God’s work in the creation of man. Some Christians believe the Bible teaches a closed chronology in Genesis 1 made of six literal 24-hour days (cf. Gn 1:5, 8, 13, etc.), with the stunning, sudden appearance of man coming perhaps just some 6,000 years ago (cf. the chronologies associated with but not limited to Archbishop James Ussher, Annales,<\/em> 1650–58). Some who hold this general viewpoint (sometimes called creation science) extend the creation of man to about 10,000 years ago, based on a view of some elasticity in the chronologies of Genesis 5 and 11.<\/p>\nOthers believe the texts of Genesis 1 and 2 may be interpreted far more broadly to speak of a most remote antiquity for the creation of man (extending to millions of years). They argue that process (under God’s control and direction) may have played a significant role in God’s creative work. This viewpoint is best termed progressive creationism, and is to be contrasted with theistic evolution, in which God is usually viewed as initiating the process but having little involvement once the processes are in motion. In the former approach, the Hebrew term “day” (<\/em>yom<\/span>)<\/em> in Genesis 1 may refer to an extended period of time (e.g., the “day-age” theory); thus, the phrasing “an evening and a morning, the x<\/em>th day” may be a literary device to present successive scenes in the creative works of God through the processes of time.<\/p>\nMany Christians find themselves somewhere between a conservative and a broad chronology for man’s origin. Yet in spite of individual preferences, one must give assent to God’s creative work in producing man in order to think biblically about man. The essence of faith begins in the words “I believe in God the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth.”<\/p>\nMan is not only God’s creation but also the pinnacle of his creative effort. Long before modern precision in such things, the ancients were aware of man’s anatomical similarities with members of the animal kingdom. Yet despite these similarities, the biblical viewpoint never places man on the same level as animals—man is distinct, the high point of God’s creative work, the apex of his handicraft. The progression of the created things in Genesis 1 is climactic; all of God’s created work culminated in his fashioning of man.<\/p>\nThe distinct behavioral characteristics of man include language, toolmaking, and culture. Distinct experiential characteristics include reflective awareness, ethical concern, aesthetic urges, historical awareness, and metaphysical concern. These factors individually and collectively separate man from other forms of animal life. Man is far more than the “naked ape” of some modern evolutionary theories. But sociology alone does not suffice to explain the full nature of man. That is the subject of divine revelation.<\/p>\nWhile man bears a continuity with God’s creation (assumed in the words of Gn 2:7, being fashioned from the dust of the earth), man is also distinct from all that precedes him because God breathed into him the breath of life so that he became a living soul (2:7). Man was created by God as male and female (1:27), meaning that what is said generally of man must be said of both the male and the female, and that the truest picture of what it means to be human will be found in the context of man and woman together. The commands to multiply and exercise sovereignty over the earth were given to both sexes as shared responsibility. Similarly, it is man as male and female that rebelled against God and bears the consequences of that primeval sin in the postfall world, and it is man as male and female that Christ came to redeem (cf. Gal 3:28). At the same time, the words “male” and “female” denote true distinctions. Many perceived gender differences may be culturally conditioned, yet the prime sexual distinctions between male (Hebrew, zakar<\/span>,<\/em> “the piercer”) and female (Hebrew, neqeba<\/span>,<\/em> “the pierced”) are divinely intended. It takes both male and female to exhibit the full image of God (see Gn 1:27).<\/p>\nIndeed, the most stunning biblical assertion respecting man is that God made man in his image.<\/em> Of no other creature, not even the angels, is such a statement found. The words “in God’s image” in Genesis 1:26-28 are the basis for the psalmist’s paraphrase in Psalm 8:5, “for you have made him to lack but little of God” (literal translation; “lower than the angels,” Septuagint translation). The meaning of the phrase “the image of God” (Latin, imago Dei<\/em>) has been the subject of much debate. Some have thought the phrase to refer to a physical representation of God, but this is doubtful in that God is spirit (cf. Jn 4:24). Others think the phrase refers to man’s personhood, which corresponds to the personality of God (having intellect, sensibilities, and will). Such qualities of man may be found in God’s image; however, these varied aspects of personality are also shared by other members of the animal kingdom and are not unique to the human species.<\/p>\nThe basic meaning of the word “image” (Hebrew, tselem<\/span>) is “shadow,” “representation,” or “likeness.” The image of God in man reveals God’s perspective of man’s worth and dignity as a representation or a shadow of himself in the created world. Ancient kings of Assyria were known to have physical images of themselves placed in outlying districts as a reminder to those who might be prone to forget that these areas were a part of the empire. So God has placed in man a shadow of himself, a representation of his presence, in the world that he has made.<\/p>\nThis view of God’s image in man seems to be confirmed by the immediate context in Genesis 1. Man, created in God’s image, is to have dominion over all of God’s other works (Gn 1:26; see also Ps 8:5). Further, as a representative of the Creator, man is to respond to him. Jesus’ assertion of the spirituality of God results in a response of worship in spirit and in truth (Jn 4:21-24).<\/p>\nMan’s Nature<\/p>\nOne may tend to think of man in parts, but the biblical emphasis is on man as a whole. Debates continue on the tripartite (threefold) nature of man (cf. 1 Thes 5:23)—spirit, soul, and body—as against a bipartite (twofold) nature of man, material and immaterial. Though the Bible does seem to support both positions, the most important issue respecting the nature of man is his unity rather than the number of his parts. Hence, a biblical view of man begins in the assertion that one is a person made up of physical and nonphysical properties. In the words of Karl Barth, the human person is “bodily soul, as he is also besouled body.” There is no person in body only, nor can one easily think of a bodiless spirit as a person, except in a temporary, transitional state. The Hebrew term nephesh<\/span>,<\/em> often translated “soul,” is best rendered “person” in most contexts. The Hebrew word ruach<\/span> (“breath,” “wind,” “spirit”) and the Greek words pneuma<\/span> (“spirit”) and psuche<\/span> (“soul”) often speak of the immaterial part of man. This is no less real than the physical. A purely material, physical view of man is frightfully deficient. At the same time, an overemphasis on the spirit and a deemphasis on the physical is neither realistic nor balanced. One may say, “I am a person whose existence is presently very dependent upon my physical body. But I am more than body, more than flesh. When my body dies, I still live. When my flesh decays, I exist. But one day I shall live in a body again. For the notion of a disembodied spirit is not the full measure of my humanity. God’s ideal for me is to live my life in my [new] body. So in hope of the eternal state, I believe in the resurrection of the body and life everlasting.”<\/p>\nOne cannot go far in thinking of the nature of man from the biblical vantage point without first facing the problem of the fall. Genesis 3 suggests that unfallen man was immortal, that his powers of sexual reproduction were not originally bound in the pain in childbearing, and that his work was not troubled by reversals in nature. After the fall, however, all was changed: within man himself, between the male and the female, in his interaction with nature, and in his relationship with the Creator.<\/p>\nAs a result of the fall, man has become profoundly fallen, a fallenness extending to every part of his person. The phrase “total depravity” need not mean that one is as evil as he or she might be, but rather that the results of sin affect one’s whole being. At the time, the image of God in man continues in some way after the fall, providing the divine rationale for salvation (cf. Rom 5). It is essentially because of God’s estimation of the intrinsic worth of man that the divine justification of salvation may be maintained.<\/p>\nThe old debate between the essential goodness and the evil disposition of man finds its quandary and resolution in the Genesis account: God made man to consciously reflect the dignity and nobility of the Creator, yet man, by his own deliberate rebellion, turned against his Creator and continues, except by God’s grace, in the ensuing sin that marks his life. This resultant sin is both a quality of being in the fallen person, as well as numerous, continuing acts of pride and selfishness. Though the image of God in man was marred by the fall, it may be stimulated anew by the effective work of the Spirit of God as one comes to newness of life in Christ. This gracious work of God brings personal renewal, restoration of relationships with others, and fellowship with God.<\/p>\nMan, then, who was created good by God, has become evil by his own devices, yet in God’s power he may recapture the good again. The rediscovery of what it means to be fully human is found in the life of Jesus, whose human life is the new beginning for man. Hence, Jesus is the new Adam; in his model there is a new beginning that replaces the former pattern.<\/p>\nMan’s Destiny<\/p>\nA biblical view of man must include a balanced statement respecting his divine origin, his rebellion against the grace of God, his judgment, and his prospect for redemption in the person of the Savior Jesus with the promise of eternal life. Man has a beginning and will live forever. This assertion is in stark contrast to naturalistic theories of origins and destinies. One of the most deceptive tendencies of modern thought is the concept “coming to terms with death.” People with no thought of God and no hope for eternity are encouraging each other to accept the inevitable decline and demise of their bodies as the natural end to human life. The biblical notion is that death in man is not natural at all.<\/p>\nDeath is an acquired trait, not the natural destiny of man. Death may be said of the body but not of the spirit. The biblical teaching is that while the body dies and decays, the person lives on in hope of a renewed body. Those who have come to know Christ go to be with him when their bodies die (Phil 1:23) and anticipate the resurrection of the body for eternal life to come (1 Cor 15:35-49). Those who die apart from Christ do not cease to exist but rather are assigned an eternal existence of conscious knowledge that they are separated from God and have fallen short of their destiny to enjoy his presence forever. The biblical teaching on the destiny of the lost is quite unpalatable for modern man. Even Christians who have generally high views of biblical inspiration may find themselves blanching at the thought of eternal punishment of the wicked. Yet the biblical doctrine of the final judgment of the wicked is as well established as most teachings in the Bible.<\/p>\nOne of the most dramatic truths in Scripture respecting the nature of man is to realize that it was for man that God initiated the salvation work that led to the incarnation of the eternal son of God. After his resurrection and ascension, the Lord Jesus Christ returned to his eternal position of glory and majesty in heaven, where he forever remains the God-man. As God, he shares all the attributes of the Father and the Holy Spirit, and as man, identifies with man. He reveals himself in a physical body, albeit the resurrection body, the firstfruits of the resurrection of all who are his. The incarnation, then, brought about an eternal change in deity. Only a very high view of the worth of man could have brought God to such a fundamental change in himself. As the writer to the Hebrews states, “Because God’s children are human beings—made of flesh and blood—Jesus also became flesh and blood by being born in human form” (Heb 2:14, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nThe final measure of our humanity is that man was made to worship God and to enjoy him forever. Such thoughts are not attributed to any other created being. Even the angels, who have maintained their perfect state and who worship the Father in conscious bliss, do not have quite the same relationship with God as do redeemed men (Heb 2:16).<\/p>\nWhat is man? In Christ, man is all God means him to be, in majesty and dignity, and in joy before his throne forever.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Image of God; Man, Natural; Man, Old and New.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MAN<\/h3>\nHuman being, whether male or female.<\/p>\nThe biblical teaching on man begins with a right notion concerning God. The biblical perspective of anthropology (i.e., the study of man) is centrally displayed in the context of an elevated theology (i.e., the study of God). A high and reverent view of God leads to a noble and dignified view of man, whereas a poorly developed concept of God often produces a distorted perspective on man. Hence, man may be viewed more importantly than he ought, or man may be seen less important than is biblical. Either view is subbiblical. The place to begin a study of man (which in this article is used as a generic term for both male and female human beings) is with a view of God, his Creator.<\/p>\nMan’s Origin<\/p>\nAgainst the naturalistic, materialistic theories of origins, the biblical view starts with the assertion that the eternal God has created man, the most significant of all his created works. It is not necessary for one to subscribe to a particular chronological scenario for God’s work in the creation of man. Some Christians believe the Bible teaches a closed chronology in Genesis 1 made of six literal 24-hour days (cf. Gn 1:5, 8, 13, etc.), with the stunning, sudden appearance of man coming perhaps just some 6,000 years ago (cf. the chronologies associated with but not limited to Archbishop James Ussher, Annales,<\/em> 1650–58). Some who hold this general viewpoint (sometimes called creation science) extend the creation of man to about 10,000 years ago, based on a view of some elasticity in the chronologies of Genesis 5 and 11.<\/p>\nOthers believe the texts of Genesis 1 and 2 may be interpreted far more broadly to speak of a most remote antiquity for the creation of man (extending to millions of years). They argue that process (under God’s control and direction) may have played a significant role in God’s creative work. This viewpoint is best termed progressive creationism, and is to be contrasted with theistic evolution, in which God is usually viewed as initiating the process but having little involvement once the processes are in motion. In the former approach, the Hebrew term “day” (<\/em>yom<\/span>)<\/em> in Genesis 1 may refer to an extended period of time (e.g., the “day-age” theory); thus, the phrasing “an evening and a morning, the x<\/em>th day” may be a literary device to present successive scenes in the creative works of God through the processes of time.<\/p>\nMany Christians find themselves somewhere between a conservative and a broad chronology for man’s origin. Yet in spite of individual preferences, one must give assent to God’s creative work in producing man in order to think biblically about man. The essence of faith begins in the words “I believe in God the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth.”<\/p>\nMan is not only God’s creation but also the pinnacle of his creative effort. Long before modern precision in such things, the ancients were aware of man’s anatomical similarities with members of the animal kingdom. Yet despite these similarities, the biblical viewpoint never places man on the same level as animals—man is distinct, the high point of God’s creative work, the apex of his handicraft. The progression of the created things in Genesis 1 is climactic; all of God’s created work culminated in his fashioning of man.<\/p>\nThe distinct behavioral characteristics of man include language, toolmaking, and culture. Distinct experiential characteristics include reflective awareness, ethical concern, aesthetic urges, historical awareness, and metaphysical concern. These factors individually and collectively separate man from other forms of animal life. Man is far more than the “naked ape” of some modern evolutionary theories. But sociology alone does not suffice to explain the full nature of man. That is the subject of divine revelation.<\/p>\nWhile man bears a continuity with God’s creation (assumed in the words of Gn 2:7, being fashioned from the dust of the earth), man is also distinct from all that precedes him because God breathed into him the breath of life so that he became a living soul (2:7). Man was created by God as male and female (1:27), meaning that what is said generally of man must be said of both the male and the female, and that the truest picture of what it means to be human will be found in the context of man and woman together. The commands to multiply and exercise sovereignty over the earth were given to both sexes as shared responsibility. Similarly, it is man as male and female that rebelled against God and bears the consequences of that primeval sin in the postfall world, and it is man as male and female that Christ came to redeem (cf. Gal 3:28). At the same time, the words “male” and “female” denote true distinctions. Many perceived gender differences may be culturally conditioned, yet the prime sexual distinctions between male (Hebrew, zakar<\/span>,<\/em> “the piercer”) and female (Hebrew, neqeba<\/span>,<\/em> “the pierced”) are divinely intended. It takes both male and female to exhibit the full image of God (see Gn 1:27).<\/p>\nIndeed, the most stunning biblical assertion respecting man is that God made man in his image.<\/em> Of no other creature, not even the angels, is such a statement found. The words “in God’s image” in Genesis 1:26-28 are the basis for the psalmist’s paraphrase in Psalm 8:5, “for you have made him to lack but little of God” (literal translation; “lower than the angels,” Septuagint translation). The meaning of the phrase “the image of God” (Latin, imago Dei<\/em>) has been the subject of much debate. Some have thought the phrase to refer to a physical representation of God, but this is doubtful in that God is spirit (cf. Jn 4:24). Others think the phrase refers to man’s personhood, which corresponds to the personality of God (having intellect, sensibilities, and will). Such qualities of man may be found in God’s image; however, these varied aspects of personality are also shared by other members of the animal kingdom and are not unique to the human species.<\/p>\nThe basic meaning of the word “image” (Hebrew, tselem<\/span>) is “shadow,” “representation,” or “likeness.” The image of God in man reveals God’s perspective of man’s worth and dignity as a representation or a shadow of himself in the created world. Ancient kings of Assyria were known to have physical images of themselves placed in outlying districts as a reminder to those who might be prone to forget that these areas were a part of the empire. So God has placed in man a shadow of himself, a representation of his presence, in the world that he has made.<\/p>\nThis view of God’s image in man seems to be confirmed by the immediate context in Genesis 1. Man, created in God’s image, is to have dominion over all of God’s other works (Gn 1:26; see also Ps 8:5). Further, as a representative of the Creator, man is to respond to him. Jesus’ assertion of the spirituality of God results in a response of worship in spirit and in truth (Jn 4:21-24).<\/p>\nMan’s Nature<\/p>\nOne may tend to think of man in parts, but the biblical emphasis is on man as a whole. Debates continue on the tripartite (threefold) nature of man (cf. 1 Thes 5:23)—spirit, soul, and body—as against a bipartite (twofold) nature of man, material and immaterial. Though the Bible does seem to support both positions, the most important issue respecting the nature of man is his unity rather than the number of his parts. Hence, a biblical view of man begins in the assertion that one is a person made up of physical and nonphysical properties. In the words of Karl Barth, the human person is “bodily soul, as he is also besouled body.” There is no person in body only, nor can one easily think of a bodiless spirit as a person, except in a temporary, transitional state. The Hebrew term nephesh<\/span>,<\/em> often translated “soul,” is best rendered “person” in most contexts. The Hebrew word ruach<\/span> (“breath,” “wind,” “spirit”) and the Greek words pneuma<\/span> (“spirit”) and psuche<\/span> (“soul”) often speak of the immaterial part of man. This is no less real than the physical. A purely material, physical view of man is frightfully deficient. At the same time, an overemphasis on the spirit and a deemphasis on the physical is neither realistic nor balanced. One may say, “I am a person whose existence is presently very dependent upon my physical body. But I am more than body, more than flesh. When my body dies, I still live. When my flesh decays, I exist. But one day I shall live in a body again. For the notion of a disembodied spirit is not the full measure of my humanity. God’s ideal for me is to live my life in my [new] body. So in hope of the eternal state, I believe in the resurrection of the body and life everlasting.”<\/p>\nOne cannot go far in thinking of the nature of man from the biblical vantage point without first facing the problem of the fall. Genesis 3 suggests that unfallen man was immortal, that his powers of sexual reproduction were not originally bound in the pain in childbearing, and that his work was not troubled by reversals in nature. After the fall, however, all was changed: within man himself, between the male and the female, in his interaction with nature, and in his relationship with the Creator.<\/p>\nAs a result of the fall, man has become profoundly fallen, a fallenness extending to every part of his person. The phrase “total depravity” need not mean that one is as evil as he or she might be, but rather that the results of sin affect one’s whole being. At the time, the image of God in man continues in some way after the fall, providing the divine rationale for salvation (cf. Rom 5). It is essentially because of God’s estimation of the intrinsic worth of man that the divine justification of salvation may be maintained.<\/p>\nThe old debate between the essential goodness and the evil disposition of man finds its quandary and resolution in the Genesis account: God made man to consciously reflect the dignity and nobility of the Creator, yet man, by his own deliberate rebellion, turned against his Creator and continues, except by God’s grace, in the ensuing sin that marks his life. This resultant sin is both a quality of being in the fallen person, as well as numerous, continuing acts of pride and selfishness. Though the image of God in man was marred by the fall, it may be stimulated anew by the effective work of the Spirit of God as one comes to newness of life in Christ. This gracious work of God brings personal renewal, restoration of relationships with others, and fellowship with God.<\/p>\nMan, then, who was created good by God, has become evil by his own devices, yet in God’s power he may recapture the good again. The rediscovery of what it means to be fully human is found in the life of Jesus, whose human life is the new beginning for man. Hence, Jesus is the new Adam; in his model there is a new beginning that replaces the former pattern.<\/p>\nMan’s Destiny<\/p>\nA biblical view of man must include a balanced statement respecting his divine origin, his rebellion against the grace of God, his judgment, and his prospect for redemption in the person of the Savior Jesus with the promise of eternal life. Man has a beginning and will live forever. This assertion is in stark contrast to naturalistic theories of origins and destinies. One of the most deceptive tendencies of modern thought is the concept “coming to terms with death.” People with no thought of God and no hope for eternity are encouraging each other to accept the inevitable decline and demise of their bodies as the natural end to human life. The biblical notion is that death in man is not natural at all.<\/p>\nDeath is an acquired trait, not the natural destiny of man. Death may be said of the body but not of the spirit. The biblical teaching is that while the body dies and decays, the person lives on in hope of a renewed body. Those who have come to know Christ go to be with him when their bodies die (Phil 1:23) and anticipate the resurrection of the body for eternal life to come (1 Cor 15:35-49). Those who die apart from Christ do not cease to exist but rather are assigned an eternal existence of conscious knowledge that they are separated from God and have fallen short of their destiny to enjoy his presence forever. The biblical teaching on the destiny of the lost is quite unpalatable for modern man. Even Christians who have generally high views of biblical inspiration may find themselves blanching at the thought of eternal punishment of the wicked. Yet the biblical doctrine of the final judgment of the wicked is as well established as most teachings in the Bible.<\/p>\nOne of the most dramatic truths in Scripture respecting the nature of man is to realize that it was for man that God initiated the salvation work that led to the incarnation of the eternal son of God. After his resurrection and ascension, the Lord Jesus Christ returned to his eternal position of glory and majesty in heaven, where he forever remains the God-man. As God, he shares all the attributes of the Father and the Holy Spirit, and as man, identifies with man. He reveals himself in a physical body, albeit the resurrection body, the firstfruits of the resurrection of all who are his. The incarnation, then, brought about an eternal change in deity. Only a very high view of the worth of man could have brought God to such a fundamental change in himself. As the writer to the Hebrews states, “Because God’s children are human beings—made of flesh and blood—Jesus also became flesh and blood by being born in human form” (Heb 2:14, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nThe final measure of our humanity is that man was made to worship God and to enjoy him forever. Such thoughts are not attributed to any other created being. Even the angels, who have maintained their perfect state and who worship the Father in conscious bliss, do not have quite the same relationship with God as do redeemed men (Heb 2:16).<\/p>\nWhat is man? In Christ, man is all God means him to be, in majesty and dignity, and in joy before his throne forever.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Image of God; Man, Natural; Man, Old and New.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MAN Human being, whether male or female. The biblical teaching on man begins with a right notion concerning God. The biblical perspective of anthropology (i.e., the study of man) is centrally displayed in the context of an elevated theology (i.e., the study of God). A high and reverent view of God leads to a noble and dignified view of man, whereas a poorly developed concept of God often produces a distorted perspective on man. Hence, man may be viewed more importantly than he ought, or man m...","summary_en":"MAN Human being, whether male or female. The biblical teaching on man begins with a right notion concerning God. The biblical perspective of anthropology (i.e., the study of man) is centrally displayed in the context of an elevated theology (i.e., the study of God). A high and reverent view of God leads to a noble and dignified view of man, whereas a poorly developed concept of God often produces a distorted perspective on man. Hence, man may be viewed more importantly than he ought, or man m...","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":28840,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Paradise","title_en":"Paradise","content_ro":"<h3>Paradise<\/h3>\nTerm borrowed from Persian that means “garden of god.” The Hebrews originally used a word that they applied not only to ordinary gardens but also to God’s garden in Eden (Gn 2–3; Is 51:3; Ez 28:13). Comparatively late in their history, they adapted from the Persian language the word that afterward became “paradise”; it appears three times in the OT referring to a park or orchard (Neh 2:8; Eccl 2:5; Sg 4:13). Later still, when the OT was translated into Greek, there was a Greek form of the same word, and the translators used it extensively for “garden”; for Greek-speaking Jews, the garden of Genesis 2 became paradeisos<\/span>.<\/em><\/p>\nThe idea of the original Persian word was that of an enclosure or walled garden. It referred particularly to the royal parks of the Persian kings, and this was how the Greeks came to know it. Both ideas fit well with the Hebrews’ picture of a garden where the Lord God walked (Gn 3:8) and from which his subjects could be excluded (v 24). Further important features of the Genesis paradise were its fruit trees and its rivers.<\/p>\nBy NT times, this picture of God’s garden had developed in various ways, which are paralleled, not unexpectedly, in the folk beliefs of many nations. Like the Golden Age in Greek and Roman mythology, paradise was first of all something belonging to the remote past. But the Jews came to believe that it still existed in some undiscoverable place; like the Elysian fields, it was inhabited by the deserving dead. Then, with ever more elaborate descriptions of its glories, they wrote of its eventual reappearance at the end of this age.<\/p>\nThus, in the idea of paradise converge all myths of another world, past, present, and future, where death and evil have no place. The NT witnesses to the truth that is at the core of all such beliefs. Paradise is the place into which, as an actual but otherworldly reality, Paul was once mysteriously “caught up” during his lifetime (2 Cor 12:4). It is also the place where the repentant thief on the cross was promised he would be, with Christ, immediately after his death (Lk 23:43). The third and last NT reference, a similar promise (Rv 2:7), tells us in addition that paradise is where the tree of life grows, and so identifies it both with the original world of Genesis 2 and with the future world of Revelation 22, complete with the life-giving tree and river, the encircling wall, and the presence of the king.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Heaven; New Heavens and New Earth.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Paradise<\/h3>\nTerm borrowed from Persian that means “garden of god.” The Hebrews originally used a word that they applied not only to ordinary gardens but also to God’s garden in Eden (Gn 2–3; Is 51:3; Ez 28:13). Comparatively late in their history, they adapted from the Persian language the word that afterward became “paradise”; it appears three times in the OT referring to a park or orchard (Neh 2:8; Eccl 2:5; Sg 4:13). Later still, when the OT was translated into Greek, there was a Greek form of the same word, and the translators used it extensively for “garden”; for Greek-speaking Jews, the garden of Genesis 2 became paradeisos<\/span>.<\/em><\/p>\nThe idea of the original Persian word was that of an enclosure or walled garden. It referred particularly to the royal parks of the Persian kings, and this was how the Greeks came to know it. Both ideas fit well with the Hebrews’ picture of a garden where the Lord God walked (Gn 3:8) and from which his subjects could be excluded (v 24). Further important features of the Genesis paradise were its fruit trees and its rivers.<\/p>\nBy NT times, this picture of God’s garden had developed in various ways, which are paralleled, not unexpectedly, in the folk beliefs of many nations. Like the Golden Age in Greek and Roman mythology, paradise was first of all something belonging to the remote past. But the Jews came to believe that it still existed in some undiscoverable place; like the Elysian fields, it was inhabited by the deserving dead. Then, with ever more elaborate descriptions of its glories, they wrote of its eventual reappearance at the end of this age.<\/p>\nThus, in the idea of paradise converge all myths of another world, past, present, and future, where death and evil have no place. The NT witnesses to the truth that is at the core of all such beliefs. Paradise is the place into which, as an actual but otherworldly reality, Paul was once mysteriously “caught up” during his lifetime (2 Cor 12:4). It is also the place where the repentant thief on the cross was promised he would be, with Christ, immediately after his death (Lk 23:43). The third and last NT reference, a similar promise (Rv 2:7), tells us in addition that paradise is where the tree of life grows, and so identifies it both with the original world of Genesis 2 and with the future world of Revelation 22, complete with the life-giving tree and river, the encircling wall, and the presence of the king.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Heaven; New Heavens and New Earth.<\/p>","summary_ro":"Paradise Term borrowed from Persian that means “garden of god.” The Hebrews originally used a word that they applied not only to ordinary gardens but also to God’s garden in Eden (Gn 2–3; Is 51:3; Ez 28:13). Comparatively late in their history, they adapted from the Persian language the word that afterward became “paradise”; it appears three times in the OT referring to a park or orchard (Neh 2:8; Eccl 2:5; Sg 4:13). Later still, when the OT was translated into Greek, there was a Greek form o...","summary_en":"Paradise Term borrowed from Persian that means “garden of god.” The Hebrews originally used a word that they applied not only to ordinary gardens but also to God’s garden in Eden (Gn 2–3; Is 51:3; Ez 28:13). Comparatively late in their history, they adapted from the Persian language the word that afterward became “paradise”; it appears three times in the OT referring to a park or orchard (Neh 2:8; Eccl 2:5; Sg 4:13). Later still, when the OT was translated into Greek, there was a Greek form o...","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":32955,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Book of Revelation","title_en":"Book of Revelation","content_ro":"<h3>REVELATION, Book of<\/h3>\nLast book of the Bible, containing revelations concerning the events of the last days.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Author<\/p>\n• Date, Origin, Destination<\/p>\n• Background<\/p>\n• Methods of Interpreting Revelation<\/p>\n• Purpose and Teaching<\/p>\n• Content<\/p>\n\nAuthor<\/p>\nThe earliest witnesses ascribe the authorship of Revelation to John the apostle, the son of Zebedee. Dionysius, the distinguished bishop of Alexandria and student of Origen (early third century), was the first within the church to question its apostolic authorship because it seemed to him that the writing style differed greatly from that found in the fourth Gospel, attributed to John. From the time of Dionysius, the apostolic origin of the book was disputed in the East until Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 350) turned the tide toward its acceptance. In the West, the book was widely accepted and was included in all the principal lists of canonical books from at least the middle of the second century on.<\/p>\nFrom the internal evidence, the following things can be said about the author with some confidence. He calls himself John (Rv 1:4, 9; 22:8). This is most likely not a pseudonym but rather the name of a person well known among the Asian churches. This John identifies himself as a prophet (1:3; 22:6-10, 18-19) who was in exile because of his prophetic witness (1:9). As such, he speaks to the churches with great authority. His use of the OT and Targums makes it virtually certain that he was a Palestinian Jew, steeped in the ritual of the temple and synagogue. John the apostle fits this profile. The difference between the style of the fourth Gospel and that of Revelation can be explained by the radically different genres of the two books. The Gospel is a composed historical narrative, whereas the book of Revelation is a record of visionary experiences and direct divine revelation. The writer of the Gospel could take his time in crafting a narrative word by word and sentence by sentence. The writer of Revelation was compelled by God to write down immediately whatever he was told or was shown. Thus, the apostle John could easily have been the writer of both. In any event, no convincing argument has been advanced against his authorship.<\/p>\nDate, Origin, Destination<\/p>\nOnly two dates for Revelation have received serious support. An early date, shortly after the reign of Nero (AD<\/span> 54–68), is allegedly supported by references in the book to the persecution of Christians, to the Nero redivivus<\/em> myth (a revived Nero would be the reincarnation of the evil genius of the whole Roman Empire), to the imperial cult (ch 13), and to the temple (ch 11), which was destroyed in AD<\/span> 70. The alternate date rests primarily on the early witness of Irenaeus, who stated that the apostle John “saw the revelation . . . at the close of Domitian’s reign” (AD<\/span> 81–96).<\/p>\nThe origin of the book is clearly identified with Patmos, one of the Sporades Islands, located about 37 miles (59.5 kilometers) southwest of Miletus, in the Icarian Sea (1:9). John was apparently exiled on the island due to religious and\/or government persecutions arising from his witness to Jesus (1:9).<\/p>\nLikewise, the recipients are clearly the seven historic churches in the Roman province of Asia (modern western Turkey): Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea (1:4, 11; 2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14).<\/p>\nBackground<\/p>\nThe book of Revelation differs from the other NT writings, not in doctrine but in literary genre and subject matter. It is a book of prophecy (1:3; 22:7, 18-19) that contains both warning and consolation—announcements of future judgment and blessing— communicated by means of symbols and visions.<\/p>\nThe language and imagery were not as strange to first-century readers as they are today. Therefore, familiarity with the prophetic books of the OT, especially Daniel and Ezekiel, will help the reader grasp the message of the Apocalypse.<\/p>\nWhile the symbolic and visionary mode of presentation creates ambiguity and frustration for many, it actually lends to the description of unseen realities a poignancy and clarity unattainable by any other method. Such language can trigger a variety of ideas, associations, existential involvement, and mystical responses that the straight prose found in most of the NT cannot achieve.<\/p>\nThe letters to the churches indicate that five of the seven were in serious trouble. The major problem seemed to be disloyalty to Christ; this may indicate that the major thrust of Revelation is not sociopolitical but theological. John was more concerned with countering the heresy that was creeping into the churches toward the close of the first century than with addressing the political situation. This heresy seems to have been a type of Gnostic teaching.<\/p>\nRevelation is also commonly viewed as belonging to the group of writings known as apocalyptic literature. The name for this type of literature is derived from the Greek word for “revelation”: apokalupsis<\/span>.<\/em> The extrabiblical apocalyptic books were written in the period from 200 BC<\/span> to AD<\/span> 200. Although numerous similarities exist, there are also some clear differences.<\/p>\nMuch more important than the Jewish apocalyptic sources is the debt John owes to the eschatological teaching of Jesus, such as the Olivet discourse (Mt 24–25; Mk 13; Lk 21). Revelation is unique in its use of the OT. Of the 404 verses of the Apocalypse, 278 contain references to the Jewish Scriptures. John refers frequently to Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel, and also repeatedly to Exodus, Deuteronomy, and the Psalms. However, he rarely quotes the OT directly.<\/p>\nMethods of Interpreting Revelation<\/p>\nFour traditional ways of understanding Revelation 4–22 have emerged in the history of the church:<\/p>\n<h5>Futurist<\/h5>\nThis view holds that, with the exception of chapters 1–3, all the visions in Revelation relate to a period immediately preceding and following the second advent of Christ at the end of the age. The beasts (chs 13, 17) are identified with the future Antichrist, who will appear at the last moment in world history and will be defeated by Christ in his second coming to judge the world and to establish his earthly millennial kingdom.<\/p>\nVariations of this view were held by the earliest expositors, such as Justin Martyr (d. 164), Irenaeus (d. c. 195), Hippolytus (d. 236), and Victorinus (d. c. 303). This futurist approach has enjoyed a revival since the 19th century and is widely held among evangelicals today.<\/p>\n<h5>Historicist<\/h5>\nAs the word implies, this view sees in Revelation a prophetic survey of history. It originated with Joachim of Floris (d. 1202), a monastic who claimed to have received a special vision that revealed to him God’s plan for the ages. He assigned a day-year value to the 1,260 days of Revelation. In his scheme, the book is a prophecy of the events of Western history from the time of the apostles until Joachim’s own time. In the various schemes that developed as this method was applied to history, one element became common: the Antichrist and Babylon were connected with Rome and the papacy. Later, Luther, Calvin, and other Reformers came to adopt this view.<\/p>\n<h5>Preterist<\/h5>\nAccording to this view, Revelation deals with the time of its author; the main contents of chapters are thus viewed as describing events wholly limited to John’s own day. The beasts (ch 13) are identified as imperial Rome and the imperial priesthood. This is the view held by many contemporary scholars.<\/p>\n<h5>Idealist<\/h5>\nThis method of interpreting Revelation sees it as being basically poetic, symbolic, and spiritual in nature. Thus Revelation does not predict any specific historical events at all; on the contrary, it sets forth timeless truths concerning the battle between good and evil that continues throughout the church age. As a system of interpretation, it is more recent than the other three schools.<\/p>\nPurpose and Teaching<\/p>\nNT scholar H. B. Swete wrote of Revelation: “In form it is an epistle, containing an apocalyptic prophecy; in spirit and inner purpose, it is a pastoral.” As a prophet, John was called to separate true from false belief—to expose the failures of the congregations in Asia. He desired to encourage authentic Christian discipleship by explaining Christian suffering and martyrdom in light of the victory over evil won by Jesus’ death and resurrection. John was concerned to show that the martyrs (e.g., Antipas, 2:13) will be vindicated. He disclosed the end both of evil and of those who follow the Beast (19:20-21; 20:10, 15), and he described the ultimate victory of the Lamb and of those who follow him.<\/p>\n\nContent<\/p>\nThe main contents of Revelation are arranged in series of seven items, some explicit, some implied: seven churches (chs 2–3), seven seals (chs 6–7), seven trumpets (chs 8–11), seven bowls (chs 16–18), seven last things (chs 19–22). It is also possible to divide the contents around four key visions: (1) the vision of the Son of Man among the seven churches (chs 1–3); (2) the vision of the seven-sealed scroll, the seven trumpets, and the seven bowls (4:1–19:10); (3) the vision of the return of Christ and the consummation of this age (19:11–20:15); and (4) the vision of the new heaven and new earth (chs 21–22).<\/p>\n<h5>John’s Introduction (1:1-8)<\/h5>\nThe first three chapters of Revelation form a unit and are comparatively easy to understand. They are the most familiar and contain an introduction to the whole book (1:1-8); the first vision, of the Son of Man among the seven lampstands (1:9-20); and the letters or messages to the seven churches in Asia (2:1–3:22).<\/p>\nThe first eight verses introduce the whole book. They are freighted with theological content and detail. After a brief preface (1:1-3), John addresses the book to the seven churches of Asia in an expanded ancient letter form (vv 4-8).<\/p>\n<h5>The Son of Man among the Lampstands (1:9-20)<\/h5>\nAfter a brief indication of the historical situation that occasioned it (1:9-11), John describes his vision of “someone, like a son of man,” walking among seven golden lampstands (vv 12-16). The person identifies himself as the exalted Lord, Jesus Christ (vv 17-18), and then explains the meaning of the symbolic vision (vv 19-20). Finally, the Lord addresses a rather detailed and specific message to each of the seven churches in Asia (2:1–3:22).<\/p>\n<h5>The Letters to the Seven Churches (2:1–3:22)<\/h5>\nThese seven churches contained typical or representative qualities of both obedience and disobedience that are a constant reminder to all churches throughout every age (cf. 2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22; esp. 2:23). Their order (1:11; 2:1–3:22) reflects the natural ancient travel circuit beginning at Ephesus and arriving finally at Laodicea.<\/p>\nEach message generally follows a common literary plan consisting of seven parts:<\/p>\n1. The addressee is given first, following a common pattern in all seven letters: “To the angel of the church in Ephesus, write. . . .”<\/p>\n<li>2. Then the speaker is mentioned. In each case, some part of the great vision of Christ and of his self-identification (1:12-20) is repeated as the speaker identifies himself; for example, “This is the message from the one who holds the seven stars in his right hand, the one who walks among the seven gold lampstands” (2:1; cf. 1:13, 16).<\/li>\n<li>3. Next, the knowledge of the speaker is given. He intimately knows the works of the churches and the reality of their loyalty to him, despite outward appearances. In two cases (Sardis and Laodicea) the assessment proves totally negative. The enemy of Christ’s churches is the deceiver, Satan, who seeks to undermine the churches’ loyalty to Christ (2:10, 24).<\/li>\n<li>4. Following his assessment of the churches’ accomplishments, the speaker pronounces his verdict on their condition in such words as “You do not love me as you did at first” (2:4) or “You are dead” (3:1). Two letters contain no unfavorable verdict (Smyrna, Philadelphia) and two no word of commendation (Sardis, Laodicea). In the letters, all derelictions are viewed as forms of inner betrayals of a prior relation to Christ.<\/li>\n<li>5. To correct or alert each congregation, Jesus issues a penetrating command. These commands further expose the exact nature of the self-deception involved.<\/li>\n<li>6. Each letter contains the general exhortation: “Anyone who is willing to hear should listen to the Spirit and understand what the Spirit is saying to the churches.” The words of the Spirit are the words of Christ (cf. 19:10).<\/li>\n<li>7. Finally, each letter contains a promise of reward to the victor. Each is eschatological and correlates with the last two chapters of the book. Furthermore, the promises are echoes of Genesis 2–3: what was lost by Adam in Eden is more than regained by Christ. We are probably to understand the seven promises as different facets that combine to make up one great promise to believers: wherever Christ is, there the “overcomers” will be.<\/li>\n<h5>The Seven-Sealed Scroll (4:1–8:1)<\/h5>\nIn view of the elaborate use of imagery and visions from 4:1 through the end of Revelation, and in view of the question of how this material relates to chapters 1–3, it is not surprising that commentators differ widely in their treatment of these chapters.<\/p>\n<h6>The Throne, the Scroll, and the Lamb (4:1–5:14)<\/h6>\nChapters 4–5 form one vision consisting of two parts: the throne (ch 4) and the Lamb and the scroll (ch 5). Actually, the throne vision (chs 4–5) and the breaking of all seven seals (chs 6–8) form a single, continuous vision and should not be separated; indeed, the throne vision should be viewed as dominating the entire vision of the seven-sealed scroll, and, for that matter, the rest of the book (cf. 22:3).<\/p>\nA new view of God’s majesty and power is disclosed to John so that he can understand the events on earth that relate to the seven-sealed vision (4:1-11; cf. 1 Kgs 22:19). For the first time in Revelation, the reader is introduced to the frequent interchange between heaven and earth found in the remainder of the book. What happens on earth has its inseparable heavenly counterpart.<\/p>\nChapter 5 is part of the vision that begins with chapter 4 and continues through the opening of the seven seals (Rv 6:1–8:1; cf. introduction to ch 4). The movement of the whole scene focuses on the slain Lamb as he takes the scroll from the hand of the one on the throne. The culminating emphasis is on the worthiness of the Lamb to receive worship because of his death.<\/p>\n<h6>Opening of the First Six Seals (6:1-17)<\/h6>\nThe opening of the seals continues the vision begun in chapters 4 and 5. Now the scene shifts to events on earth. The scroll itself involves the rest of Revelation and has to do with the consummation of the mystery of all things, the goal or end of history for both the overcomers and the worshipers of the beast. The writer tentatively suggests that the seals represent events preparatory to the final consummation. Whether these events come immediately before the end or whether they represent general conditions that will prevail throughout the period preceding the end is a more difficult question.<\/p>\nThe seals closely parallel the signs of the approaching end times spoken of by Jesus in his Olivet discourse (Mt 24:1-35; Mk 13:1-37; Lk 21:5-33). This parallel to major parts of Revelation is too striking to be ignored. Thus the seals would correspond to the “beginning of birth pains” in the Olivet discourse. The events are similar to those occurring under the trumpets (Rv 8:2–11:19) and bowls (15:1–16:21) but should not be confused with those late and more severe judgments.<\/p>\n<h6>First Interlude: The 144,000 Israelites and the White-Robed Multitude (7:1-17)<\/h6>\nThe change in tone from the subject matter in the sixth seal, as well as the delay until 8:1 in opening the seventh seal, indicate that chapter 7 is a true interlude. John first sees the angels, who will unleash destruction on the earth, restrained until the 144,000 servants of God from every tribe of Israel are sealed (vv 1-8). Then he sees an innumerable multitude clothed in white standing before the throne of God; these are identified as those who have come out of the great tribulation (vv 9-17).<\/p>\nSome scholars separate the two groups into Jews and Gentiles at large, while others see the two groups as one group viewed from different perspectives.<\/p>\n<h6>The Opening of the Seventh Seal (8:1)<\/h6>\nAfter the interlude (ch 7), the final seal is opened and silence for half an hour occurs in heaven to prepare for judgment on earth or to hear the cries of the martyrs on earth (cf. 6:10).<\/p>\n<h5>The First Six Trumpets (8:2–11:14)<\/h5>\nAfter a preparatory scene in heaven (8:2-5), the six trumpets are blown in succession (8:6–9:19), followed again by an interlude (10:1–11:14).<\/p>\n<h6>The First Six Trumpets (8:6–9:21)<\/h6>\nOpinion differs, but it may be best to see the first five seals as preceding the events of the trumpets and bowls. But the sixth seal enters into the period of the outpouring of God’s wrath that is enacted in the trumpet and bowl judgments (6:12-17). The trumpet judgments thus occur during the seventh seal, and the bowl judgments (16:1-21), during the seventh trumpet’s sounding. Therefore, there is some overlapping, but also sequence and advancement, between the seals, trumpets, and bowls.<\/p>\nAs in the seals, there is a discernible literary pattern in the unfolding of the trumpets. The first four trumpets are separated from the last three, which are called “woes” (8:13; 9:12; 11:14) and are generally reminiscent of the plagues in the book of Exodus.<\/p>\nThe last three trumpets are emphasized and are also called “woes” (8:13) because they are so severe. The first of these involves an unusual plague of locusts (9:1-11) and the second a plague of scorpionlike creatures (vv 13-19). Both of these plagues can best be seen as demonic hordes (cf. vv 1, 11).<\/p>\n<h6>The Second Interlude: The Little Book and the Two Witnesses (10:1–11:14)<\/h6>\nThe major point of chapter 10 seems to be a confirmation of John’s prophetic call, as verse 11 indicates: “You must prophesy again about many peoples, nations, languages and kings” (niv<\/span>). More specifically, the contents of the little scroll (book) may include chapters 11, 12, and 13.<\/p>\nChapter 11 is notoriously difficult. It includes a reference to measuring the temple, the altar, and the worshipers, and to the trampling down of the Holy City for 42 months (11:1-2), as well as the description of the two prophet-witnesses who are killed and raised to life (vv 3-13). Opinions vary considerably here; some see this vision as depicting the restored Jewish nation, with the actual prophets Moses and Elijah being revived. Others see the temple as the true church being protected by God during the tribulation and the two witnesses representing the whole faithful church under persecution.<\/p>\n<h5>The Seventh Trumpet (11:15–14:20)<\/h5>\nThe seventh trumpet sounds, and in heaven loud voices proclaim the final triumph of God and Christ over the world. The theme is the kingdom of God and Christ—a dual kingdom, eternal in its duration. The image suggests the transference of the world empire once dominated by a usurping power, now taken by the hand of its true Owner and King. The announcement of the reign of the King is made here, but the final breaking of the enemies’ hold over the world does not occur until the return of Christ (19:11-21).<\/p>\n<h6>The Woman and the Dragon (12:1-17)<\/h6>\nIn this chapter there are three main figures: the woman, the child, and the dragon. There are also three scenes: the birth of the child (vv 1-6), the expulsion of the dragon (vv 7-12), and the dragon’s attack on the woman and her children (vv 13-17).<\/p>\nSince the context indicates that the woman under attack represents a continuous entity from the birth of Christ until at least John’s day or later, her identity in the author’s mind must be the Christian community.<\/p>\nThe woman is in the throes of childbirth (v 2). The emphasis is on her pain and suffering, both physical and spiritual. The meaning of her anguish is that the faithful Christian community has been suffering as a prelude to the coming of the Messiah himself and of the new age (Is 26:17; 66:7-8; Mi 4:10; 5:3).<\/p>\n<h6>The Two Beasts (13:1-18)<\/h6>\nTurning from the inner dynamics of the struggle (ch 12), chapter 13 shifts to the actual earthly instruments of this assault against God’s people—namely, the two dragon-energized beasts. The activities of the two beasts constitute the way the dragon carries out his final attempts to wage war on the offspring of the woman (12:17).<\/p>\nThe dragon and the first beast enter into a conspiracy to seduce the whole world into worshiping the beast. The conspirators summon a third figure to their aid—the beast from the earth, who must be sufficiently similar to the Lamb to entice even the followers of Jesus. As the battle progresses, the dragon’s deception becomes more and more subtle. Thus, the readers are called on to discern the criteria that will enable them to separate the lamblike beast from the Lamb himself (cf. 13:11 with 14:1).<\/p>\n<h6>The Harvest of the Earth (14:1-20)<\/h6>\nThe two previous chapters have prepared Christians for the reality that, as the end draws near, they will be harassed and sacrificed like sheep. This section shows that their sacrifice is not meaningless. In chapter 7 the 144,000 were merely sealed; here, however, they are seen as already delivered. When the floods have passed, Mt Zion appears high above the waters; the Lamb is on the throne of glory, surrounded by the triumphant songs of his own; the gracious presence of God fills the universe.<\/p>\nChapter 14 briefly answers two pressing questions: What becomes of those who refuse to receive the mark of the beast and are killed (vv 1-5)? What happens to the beast and his servants (vv 6-20)?<\/p>\n<h5>The Seven Bowls (15:1–19:10)<\/h5>\nThe series of bowl judgments constitutes the “third woe,” announced in 11:14 as “coming soon” (see comments on 11:14). These last plagues take place “immediately after the distress of those days” referred to by Jesus in the Olivet discourse and may well be the fulfillment of his apocalyptic words: “The sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken” (Mt 24:29, niv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h6>Preparation: The Seven Angels with the Seven Last plagues (15:1-8)<\/h6>\nChapter 15 is related to the OT account of the exodus and is strongly suggestive of the liturgical tradition of the ancient synagogue. The chapter has two main visions: the first portrays the victors who have emerged triumphant from the great ordeal (vv 2-4); the second relates the emergence from the heavenly temple of the seven angels clothed in white and gold who hold the seven bowls of the last plagues (vv 5-8).<\/p>\n<h6>The Pouring Out of the Bowl Judgments (16:1-21)<\/h6>\nThese occur in rapid succession with only a brief pause for a dialogue between the third angel and the altar, accentuating the justice of God’s punishments (vv 5-7). This rapid succession is probably due to John’s desire to give a telescopic view of the first six bowls and to hasten then on to the seventh, where the far more interesting judgment on Babylon occurs, concerning which the author will give a detailed account. The final three plagues are social and spiritual in their effect and shift from nature to humanity.<\/p>\n<h6>The Prostitute and the Beast (17:1-18)<\/h6>\nTo a majority of modern interpreters, Babylon represents the city of Rome. The beast stands for the Roman Empire as a whole, including its provinces and peoples. However, it is not sufficient simply to identify Babylon with Rome. For that matter, Babylon cannot be confined to any one historical manifestation, past or future; it has multiple equivalents (cf. 11:8). Babylon is found wherever there is satanic deception. Babylon is better understood here as the archetypal head of all entrenched worldly resistance to God. Babylon is a transhistorical reality that includes idolatrous kingdoms as diverse as Sodom, Egypt, Babylon, Tyre, Nineveh, and Rome. Babylon is an eschatological symbol of satanic deception and power; it is a divine mystery that can never be wholly reducible to empirical earthly institutions. Babylon represents the total culture of the world apart from God, while the divine system is depicted by the New Jerusalem. Rome is simply one manifestation of the total system.<\/p>\n<h6>The Fall of Babylon the Great (18:1-24)<\/h6>\nChapter 18 contains the description of the previously announced judgment on the prostitute (17:1). Under the imagery of the destruction of a great commercial city, John describes the final overthrow of the great prostitute, Babylon.<\/p>\n<h6>Thanksgiving for the Destruction of Babylon (19:1-5)<\/h6>\nIn stark contrast to the laments of Babylon’s consorts, the heavenly choirs burst forth in a great liturgy of celebration to God.<\/p>\n<h6>The Marriage of the Lamb (19:6-10)<\/h6>\nFinally, the cycle of praise is completed with the reverberating sounds of another great multitude (v 6): the redeemed throng (cf. 7:9). They utter the final Hallel in words reminiscent of the great royal psalms (Pss 93:1; 97:1; 99:1).<\/p>\n<h5>The Vision of the Return of Christ and the Consummation of the Age (19:11–20:15)<\/h5>\n<h6>The First and Second Last Things: The Rider on the White Horse and the Destruction of the Beast (19:11-21)<\/h6>\nThis vision, which depicts the return of Christ and the final overthrow of the beast, may be viewed as the climax of the previous section (vv 1-10) or as the first of a final series of seven last things—namely, the return of Christ; the defeat of the beast; the binding of Satan; the Millennium; the release and final end of Satan; the last judgment; and the new heaven, the new earth, and the new Jerusalem.<\/p>\nAlthough Satan has been dealt a death blow at the cross (cf. Jn 12:31; 16:11), he nevertheless continues to promulgate evil and deception during this present age (cf. Eph 2:2; 1 Thes 3:5; 1 Pt 5:8-9; Rv 2:10). Yet he is a deposed ruler who is now under the sovereign authority of Christ. Satan is allowed to continue his evil for a short time until God’s purposes are finished. In this scene of the overthrow of the beast, his kings, and their armies, John shows us the ultimate and swift destruction of these evil powers by the King of kings and Lord of lords. They have met their Master in this final and utterly real confrontation (Rv 19:17-21).<\/p>\n<h6>The Third and Fourth Last Things: The Binding of Satan and the Millennium (20:1-6)<\/h6>\nThe Millennium has been called one of the most controversial and intriguing questions of eschatology. The main problem is whether the reference to a Millennium (thousand years) indicates an earthly historical reign of peace that will manifest itself at the close of this present age, or whether the whole passage is symbolic of some present experience of Christians or some future nonhistorical reality. The former view is called premillennial (i.e., Christ’s second coming precedes the Millennium), the latter is amillennial (i.e., there is no literal Millenium).<\/p>\nThe binding of Satan removes his deceptive activities from the earth (vv 1-3) during the time the martyred saints are resurrected and rule with Christ (vv 4-6).<\/p>\n<h6>The Fifth Last Thing: The Release and Final End of Satan (20:7-10)<\/h6>\nIn Ezekiel 38–39, “Gog” refers to the prince of a host of pagan invaders from the North, especially the Scythian hordes from the distant land of Magog. In Revelation, however, the names are symbolic of the final enemies of Christ duped by Satan into attacking the community of the saints.<\/p>\n<h6>The Sixth Last Thing: The Great White Throne Judgment (20:11-15)<\/h6>\nThe language of poetic imagery captures the fading character of everything that is of the world (1 Jn 2:15-17). Now the only reality is God seated on the throne of judgment, before whom all must appear (Heb 9:27). His verdict is holy and righteous (expressed symbolically by the white throne). This vision declares that even though it may have seemed that the course of earth’s history ran contrary to his holy will, no single day or hour in the world’s drama has ever detracted from the absolute sovereignty of God.<\/p>\n<h6>The Seventh Last Thing: The New Heaven and the New Earth and the New Jerusalem (21:1–22:5)<\/h6>\nJohn here discloses a theology in stone, gold as pure as glass, and color. Archetypal images abound. The church is called the bride (21:2). God gives the thirsty “the springs of the water of life without charge!” (v 6). Completeness is implied in the number 12 and its multiples (vv 12-14, 16-17, 21), and fullness in the cubical shape of the city (v 16). Colorful jewels abound, as do references to light and the glory of God (21:11, 18-21, 23-25; 22:5). There is the “river of the water of life” (22:1) and the “tree of life” (v 2). The “sea” is gone (21:1).<\/p>\nAllusions to the OT abound. Most of John’s imagery in this chapter reflects Isaiah 60 and 65 and Ezekiel 40–48. John weaves Isaiah’s vision of the new Jerusalem together with Ezekiel’s vision of the new temple. The multiple OT promises converging in John’s mind seem to indicate that he viewed the new Jerusalem as the fulfillment of all these strands of prophecy. There are also allusions to Genesis 1–3: the absence of death and suffering, the dwelling of God with his people as in Eden, the tree of life, the removal of the curse. Creation is restored to its pristine character.<\/p>\nThe connection of this vision with the promises to the overcomers in the letters to the seven churches (Rv 2–3) is significant. For example, to the overcomers at Ephesus was granted the right to the tree of life (2:7; cf. 22:2); at Thyatira, the right to rule the nations (2:26; cf. 22:5); at Philadelphia, the name of the city of God, the new Jerusalem (3:12; cf. 21:2, 9-27). In a sense, a strand from every major section of the Apocalypse appears in chapters 21–22.<\/p>\n<h5>John’s Conclusion (22:6-21)<\/h5>\nWith consummate artistry, the words of the introduction (1:1-8) are sounded again in the conclusion: the book ends with the voices of the angel, Jesus, the Spirit, the bride, and finally John: “Amen. Come, Lord Jesus” (22:20).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Apocalyptic; Daniel, Book of; Eschatology; John, the Apostle.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>REVELATION, Book of<\/h3>\nLast book of the Bible, containing revelations concerning the events of the last days.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Author<\/p>\n• Date, Origin, Destination<\/p>\n• Background<\/p>\n• Methods of Interpreting Revelation<\/p>\n• Purpose and Teaching<\/p>\n• Content<\/p>\n\nAuthor<\/p>\nThe earliest witnesses ascribe the authorship of Revelation to John the apostle, the son of Zebedee. Dionysius, the distinguished bishop of Alexandria and student of Origen (early third century), was the first within the church to question its apostolic authorship because it seemed to him that the writing style differed greatly from that found in the fourth Gospel, attributed to John. From the time of Dionysius, the apostolic origin of the book was disputed in the East until Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 350) turned the tide toward its acceptance. In the West, the book was widely accepted and was included in all the principal lists of canonical books from at least the middle of the second century on.<\/p>\nFrom the internal evidence, the following things can be said about the author with some confidence. He calls himself John (Rv 1:4, 9; 22:8). This is most likely not a pseudonym but rather the name of a person well known among the Asian churches. This John identifies himself as a prophet (1:3; 22:6-10, 18-19) who was in exile because of his prophetic witness (1:9). As such, he speaks to the churches with great authority. His use of the OT and Targums makes it virtually certain that he was a Palestinian Jew, steeped in the ritual of the temple and synagogue. John the apostle fits this profile. The difference between the style of the fourth Gospel and that of Revelation can be explained by the radically different genres of the two books. The Gospel is a composed historical narrative, whereas the book of Revelation is a record of visionary experiences and direct divine revelation. The writer of the Gospel could take his time in crafting a narrative word by word and sentence by sentence. The writer of Revelation was compelled by God to write down immediately whatever he was told or was shown. Thus, the apostle John could easily have been the writer of both. In any event, no convincing argument has been advanced against his authorship.<\/p>\nDate, Origin, Destination<\/p>\nOnly two dates for Revelation have received serious support. An early date, shortly after the reign of Nero (AD<\/span> 54–68), is allegedly supported by references in the book to the persecution of Christians, to the Nero redivivus<\/em> myth (a revived Nero would be the reincarnation of the evil genius of the whole Roman Empire), to the imperial cult (ch 13), and to the temple (ch 11), which was destroyed in AD<\/span> 70. The alternate date rests primarily on the early witness of Irenaeus, who stated that the apostle John “saw the revelation . . . at the close of Domitian’s reign” (AD<\/span> 81–96).<\/p>\nThe origin of the book is clearly identified with Patmos, one of the Sporades Islands, located about 37 miles (59.5 kilometers) southwest of Miletus, in the Icarian Sea (1:9). John was apparently exiled on the island due to religious and\/or government persecutions arising from his witness to Jesus (1:9).<\/p>\nLikewise, the recipients are clearly the seven historic churches in the Roman province of Asia (modern western Turkey): Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea (1:4, 11; 2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14).<\/p>\nBackground<\/p>\nThe book of Revelation differs from the other NT writings, not in doctrine but in literary genre and subject matter. It is a book of prophecy (1:3; 22:7, 18-19) that contains both warning and consolation—announcements of future judgment and blessing— communicated by means of symbols and visions.<\/p>\nThe language and imagery were not as strange to first-century readers as they are today. Therefore, familiarity with the prophetic books of the OT, especially Daniel and Ezekiel, will help the reader grasp the message of the Apocalypse.<\/p>\nWhile the symbolic and visionary mode of presentation creates ambiguity and frustration for many, it actually lends to the description of unseen realities a poignancy and clarity unattainable by any other method. Such language can trigger a variety of ideas, associations, existential involvement, and mystical responses that the straight prose found in most of the NT cannot achieve.<\/p>\nThe letters to the churches indicate that five of the seven were in serious trouble. The major problem seemed to be disloyalty to Christ; this may indicate that the major thrust of Revelation is not sociopolitical but theological. John was more concerned with countering the heresy that was creeping into the churches toward the close of the first century than with addressing the political situation. This heresy seems to have been a type of Gnostic teaching.<\/p>\nRevelation is also commonly viewed as belonging to the group of writings known as apocalyptic literature. The name for this type of literature is derived from the Greek word for “revelation”: apokalupsis<\/span>.<\/em> The extrabiblical apocalyptic books were written in the period from 200 BC<\/span> to AD<\/span> 200. Although numerous similarities exist, there are also some clear differences.<\/p>\nMuch more important than the Jewish apocalyptic sources is the debt John owes to the eschatological teaching of Jesus, such as the Olivet discourse (Mt 24–25; Mk 13; Lk 21). Revelation is unique in its use of the OT. Of the 404 verses of the Apocalypse, 278 contain references to the Jewish Scriptures. John refers frequently to Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel, and also repeatedly to Exodus, Deuteronomy, and the Psalms. However, he rarely quotes the OT directly.<\/p>\nMethods of Interpreting Revelation<\/p>\nFour traditional ways of understanding Revelation 4–22 have emerged in the history of the church:<\/p>\n<h5>Futurist<\/h5>\nThis view holds that, with the exception of chapters 1–3, all the visions in Revelation relate to a period immediately preceding and following the second advent of Christ at the end of the age. The beasts (chs 13, 17) are identified with the future Antichrist, who will appear at the last moment in world history and will be defeated by Christ in his second coming to judge the world and to establish his earthly millennial kingdom.<\/p>\nVariations of this view were held by the earliest expositors, such as Justin Martyr (d. 164), Irenaeus (d. c. 195), Hippolytus (d. 236), and Victorinus (d. c. 303). This futurist approach has enjoyed a revival since the 19th century and is widely held among evangelicals today.<\/p>\n<h5>Historicist<\/h5>\nAs the word implies, this view sees in Revelation a prophetic survey of history. It originated with Joachim of Floris (d. 1202), a monastic who claimed to have received a special vision that revealed to him God’s plan for the ages. He assigned a day-year value to the 1,260 days of Revelation. In his scheme, the book is a prophecy of the events of Western history from the time of the apostles until Joachim’s own time. In the various schemes that developed as this method was applied to history, one element became common: the Antichrist and Babylon were connected with Rome and the papacy. Later, Luther, Calvin, and other Reformers came to adopt this view.<\/p>\n<h5>Preterist<\/h5>\nAccording to this view, Revelation deals with the time of its author; the main contents of chapters are thus viewed as describing events wholly limited to John’s own day. The beasts (ch 13) are identified as imperial Rome and the imperial priesthood. This is the view held by many contemporary scholars.<\/p>\n<h5>Idealist<\/h5>\nThis method of interpreting Revelation sees it as being basically poetic, symbolic, and spiritual in nature. Thus Revelation does not predict any specific historical events at all; on the contrary, it sets forth timeless truths concerning the battle between good and evil that continues throughout the church age. As a system of interpretation, it is more recent than the other three schools.<\/p>\nPurpose and Teaching<\/p>\nNT scholar H. B. Swete wrote of Revelation: “In form it is an epistle, containing an apocalyptic prophecy; in spirit and inner purpose, it is a pastoral.” As a prophet, John was called to separate true from false belief—to expose the failures of the congregations in Asia. He desired to encourage authentic Christian discipleship by explaining Christian suffering and martyrdom in light of the victory over evil won by Jesus’ death and resurrection. John was concerned to show that the martyrs (e.g., Antipas, 2:13) will be vindicated. He disclosed the end both of evil and of those who follow the Beast (19:20-21; 20:10, 15), and he described the ultimate victory of the Lamb and of those who follow him.<\/p>\n\nContent<\/p>\nThe main contents of Revelation are arranged in series of seven items, some explicit, some implied: seven churches (chs 2–3), seven seals (chs 6–7), seven trumpets (chs 8–11), seven bowls (chs 16–18), seven last things (chs 19–22). It is also possible to divide the contents around four key visions: (1) the vision of the Son of Man among the seven churches (chs 1–3); (2) the vision of the seven-sealed scroll, the seven trumpets, and the seven bowls (4:1–19:10); (3) the vision of the return of Christ and the consummation of this age (19:11–20:15); and (4) the vision of the new heaven and new earth (chs 21–22).<\/p>\n<h5>John’s Introduction (1:1-8)<\/h5>\nThe first three chapters of Revelation form a unit and are comparatively easy to understand. They are the most familiar and contain an introduction to the whole book (1:1-8); the first vision, of the Son of Man among the seven lampstands (1:9-20); and the letters or messages to the seven churches in Asia (2:1–3:22).<\/p>\nThe first eight verses introduce the whole book. They are freighted with theological content and detail. After a brief preface (1:1-3), John addresses the book to the seven churches of Asia in an expanded ancient letter form (vv 4-8).<\/p>\n<h5>The Son of Man among the Lampstands (1:9-20)<\/h5>\nAfter a brief indication of the historical situation that occasioned it (1:9-11), John describes his vision of “someone, like a son of man,” walking among seven golden lampstands (vv 12-16). The person identifies himself as the exalted Lord, Jesus Christ (vv 17-18), and then explains the meaning of the symbolic vision (vv 19-20). Finally, the Lord addresses a rather detailed and specific message to each of the seven churches in Asia (2:1–3:22).<\/p>\n<h5>The Letters to the Seven Churches (2:1–3:22)<\/h5>\nThese seven churches contained typical or representative qualities of both obedience and disobedience that are a constant reminder to all churches throughout every age (cf. 2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22; esp. 2:23). Their order (1:11; 2:1–3:22) reflects the natural ancient travel circuit beginning at Ephesus and arriving finally at Laodicea.<\/p>\nEach message generally follows a common literary plan consisting of seven parts:<\/p>\n1. The addressee is given first, following a common pattern in all seven letters: “To the angel of the church in Ephesus, write. . . .”<\/p>\n<li>2. Then the speaker is mentioned. In each case, some part of the great vision of Christ and of his self-identification (1:12-20) is repeated as the speaker identifies himself; for example, “This is the message from the one who holds the seven stars in his right hand, the one who walks among the seven gold lampstands” (2:1; cf. 1:13, 16).<\/li>\n<li>3. Next, the knowledge of the speaker is given. He intimately knows the works of the churches and the reality of their loyalty to him, despite outward appearances. In two cases (Sardis and Laodicea) the assessment proves totally negative. The enemy of Christ’s churches is the deceiver, Satan, who seeks to undermine the churches’ loyalty to Christ (2:10, 24).<\/li>\n<li>4. Following his assessment of the churches’ accomplishments, the speaker pronounces his verdict on their condition in such words as “You do not love me as you did at first” (2:4) or “You are dead” (3:1). Two letters contain no unfavorable verdict (Smyrna, Philadelphia) and two no word of commendation (Sardis, Laodicea). In the letters, all derelictions are viewed as forms of inner betrayals of a prior relation to Christ.<\/li>\n<li>5. To correct or alert each congregation, Jesus issues a penetrating command. These commands further expose the exact nature of the self-deception involved.<\/li>\n<li>6. Each letter contains the general exhortation: “Anyone who is willing to hear should listen to the Spirit and understand what the Spirit is saying to the churches.” The words of the Spirit are the words of Christ (cf. 19:10).<\/li>\n<li>7. Finally, each letter contains a promise of reward to the victor. Each is eschatological and correlates with the last two chapters of the book. Furthermore, the promises are echoes of Genesis 2–3: what was lost by Adam in Eden is more than regained by Christ. We are probably to understand the seven promises as different facets that combine to make up one great promise to believers: wherever Christ is, there the “overcomers” will be.<\/li>\n<h5>The Seven-Sealed Scroll (4:1–8:1)<\/h5>\nIn view of the elaborate use of imagery and visions from 4:1 through the end of Revelation, and in view of the question of how this material relates to chapters 1–3, it is not surprising that commentators differ widely in their treatment of these chapters.<\/p>\n<h6>The Throne, the Scroll, and the Lamb (4:1–5:14)<\/h6>\nChapters 4–5 form one vision consisting of two parts: the throne (ch 4) and the Lamb and the scroll (ch 5). Actually, the throne vision (chs 4–5) and the breaking of all seven seals (chs 6–8) form a single, continuous vision and should not be separated; indeed, the throne vision should be viewed as dominating the entire vision of the seven-sealed scroll, and, for that matter, the rest of the book (cf. 22:3).<\/p>\nA new view of God’s majesty and power is disclosed to John so that he can understand the events on earth that relate to the seven-sealed vision (4:1-11; cf. 1 Kgs 22:19). For the first time in Revelation, the reader is introduced to the frequent interchange between heaven and earth found in the remainder of the book. What happens on earth has its inseparable heavenly counterpart.<\/p>\nChapter 5 is part of the vision that begins with chapter 4 and continues through the opening of the seven seals (Rv 6:1–8:1; cf. introduction to ch 4). The movement of the whole scene focuses on the slain Lamb as he takes the scroll from the hand of the one on the throne. The culminating emphasis is on the worthiness of the Lamb to receive worship because of his death.<\/p>\n<h6>Opening of the First Six Seals (6:1-17)<\/h6>\nThe opening of the seals continues the vision begun in chapters 4 and 5. Now the scene shifts to events on earth. The scroll itself involves the rest of Revelation and has to do with the consummation of the mystery of all things, the goal or end of history for both the overcomers and the worshipers of the beast. The writer tentatively suggests that the seals represent events preparatory to the final consummation. Whether these events come immediately before the end or whether they represent general conditions that will prevail throughout the period preceding the end is a more difficult question.<\/p>\nThe seals closely parallel the signs of the approaching end times spoken of by Jesus in his Olivet discourse (Mt 24:1-35; Mk 13:1-37; Lk 21:5-33). This parallel to major parts of Revelation is too striking to be ignored. Thus the seals would correspond to the “beginning of birth pains” in the Olivet discourse. The events are similar to those occurring under the trumpets (Rv 8:2–11:19) and bowls (15:1–16:21) but should not be confused with those late and more severe judgments.<\/p>\n<h6>First Interlude: The 144,000 Israelites and the White-Robed Multitude (7:1-17)<\/h6>\nThe change in tone from the subject matter in the sixth seal, as well as the delay until 8:1 in opening the seventh seal, indicate that chapter 7 is a true interlude. John first sees the angels, who will unleash destruction on the earth, restrained until the 144,000 servants of God from every tribe of Israel are sealed (vv 1-8). Then he sees an innumerable multitude clothed in white standing before the throne of God; these are identified as those who have come out of the great tribulation (vv 9-17).<\/p>\nSome scholars separate the two groups into Jews and Gentiles at large, while others see the two groups as one group viewed from different perspectives.<\/p>\n<h6>The Opening of the Seventh Seal (8:1)<\/h6>\nAfter the interlude (ch 7), the final seal is opened and silence for half an hour occurs in heaven to prepare for judgment on earth or to hear the cries of the martyrs on earth (cf. 6:10).<\/p>\n<h5>The First Six Trumpets (8:2–11:14)<\/h5>\nAfter a preparatory scene in heaven (8:2-5), the six trumpets are blown in succession (8:6–9:19), followed again by an interlude (10:1–11:14).<\/p>\n<h6>The First Six Trumpets (8:6–9:21)<\/h6>\nOpinion differs, but it may be best to see the first five seals as preceding the events of the trumpets and bowls. But the sixth seal enters into the period of the outpouring of God’s wrath that is enacted in the trumpet and bowl judgments (6:12-17). The trumpet judgments thus occur during the seventh seal, and the bowl judgments (16:1-21), during the seventh trumpet’s sounding. Therefore, there is some overlapping, but also sequence and advancement, between the seals, trumpets, and bowls.<\/p>\nAs in the seals, there is a discernible literary pattern in the unfolding of the trumpets. The first four trumpets are separated from the last three, which are called “woes” (8:13; 9:12; 11:14) and are generally reminiscent of the plagues in the book of Exodus.<\/p>\nThe last three trumpets are emphasized and are also called “woes” (8:13) because they are so severe. The first of these involves an unusual plague of locusts (9:1-11) and the second a plague of scorpionlike creatures (vv 13-19). Both of these plagues can best be seen as demonic hordes (cf. vv 1, 11).<\/p>\n<h6>The Second Interlude: The Little Book and the Two Witnesses (10:1–11:14)<\/h6>\nThe major point of chapter 10 seems to be a confirmation of John’s prophetic call, as verse 11 indicates: “You must prophesy again about many peoples, nations, languages and kings” (niv<\/span>). More specifically, the contents of the little scroll (book) may include chapters 11, 12, and 13.<\/p>\nChapter 11 is notoriously difficult. It includes a reference to measuring the temple, the altar, and the worshipers, and to the trampling down of the Holy City for 42 months (11:1-2), as well as the description of the two prophet-witnesses who are killed and raised to life (vv 3-13). Opinions vary considerably here; some see this vision as depicting the restored Jewish nation, with the actual prophets Moses and Elijah being revived. Others see the temple as the true church being protected by God during the tribulation and the two witnesses representing the whole faithful church under persecution.<\/p>\n<h5>The Seventh Trumpet (11:15–14:20)<\/h5>\nThe seventh trumpet sounds, and in heaven loud voices proclaim the final triumph of God and Christ over the world. The theme is the kingdom of God and Christ—a dual kingdom, eternal in its duration. The image suggests the transference of the world empire once dominated by a usurping power, now taken by the hand of its true Owner and King. The announcement of the reign of the King is made here, but the final breaking of the enemies’ hold over the world does not occur until the return of Christ (19:11-21).<\/p>\n<h6>The Woman and the Dragon (12:1-17)<\/h6>\nIn this chapter there are three main figures: the woman, the child, and the dragon. There are also three scenes: the birth of the child (vv 1-6), the expulsion of the dragon (vv 7-12), and the dragon’s attack on the woman and her children (vv 13-17).<\/p>\nSince the context indicates that the woman under attack represents a continuous entity from the birth of Christ until at least John’s day or later, her identity in the author’s mind must be the Christian community.<\/p>\nThe woman is in the throes of childbirth (v 2). The emphasis is on her pain and suffering, both physical and spiritual. The meaning of her anguish is that the faithful Christian community has been suffering as a prelude to the coming of the Messiah himself and of the new age (Is 26:17; 66:7-8; Mi 4:10; 5:3).<\/p>\n<h6>The Two Beasts (13:1-18)<\/h6>\nTurning from the inner dynamics of the struggle (ch 12), chapter 13 shifts to the actual earthly instruments of this assault against God’s people—namely, the two dragon-energized beasts. The activities of the two beasts constitute the way the dragon carries out his final attempts to wage war on the offspring of the woman (12:17).<\/p>\nThe dragon and the first beast enter into a conspiracy to seduce the whole world into worshiping the beast. The conspirators summon a third figure to their aid—the beast from the earth, who must be sufficiently similar to the Lamb to entice even the followers of Jesus. As the battle progresses, the dragon’s deception becomes more and more subtle. Thus, the readers are called on to discern the criteria that will enable them to separate the lamblike beast from the Lamb himself (cf. 13:11 with 14:1).<\/p>\n<h6>The Harvest of the Earth (14:1-20)<\/h6>\nThe two previous chapters have prepared Christians for the reality that, as the end draws near, they will be harassed and sacrificed like sheep. This section shows that their sacrifice is not meaningless. In chapter 7 the 144,000 were merely sealed; here, however, they are seen as already delivered. When the floods have passed, Mt Zion appears high above the waters; the Lamb is on the throne of glory, surrounded by the triumphant songs of his own; the gracious presence of God fills the universe.<\/p>\nChapter 14 briefly answers two pressing questions: What becomes of those who refuse to receive the mark of the beast and are killed (vv 1-5)? What happens to the beast and his servants (vv 6-20)?<\/p>\n<h5>The Seven Bowls (15:1–19:10)<\/h5>\nThe series of bowl judgments constitutes the “third woe,” announced in 11:14 as “coming soon” (see comments on 11:14). These last plagues take place “immediately after the distress of those days” referred to by Jesus in the Olivet discourse and may well be the fulfillment of his apocalyptic words: “The sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken” (Mt 24:29, niv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h6>Preparation: The Seven Angels with the Seven Last plagues (15:1-8)<\/h6>\nChapter 15 is related to the OT account of the exodus and is strongly suggestive of the liturgical tradition of the ancient synagogue. The chapter has two main visions: the first portrays the victors who have emerged triumphant from the great ordeal (vv 2-4); the second relates the emergence from the heavenly temple of the seven angels clothed in white and gold who hold the seven bowls of the last plagues (vv 5-8).<\/p>\n<h6>The Pouring Out of the Bowl Judgments (16:1-21)<\/h6>\nThese occur in rapid succession with only a brief pause for a dialogue between the third angel and the altar, accentuating the justice of God’s punishments (vv 5-7). This rapid succession is probably due to John’s desire to give a telescopic view of the first six bowls and to hasten then on to the seventh, where the far more interesting judgment on Babylon occurs, concerning which the author will give a detailed account. The final three plagues are social and spiritual in their effect and shift from nature to humanity.<\/p>\n<h6>The Prostitute and the Beast (17:1-18)<\/h6>\nTo a majority of modern interpreters, Babylon represents the city of Rome. The beast stands for the Roman Empire as a whole, including its provinces and peoples. However, it is not sufficient simply to identify Babylon with Rome. For that matter, Babylon cannot be confined to any one historical manifestation, past or future; it has multiple equivalents (cf. 11:8). Babylon is found wherever there is satanic deception. Babylon is better understood here as the archetypal head of all entrenched worldly resistance to God. Babylon is a transhistorical reality that includes idolatrous kingdoms as diverse as Sodom, Egypt, Babylon, Tyre, Nineveh, and Rome. Babylon is an eschatological symbol of satanic deception and power; it is a divine mystery that can never be wholly reducible to empirical earthly institutions. Babylon represents the total culture of the world apart from God, while the divine system is depicted by the New Jerusalem. Rome is simply one manifestation of the total system.<\/p>\n<h6>The Fall of Babylon the Great (18:1-24)<\/h6>\nChapter 18 contains the description of the previously announced judgment on the prostitute (17:1). Under the imagery of the destruction of a great commercial city, John describes the final overthrow of the great prostitute, Babylon.<\/p>\n<h6>Thanksgiving for the Destruction of Babylon (19:1-5)<\/h6>\nIn stark contrast to the laments of Babylon’s consorts, the heavenly choirs burst forth in a great liturgy of celebration to God.<\/p>\n<h6>The Marriage of the Lamb (19:6-10)<\/h6>\nFinally, the cycle of praise is completed with the reverberating sounds of another great multitude (v 6): the redeemed throng (cf. 7:9). They utter the final Hallel in words reminiscent of the great royal psalms (Pss 93:1; 97:1; 99:1).<\/p>\n<h5>The Vision of the Return of Christ and the Consummation of the Age (19:11–20:15)<\/h5>\n<h6>The First and Second Last Things: The Rider on the White Horse and the Destruction of the Beast (19:11-21)<\/h6>\nThis vision, which depicts the return of Christ and the final overthrow of the beast, may be viewed as the climax of the previous section (vv 1-10) or as the first of a final series of seven last things—namely, the return of Christ; the defeat of the beast; the binding of Satan; the Millennium; the release and final end of Satan; the last judgment; and the new heaven, the new earth, and the new Jerusalem.<\/p>\nAlthough Satan has been dealt a death blow at the cross (cf. Jn 12:31; 16:11), he nevertheless continues to promulgate evil and deception during this present age (cf. Eph 2:2; 1 Thes 3:5; 1 Pt 5:8-9; Rv 2:10). Yet he is a deposed ruler who is now under the sovereign authority of Christ. Satan is allowed to continue his evil for a short time until God’s purposes are finished. In this scene of the overthrow of the beast, his kings, and their armies, John shows us the ultimate and swift destruction of these evil powers by the King of kings and Lord of lords. They have met their Master in this final and utterly real confrontation (Rv 19:17-21).<\/p>\n<h6>The Third and Fourth Last Things: The Binding of Satan and the Millennium (20:1-6)<\/h6>\nThe Millennium has been called one of the most controversial and intriguing questions of eschatology. The main problem is whether the reference to a Millennium (thousand years) indicates an earthly historical reign of peace that will manifest itself at the close of this present age, or whether the whole passage is symbolic of some present experience of Christians or some future nonhistorical reality. The former view is called premillennial (i.e., Christ’s second coming precedes the Millennium), the latter is amillennial (i.e., there is no literal Millenium).<\/p>\nThe binding of Satan removes his deceptive activities from the earth (vv 1-3) during the time the martyred saints are resurrected and rule with Christ (vv 4-6).<\/p>\n<h6>The Fifth Last Thing: The Release and Final End of Satan (20:7-10)<\/h6>\nIn Ezekiel 38–39, “Gog” refers to the prince of a host of pagan invaders from the North, especially the Scythian hordes from the distant land of Magog. In Revelation, however, the names are symbolic of the final enemies of Christ duped by Satan into attacking the community of the saints.<\/p>\n<h6>The Sixth Last Thing: The Great White Throne Judgment (20:11-15)<\/h6>\nThe language of poetic imagery captures the fading character of everything that is of the world (1 Jn 2:15-17). Now the only reality is God seated on the throne of judgment, before whom all must appear (Heb 9:27). His verdict is holy and righteous (expressed symbolically by the white throne). This vision declares that even though it may have seemed that the course of earth’s history ran contrary to his holy will, no single day or hour in the world’s drama has ever detracted from the absolute sovereignty of God.<\/p>\n<h6>The Seventh Last Thing: The New Heaven and the New Earth and the New Jerusalem (21:1–22:5)<\/h6>\nJohn here discloses a theology in stone, gold as pure as glass, and color. Archetypal images abound. The church is called the bride (21:2). God gives the thirsty “the springs of the water of life without charge!” (v 6). Completeness is implied in the number 12 and its multiples (vv 12-14, 16-17, 21), and fullness in the cubical shape of the city (v 16). Colorful jewels abound, as do references to light and the glory of God (21:11, 18-21, 23-25; 22:5). There is the “river of the water of life” (22:1) and the “tree of life” (v 2). The “sea” is gone (21:1).<\/p>\nAllusions to the OT abound. Most of John’s imagery in this chapter reflects Isaiah 60 and 65 and Ezekiel 40–48. John weaves Isaiah’s vision of the new Jerusalem together with Ezekiel’s vision of the new temple. The multiple OT promises converging in John’s mind seem to indicate that he viewed the new Jerusalem as the fulfillment of all these strands of prophecy. There are also allusions to Genesis 1–3: the absence of death and suffering, the dwelling of God with his people as in Eden, the tree of life, the removal of the curse. Creation is restored to its pristine character.<\/p>\nThe connection of this vision with the promises to the overcomers in the letters to the seven churches (Rv 2–3) is significant. For example, to the overcomers at Ephesus was granted the right to the tree of life (2:7; cf. 22:2); at Thyatira, the right to rule the nations (2:26; cf. 22:5); at Philadelphia, the name of the city of God, the new Jerusalem (3:12; cf. 21:2, 9-27). In a sense, a strand from every major section of the Apocalypse appears in chapters 21–22.<\/p>\n<h5>John’s Conclusion (22:6-21)<\/h5>\nWith consummate artistry, the words of the introduction (1:1-8) are sounded again in the conclusion: the book ends with the voices of the angel, Jesus, the Spirit, the bride, and finally John: “Amen. Come, Lord Jesus” (22:20).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Apocalyptic; Daniel, Book of; Eschatology; John, the Apostle.<\/p>","summary_ro":"REVELATION, Book of Last book of the Bible, containing revelations concerning the events of the last days. Preview • Author • Date, Origin, Destination • Background • Methods of Interpreting Revelation • Purpose and Teaching • Content Author The earliest witnesses ascribe the authorship of Revelation to John the apostle, the son of Zebedee. Dionysius, the distinguished bishop of Alexandria and student of Origen (early third century), was the first within the church to question its apostolic a...","summary_en":"REVELATION, Book of Last book of the Bible, containing revelations concerning the events of the last days. Preview • Author • Date, Origin, Destination • Background • Methods of Interpreting Revelation • Purpose and Teaching • Content Author The earliest witnesses ascribe the authorship of Revelation to John the apostle, the son of Zebedee. Dionysius, the distinguished bishop of Alexandria and student of Origen (early third century), was the first within the church to question its apostolic a...","source":"Articles\/R.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":34528,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Sex, Sexuality*","title_en":"Sex, Sexuality*","content_ro":"<h3>SEX, SEXUALITY*<\/h3>\nUnlike some religious and philosophical systems, the Bible takes a positive view of human sexuality. According to the OT’s account of Creation, it was God himself who made people sexual beings. Being male or female is part of what it means to be created in the image of God (Gn 1:26-28). Above everything else, therefore, sexuality is a precious aspect of what a person is,<\/em> not merely a description of what he or she does.<\/em><\/p>\nIn line with this positive approach, the OT sees nothing embarrassing in the bodily differences between the sexes (Gn 2:25) and nothing shameful in physical expressions of lovemaking (Prv 5:18-19; Eccl 9:9). The Song of Songs, in particular, is a most beautiful love poem. Its powerful language should not be so spiritualized that the physical passion it describes is stripped of its delight and candor.<\/p>\nPaul strikes the same positive note in his letters to Corinth and to Timothy at Ephesus. Sexual vice was rampant in both these cities. Partly as a reaction to this, a negative, ascetic attitude was threatening to take control in the life of Christians. Marriage was being forbidden (1 Tm 4:3) and married couples were abstaining from sexual intercourse in the belief that this would help them to become more spiritually mature (cf. 1 Cor 7:5).<\/p>\nPaul had no hesitation in branding such attitudes as heretical. Recalling his readers to the message of Genesis, he encouraged them to receive God’s gifts thankfully (1 Tm 4:3-5). Husbands and wives, he writes, are mutually obliged to satisfy each other’s sexual needs (1 Cor 7:3-4).<\/p>\nMost obviously, God made sex for procreation (Gn 1:28). But sex is for relationship as well as procreation. Genesis 2 describes how God made woman to fill man’s relationship vacuum (2:18-24). The relational purpose of human sexuality embraces far more than physical intercourse. In this broad sense, being male or being female is a God-given aid to making all sorts of relationships, including some not normally thought of as sexual at all.<\/p>\nThe Bible does not, of course, ignore the darker side of human nature. Having described the goodness of sex in the Creator’s perfect plan, Genesis goes on to explain how man’s disobedience to God spoiled sex, just as it spoiled every other aspect of human life.<\/p>\nNudity became a matter of embarrassment and fear, as men and women eyed each other as sex objects instead of as people with physical differences (Gn 3:7-10). On the relational side, trust and tenderness gave way to betrayal and harshness. Here lies the root cause of all the discrimination and abuse that fuel modern feminist protests. And procreation was spoiled, too, as the marvelous experience of childbirth was marred by unnecessary pain and distress.<\/p>\nThis is the context in which the Bible’s ban on extramarital intercourse should be read; it prohibits adultery (Ex 20:14) and any kind of extramarital or premarital sex (1 Cor 6:18; 1 Thes 4:3). The Bible does not usually pause to back up its prohibitions with arguments, but on the rare occasions when it does expand its veto on extramarital intercourse, the reasons given are highly instructive. There is no appeal to consequences (these things are wrong because they result in disease and unwanted babies) or even to motives (these things are wrong if they are done in an unloving spirit). All extramarital sex is wrong in itself,<\/em> simply because the body is not meant for sexual immorality and those who commit sexual sins sin against their own bodies (1 Cor 6:13, 18). Sexual intercourse is a unique kind of body language that the Creator has designed to express and seal that special, exclusive, life-long relationship between a man and a woman which the Bible labels “marriage.”<\/p>\nThe Bible also prohibits homosexuality (Lv 18:22; Rom 1:26-27; 1 Cor 6:9-10; 1 Tm 1:9-10). The only verses that provide an explanation for this prohibition are Romans 1:24-27. Essentially, these verses indicate that God gave up on those who gave up on him when they turned from worshiping the Creator to worshiping things God made—that is, when they became idolaters. As such, God abandoned them, as they abandoned themselves to their own sinful and sexual desires, especially practicing homosexuality. Thus, homosexuality is seen as a violation of the natural created order and thereby an offense to God the Creator who created men and women, male and female, for procreation.<\/p>\nThe Bible’s advice to anyone caught up in sexual temptation is practical: flee from temptation. When Joseph was invited by another man’s wife to go to bed with her, he left his cloak in her hand and ran out of the house (Gn 39:12). And Paul tells his Christian readers to follow Joseph’s good example (1 Cor 6:18; 2 Tm 2:22). This is an acknowledgment of the power of the normal person’s sex drive, not a counsel of despair. The power of the Holy Spirit, Paul taught, gives any believer the strength to win the war against sexual temptation. He knew Christians who had found the Spirit’s power to gain self-control and conquer the most deeply ingrained habits (1 Cor 6:9-11; Gal 5:22-23; 2 Tm 1:7).<\/p>\nFinally, there is a strong hint in the NT that God is going to end human sexuality just as he began it. There will be no marriage, Jesus taught, in heaven (Mt 22:30). That is an unlikely but fitting climax to the Bible’s teaching on sex and sexuality. When there is no more death, the need to procreate will be over. And when relationships are perfectly loving, there will no longer be any need for a sexual prop to support them. So both of God’s main purposes for human sexuality will be perfectly fulfilled in eternity.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Divorce; Family Life and Relations; Man; Marriage, Marriage Customs; Virgin; Woman.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SEX, SEXUALITY*<\/h3>\nUnlike some religious and philosophical systems, the Bible takes a positive view of human sexuality. According to the OT’s account of Creation, it was God himself who made people sexual beings. Being male or female is part of what it means to be created in the image of God (Gn 1:26-28). Above everything else, therefore, sexuality is a precious aspect of what a person is,<\/em> not merely a description of what he or she does.<\/em><\/p>\nIn line with this positive approach, the OT sees nothing embarrassing in the bodily differences between the sexes (Gn 2:25) and nothing shameful in physical expressions of lovemaking (Prv 5:18-19; Eccl 9:9). The Song of Songs, in particular, is a most beautiful love poem. Its powerful language should not be so spiritualized that the physical passion it describes is stripped of its delight and candor.<\/p>\nPaul strikes the same positive note in his letters to Corinth and to Timothy at Ephesus. Sexual vice was rampant in both these cities. Partly as a reaction to this, a negative, ascetic attitude was threatening to take control in the life of Christians. Marriage was being forbidden (1 Tm 4:3) and married couples were abstaining from sexual intercourse in the belief that this would help them to become more spiritually mature (cf. 1 Cor 7:5).<\/p>\nPaul had no hesitation in branding such attitudes as heretical. Recalling his readers to the message of Genesis, he encouraged them to receive God’s gifts thankfully (1 Tm 4:3-5). Husbands and wives, he writes, are mutually obliged to satisfy each other’s sexual needs (1 Cor 7:3-4).<\/p>\nMost obviously, God made sex for procreation (Gn 1:28). But sex is for relationship as well as procreation. Genesis 2 describes how God made woman to fill man’s relationship vacuum (2:18-24). The relational purpose of human sexuality embraces far more than physical intercourse. In this broad sense, being male or being female is a God-given aid to making all sorts of relationships, including some not normally thought of as sexual at all.<\/p>\nThe Bible does not, of course, ignore the darker side of human nature. Having described the goodness of sex in the Creator’s perfect plan, Genesis goes on to explain how man’s disobedience to God spoiled sex, just as it spoiled every other aspect of human life.<\/p>\nNudity became a matter of embarrassment and fear, as men and women eyed each other as sex objects instead of as people with physical differences (Gn 3:7-10). On the relational side, trust and tenderness gave way to betrayal and harshness. Here lies the root cause of all the discrimination and abuse that fuel modern feminist protests. And procreation was spoiled, too, as the marvelous experience of childbirth was marred by unnecessary pain and distress.<\/p>\nThis is the context in which the Bible’s ban on extramarital intercourse should be read; it prohibits adultery (Ex 20:14) and any kind of extramarital or premarital sex (1 Cor 6:18; 1 Thes 4:3). The Bible does not usually pause to back up its prohibitions with arguments, but on the rare occasions when it does expand its veto on extramarital intercourse, the reasons given are highly instructive. There is no appeal to consequences (these things are wrong because they result in disease and unwanted babies) or even to motives (these things are wrong if they are done in an unloving spirit). All extramarital sex is wrong in itself,<\/em> simply because the body is not meant for sexual immorality and those who commit sexual sins sin against their own bodies (1 Cor 6:13, 18). Sexual intercourse is a unique kind of body language that the Creator has designed to express and seal that special, exclusive, life-long relationship between a man and a woman which the Bible labels “marriage.”<\/p>\nThe Bible also prohibits homosexuality (Lv 18:22; Rom 1:26-27; 1 Cor 6:9-10; 1 Tm 1:9-10). The only verses that provide an explanation for this prohibition are Romans 1:24-27. Essentially, these verses indicate that God gave up on those who gave up on him when they turned from worshiping the Creator to worshiping things God made—that is, when they became idolaters. As such, God abandoned them, as they abandoned themselves to their own sinful and sexual desires, especially practicing homosexuality. Thus, homosexuality is seen as a violation of the natural created order and thereby an offense to God the Creator who created men and women, male and female, for procreation.<\/p>\nThe Bible’s advice to anyone caught up in sexual temptation is practical: flee from temptation. When Joseph was invited by another man’s wife to go to bed with her, he left his cloak in her hand and ran out of the house (Gn 39:12). And Paul tells his Christian readers to follow Joseph’s good example (1 Cor 6:18; 2 Tm 2:22). This is an acknowledgment of the power of the normal person’s sex drive, not a counsel of despair. The power of the Holy Spirit, Paul taught, gives any believer the strength to win the war against sexual temptation. He knew Christians who had found the Spirit’s power to gain self-control and conquer the most deeply ingrained habits (1 Cor 6:9-11; Gal 5:22-23; 2 Tm 1:7).<\/p>\nFinally, there is a strong hint in the NT that God is going to end human sexuality just as he began it. There will be no marriage, Jesus taught, in heaven (Mt 22:30). That is an unlikely but fitting climax to the Bible’s teaching on sex and sexuality. When there is no more death, the need to procreate will be over. And when relationships are perfectly loving, there will no longer be any need for a sexual prop to support them. So both of God’s main purposes for human sexuality will be perfectly fulfilled in eternity.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Divorce; Family Life and Relations; Man; Marriage, Marriage Customs; Virgin; Woman.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SEX, SEXUALITY* Unlike some religious and philosophical systems, the Bible takes a positive view of human sexuality. According to the OT’s account of Creation, it was God himself who made people sexual beings. Being male or female is part of what it means to be created in the image of God (Gn 1:26-28). Above everything else, therefore, sexuality is a precious aspect of what a person is, not merely a description of what he or she does. In line with this positive approach, the OT sees nothing e...","summary_en":"SEX, SEXUALITY* Unlike some religious and philosophical systems, the Bible takes a positive view of human sexuality. According to the OT’s account of Creation, it was God himself who made people sexual beings. Being male or female is part of what it means to be created in the image of God (Gn 1:26-28). Above everything else, therefore, sexuality is a precious aspect of what a person is, not merely a description of what he or she does. In line with this positive approach, the OT sees nothing e...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":38542,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Woman","title_en":"Woman","content_ro":"<h3>WOMAN<\/h3>\nMan’s companion created by God.<\/p>\nHer Creation<\/p>\nGenesis provides two accounts of the creation of the first man and woman. In the first, Genesis 1:26-28, God created humans in his image, as male and female. Hence, the female shares with the male the image of God, reflects his power and majesty on earth, and is commanded to multiply and bring dominion to the earth. From Genesis 1:26-28 there is no suggestion of inferiority of the female to the male, nor is there any suggestion of her submission to his dominance. Rather, they are pictured together, the male and the female, as the representation of their Maker.<\/p>\nGenesis 2:20-25 is the second portrayal of the creation of the first woman. In Genesis 2 the male was made before the female, a point that seems to give him some precedence. This may not be pressed too far, however, as the pattern in the creation texts is to move progressively from the lesser to the finer work! Yet it is because of his prior creation that the male is given the prerogative to name the female (Gn 2:23). In Semitic thought, the giving of names signifies dominion or ownership. This means that Adam’s naming of his wife was an act of lordship. However, the name that he gives her is the equivalent to his own, meaning the male affirmed her equality with him. Paradoxically, then, this hierarchical relationship is also a relationship of equals.<\/p>\nThe situation in Genesis 1 and 2 reveals a balanced relationship between the man and the woman who were the parents of all mankind: two persons who were altogether equal in status as coheirs of the mystery of the image of God and yet who dwell in a delicate one-to-one relationship in which one is the leader of the other. In Eden before the fall, this delicate balance was possible.<\/p>\nHer Downfall and Plight<\/p>\nGenesis 3, the story of the fall of mankind, speaks of the breaking of the delicate balance between the man and the woman and the ensuing struggles that have been passed down through the ages. In God’s words to the woman, he announced the pain that would accompany her childbearing (Gn 3:16) and the conflict of interests that would affect her relationship with her husband: “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you” (niv<\/span>). The Hebrew term “desire” (<\/em>teshuqah<\/span>)<\/em> in the Genesis 3 and 4 passages is not a sexual longing but a desire to control, to master, to be in charge (the use of teshuqah<\/span> meaning sexual desire is seen in Sg 7:10). Consequently, after the fall, the desire of woman has been to dominate her husband. Her determination to reject his leadership in their relationship of equals is a breaking of the balance in their relationship. For his part, the man tends to tyrannize the woman.<\/p>\nTo the women who attempt to dominate their husbands, the apostle Paul says, “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord” (Eph 5:22, niv<\/span>). Her natural inclination needs transformation, so that she can submit to her husband as she submits to the Lord. For, Paul argues, the husband is to the wife as Christ is to the church (v 23). The husbands who tend to dominate their wives also need transformation so that they can love their wives, “just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (v 25, niv<\/span>). By these words, the apostle Paul was presenting a means whereby couples could regain the bliss in their relationship that was the mark of Eden before the fall. Paul’s citation of Genesis 2:24 in Ephesians 5:31 is a case in point: here a couple may regain the original oneness that God intended for them. The relationship of equal persons in a hierarchy of responsiveness is stated in the context of mutual submission, which is a mark of their greater submission to the Lord Jesus.<\/p>\nHer Role in Life according to the Bible<\/p>\nA woman is a person in every respect as a man; she shares in the image of God and has the potential of varied ranges of response to culture, community, and life about her. It is a fact of Scripture that women are regularly associated with, and find their sense of worth in, childbearing. Yet the same Scriptures show that the nature of woman is not exhausted by associations with childbearing: she has her own identity in the community, in the church, and before the Lord in the whole of her life, not just when (or if) she bears and nourishes a child. Further, the biblical concept of childbearing always involves the husband, who is her partner at conception, at her side during delivery, and partner with her in the ongoing task of nourishing the child.<\/p>\nThe image of the woman as the childbearer begins with the promise of God in Genesis 3:15, where he announced the ultimate victory over the evil one, Satan, by the offspring of the woman. This promise respecting the offspring of the woman became the universal blessing of God upon woman as the childbearer. Ultimately, through one born of a woman, there would come the final deliverance. There is a sense in which each birth experience is a participation in the continuity of this promise (see 1 Tm 2:15 and its possible relationship to this continuity of women, salvation, and childbearing).<\/p>\nFurther, in the culture of the OT world, a woman’s genuine worth was solely, or largely, perceived in terms of childbearing. Yet it is not in childbearing alone that she finds worth and dignity before God. For the woman, as for the man, the issue of faith in the Lord is central. A woman who has a household of children but no faith in God might regard herself as a fulfilled person. Yet her care of her children is no substitute for piety to God. A woman who has no children, and perhaps no husband, may have her full identity and worth in her relationship with the God in whose image she is made and whose tasks she is commissioned by him to do. The gifts of God in a woman’s life may lead her to find opportunities in the community to express her devotion to God. Women apparently had the same opportunities as men to take a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:2; see also ch 30).<\/p>\nCertain notable women in the Bible led lives of public service. Miriam, the sister of Moses and Aaron (Ex 15:20-21), was a prophetess, musician, and national leader (Nm 12). Long after her time, God spoke through his prophets of the gift he had given to Israel in the person of the national leader Miriam (Mi 6:4). There were other magnificent women who had exemplary lives: Deborah, the prophetess of God and the only named woman judge of Israel (Jgs 4–5); Esther, the Hebrew queen of Xerxes who saved her people from the rash acts of the Persian king, a result of a frightful conspiracy; and Huldah, the prophetess who was the agent of the Lord’s word to Josiah at the inception of his revival (2 Chr 34:22-28). Huldah’s reception and transmission of the word of the Lord is the more remarkable because she was a contemporary with Jeremiah and Zephaniah. In this case God chose to speak through a woman.<\/p>\nIn the NT, certain women were noted for their public ministries: the daughters of Philip, Phoebe, Priscilla, Junias, Tryphena, Tryphosa, Persis, Euodia, and Syntyche. These women mark the beginning of the fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy of a day in which women as well as men would be the instruments of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Jl 2:28-29). Women such as Sarah, Ruth, and Hannah exercised their faith in God in the context of the home and family as well. And preeminently there is Mary, mother of Jesus, in whom the ideal of womanhood is conjoined to the fulfillment of the ancient promise to Eve that she would one day be the great victor over the enemy of mankind.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Eve; Man.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>WOMAN<\/h3>\nMan’s companion created by God.<\/p>\nHer Creation<\/p>\nGenesis provides two accounts of the creation of the first man and woman. In the first, Genesis 1:26-28, God created humans in his image, as male and female. Hence, the female shares with the male the image of God, reflects his power and majesty on earth, and is commanded to multiply and bring dominion to the earth. From Genesis 1:26-28 there is no suggestion of inferiority of the female to the male, nor is there any suggestion of her submission to his dominance. Rather, they are pictured together, the male and the female, as the representation of their Maker.<\/p>\nGenesis 2:20-25 is the second portrayal of the creation of the first woman. In Genesis 2 the male was made before the female, a point that seems to give him some precedence. This may not be pressed too far, however, as the pattern in the creation texts is to move progressively from the lesser to the finer work! Yet it is because of his prior creation that the male is given the prerogative to name the female (Gn 2:23). In Semitic thought, the giving of names signifies dominion or ownership. This means that Adam’s naming of his wife was an act of lordship. However, the name that he gives her is the equivalent to his own, meaning the male affirmed her equality with him. Paradoxically, then, this hierarchical relationship is also a relationship of equals.<\/p>\nThe situation in Genesis 1 and 2 reveals a balanced relationship between the man and the woman who were the parents of all mankind: two persons who were altogether equal in status as coheirs of the mystery of the image of God and yet who dwell in a delicate one-to-one relationship in which one is the leader of the other. In Eden before the fall, this delicate balance was possible.<\/p>\nHer Downfall and Plight<\/p>\nGenesis 3, the story of the fall of mankind, speaks of the breaking of the delicate balance between the man and the woman and the ensuing struggles that have been passed down through the ages. In God’s words to the woman, he announced the pain that would accompany her childbearing (Gn 3:16) and the conflict of interests that would affect her relationship with her husband: “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you” (niv<\/span>). The Hebrew term “desire” (<\/em>teshuqah<\/span>)<\/em> in the Genesis 3 and 4 passages is not a sexual longing but a desire to control, to master, to be in charge (the use of teshuqah<\/span> meaning sexual desire is seen in Sg 7:10). Consequently, after the fall, the desire of woman has been to dominate her husband. Her determination to reject his leadership in their relationship of equals is a breaking of the balance in their relationship. For his part, the man tends to tyrannize the woman.<\/p>\nTo the women who attempt to dominate their husbands, the apostle Paul says, “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord” (Eph 5:22, niv<\/span>). Her natural inclination needs transformation, so that she can submit to her husband as she submits to the Lord. For, Paul argues, the husband is to the wife as Christ is to the church (v 23). The husbands who tend to dominate their wives also need transformation so that they can love their wives, “just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (v 25, niv<\/span>). By these words, the apostle Paul was presenting a means whereby couples could regain the bliss in their relationship that was the mark of Eden before the fall. Paul’s citation of Genesis 2:24 in Ephesians 5:31 is a case in point: here a couple may regain the original oneness that God intended for them. The relationship of equal persons in a hierarchy of responsiveness is stated in the context of mutual submission, which is a mark of their greater submission to the Lord Jesus.<\/p>\nHer Role in Life according to the Bible<\/p>\nA woman is a person in every respect as a man; she shares in the image of God and has the potential of varied ranges of response to culture, community, and life about her. It is a fact of Scripture that women are regularly associated with, and find their sense of worth in, childbearing. Yet the same Scriptures show that the nature of woman is not exhausted by associations with childbearing: she has her own identity in the community, in the church, and before the Lord in the whole of her life, not just when (or if) she bears and nourishes a child. Further, the biblical concept of childbearing always involves the husband, who is her partner at conception, at her side during delivery, and partner with her in the ongoing task of nourishing the child.<\/p>\nThe image of the woman as the childbearer begins with the promise of God in Genesis 3:15, where he announced the ultimate victory over the evil one, Satan, by the offspring of the woman. This promise respecting the offspring of the woman became the universal blessing of God upon woman as the childbearer. Ultimately, through one born of a woman, there would come the final deliverance. There is a sense in which each birth experience is a participation in the continuity of this promise (see 1 Tm 2:15 and its possible relationship to this continuity of women, salvation, and childbearing).<\/p>\nFurther, in the culture of the OT world, a woman’s genuine worth was solely, or largely, perceived in terms of childbearing. Yet it is not in childbearing alone that she finds worth and dignity before God. For the woman, as for the man, the issue of faith in the Lord is central. A woman who has a household of children but no faith in God might regard herself as a fulfilled person. Yet her care of her children is no substitute for piety to God. A woman who has no children, and perhaps no husband, may have her full identity and worth in her relationship with the God in whose image she is made and whose tasks she is commissioned by him to do. The gifts of God in a woman’s life may lead her to find opportunities in the community to express her devotion to God. Women apparently had the same opportunities as men to take a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:2; see also ch 30).<\/p>\nCertain notable women in the Bible led lives of public service. Miriam, the sister of Moses and Aaron (Ex 15:20-21), was a prophetess, musician, and national leader (Nm 12). Long after her time, God spoke through his prophets of the gift he had given to Israel in the person of the national leader Miriam (Mi 6:4). There were other magnificent women who had exemplary lives: Deborah, the prophetess of God and the only named woman judge of Israel (Jgs 4–5); Esther, the Hebrew queen of Xerxes who saved her people from the rash acts of the Persian king, a result of a frightful conspiracy; and Huldah, the prophetess who was the agent of the Lord’s word to Josiah at the inception of his revival (2 Chr 34:22-28). Huldah’s reception and transmission of the word of the Lord is the more remarkable because she was a contemporary with Jeremiah and Zephaniah. In this case God chose to speak through a woman.<\/p>\nIn the NT, certain women were noted for their public ministries: the daughters of Philip, Phoebe, Priscilla, Junias, Tryphena, Tryphosa, Persis, Euodia, and Syntyche. These women mark the beginning of the fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy of a day in which women as well as men would be the instruments of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Jl 2:28-29). Women such as Sarah, Ruth, and Hannah exercised their faith in God in the context of the home and family as well. And preeminently there is Mary, mother of Jesus, in whom the ideal of womanhood is conjoined to the fulfillment of the ancient promise to Eve that she would one day be the great victor over the enemy of mankind.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Eve; Man.<\/p>","summary_ro":"WOMAN Man’s companion created by God. Her Creation Genesis provides two accounts of the creation of the first man and woman. In the first, Genesis 1:26-28, God created humans in his image, as male and female. Hence, the female shares with the male the image of God, reflects his power and majesty on earth, and is commanded to multiply and bring dominion to the earth. From Genesis 1:26-28 there is no suggestion of inferiority of the female to the male, nor is there any suggestion of her submiss...","summary_en":"WOMAN Man’s companion created by God. Her Creation Genesis provides two accounts of the creation of the first man and woman. In the first, Genesis 1:26-28, God created humans in his image, as male and female. Hence, the female shares with the male the image of God, reflects his power and majesty on earth, and is commanded to multiply and bring dominion to the earth. From Genesis 1:26-28 there is no suggestion of inferiority of the female to the male, nor is there any suggestion of her submiss...","source":"Articles\/W.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":42836,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:1","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:1","content_ro":"2:1-3<\/strong> Humankind is the high point of God’s creative acts (1:26-31), while day 7 is the climax of the creation week. When God rested<\/em>, he endorsed all of creation—there was nothing more to do! This seven-day framework structured Israel’s week, with the seventh day<\/em> as the precedent for their weekly Sabbath. The Sabbath was intended to celebrate God’s finished work; the seventh day would be set apart as holy<\/em> and dedicated to the Creator, who also rested (see Exod 20:8-11; 31:12-17; cp. Matt 12:1-8; Rom 14:5-6; Col 2:16-17; Heb 4:1-11).<\/p>","content_en":"2:1-3<\/strong> Humankind is the high point of God’s creative acts (1:26-31), while day 7 is the climax of the creation week. When God rested<\/em>, he endorsed all of creation—there was nothing more to do! This seven-day framework structured Israel’s week, with the seventh day<\/em> as the precedent for their weekly Sabbath. The Sabbath was intended to celebrate God’s finished work; the seventh day would be set apart as holy<\/em> and dedicated to the Creator, who also rested (see Exod 20:8-11; 31:12-17; cp. Matt 12:1-8; Rom 14:5-6; Col 2:16-17; Heb 4:1-11).<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:1-3 Humankind is the high point of God’s creative acts (1:26-31), while day 7 is the climax of the creation week. When God rested, he endorsed all of creation—there was nothing more to do! This seven-day framework structured Israel’s week, with the seventh day as the precedent for their weekly Sabbath. The Sabbath was intended to celebrate God’s finished work; the seventh day would be set apart as holy and dedicated to the Creator, who also rested (see Exod 20:8-11; 31:12-17; cp. Matt 12:1-...","summary_en":"2:1-3 Humankind is the high point of God’s creative acts (1:26-31), while day 7 is the climax of the creation week. When God rested, he endorsed all of creation—there was nothing more to do! This seven-day framework structured Israel’s week, with the seventh day as the precedent for their weekly Sabbath. The Sabbath was intended to celebrate God’s finished work; the seventh day would be set apart as holy and dedicated to the Creator, who also rested (see Exod 20:8-11; 31:12-17; cp. Matt 12:1-...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":70462,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:1","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:1","content_ro":"2:1-3<\/strong> Humankind is the high point of God’s creative acts (1:26-31), while day 7 is the climax of the creation week. When God rested<\/em>, he endorsed all of creation—there was nothing more to do! This seven-day framework structured Israel’s week, with the seventh day<\/em> as the precedent for their weekly Sabbath. The Sabbath was intended to celebrate God’s finished work; the seventh day would be set apart as holy<\/em> and dedicated to the Creator, who also rested (see Exod 20:8-11; 31:12-17; cp. Matt 12:1-8; Rom 14:5-6; Col 2:16-17; Heb 4:1-11).<\/p>","content_en":"2:1-3<\/strong> Humankind is the high point of God’s creative acts (1:26-31), while day 7 is the climax of the creation week. When God rested<\/em>, he endorsed all of creation—there was nothing more to do! This seven-day framework structured Israel’s week, with the seventh day<\/em> as the precedent for their weekly Sabbath. The Sabbath was intended to celebrate God’s finished work; the seventh day would be set apart as holy<\/em> and dedicated to the Creator, who also rested (see Exod 20:8-11; 31:12-17; cp. Matt 12:1-8; Rom 14:5-6; Col 2:16-17; Heb 4:1-11).<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:1-3 Humankind is the high point of God’s creative acts (1:26-31), while day 7 is the climax of the creation week. When God rested, he endorsed all of creation—there was nothing more to do! This seven-day framework structured Israel’s week, with the seventh day as the precedent for their weekly Sabbath. The Sabbath was intended to celebrate God’s finished work; the seventh day would be set apart as holy and dedicated to the Creator, who also rested (see Exod 20:8-11; 31:12-17; cp. Matt 12:1-...","summary_en":"2:1-3 Humankind is the high point of God’s creative acts (1:26-31), while day 7 is the climax of the creation week. When God rested, he endorsed all of creation—there was nothing more to do! This seven-day framework structured Israel’s week, with the seventh day as the precedent for their weekly Sabbath. The Sabbath was intended to celebrate God’s finished work; the seventh day would be set apart as holy and dedicated to the Creator, who also rested (see Exod 20:8-11; 31:12-17; cp. Matt 12:1-...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":98088,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:1","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:1","content_ro":"2:1-3<\/strong> Humankind is the high point of God’s creative acts (1:26-31), while day 7 is the climax of the creation week. When God rested<\/em>, he endorsed all of creation—there was nothing more to do! This seven-day framework structured Israel’s week, with the seventh day<\/em> as the precedent for their weekly Sabbath. The Sabbath was intended to celebrate God’s finished work; the seventh day would be set apart as holy<\/em> and dedicated to the Creator, who also rested (see Exod 20:8-11; 31:12-17; cp. Matt 12:1-8; Rom 14:5-6; Col 2:16-17; Heb 4:1-11).<\/p>","content_en":"2:1-3<\/strong> Humankind is the high point of God’s creative acts (1:26-31), while day 7 is the climax of the creation week. When God rested<\/em>, he endorsed all of creation—there was nothing more to do! This seven-day framework structured Israel’s week, with the seventh day<\/em> as the precedent for their weekly Sabbath. The Sabbath was intended to celebrate God’s finished work; the seventh day would be set apart as holy<\/em> and dedicated to the Creator, who also rested (see Exod 20:8-11; 31:12-17; cp. Matt 12:1-8; Rom 14:5-6; Col 2:16-17; Heb 4:1-11).<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:1-3 Humankind is the high point of God’s creative acts (1:26-31), while day 7 is the climax of the creation week. When God rested, he endorsed all of creation—there was nothing more to do! This seven-day framework structured Israel’s week, with the seventh day as the precedent for their weekly Sabbath. The Sabbath was intended to celebrate God’s finished work; the seventh day would be set apart as holy and dedicated to the Creator, who also rested (see Exod 20:8-11; 31:12-17; cp. Matt 12:1-...","summary_en":"2:1-3 Humankind is the high point of God’s creative acts (1:26-31), while day 7 is the climax of the creation week. When God rested, he endorsed all of creation—there was nothing more to do! This seven-day framework structured Israel’s week, with the seventh day as the precedent for their weekly Sabbath. The Sabbath was intended to celebrate God’s finished work; the seventh day would be set apart as holy and dedicated to the Creator, who also rested (see Exod 20:8-11; 31:12-17; cp. Matt 12:1-...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":125714,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:1","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:1","content_ro":"2:1-3<\/strong> Humankind is the high point of God’s creative acts (1:26-31), while day 7 is the climax of the creation week. When God rested<\/em>, he endorsed all of creation—there was nothing more to do! This seven-day framework structured Israel’s week, with the seventh day<\/em> as the precedent for their weekly Sabbath. The Sabbath was intended to celebrate God’s finished work; the seventh day would be set apart as holy<\/em> and dedicated to the Creator, who also rested (see Exod 20:8-11; 31:12-17; cp. Matt 12:1-8; Rom 14:5-6; Col 2:16-17; Heb 4:1-11).<\/p>","content_en":"2:1-3<\/strong> Humankind is the high point of God’s creative acts (1:26-31), while day 7 is the climax of the creation week. When God rested<\/em>, he endorsed all of creation—there was nothing more to do! This seven-day framework structured Israel’s week, with the seventh day<\/em> as the precedent for their weekly Sabbath. The Sabbath was intended to celebrate God’s finished work; the seventh day would be set apart as holy<\/em> and dedicated to the Creator, who also rested (see Exod 20:8-11; 31:12-17; cp. Matt 12:1-8; Rom 14:5-6; Col 2:16-17; Heb 4:1-11).<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:1-3 Humankind is the high point of God’s creative acts (1:26-31), while day 7 is the climax of the creation week. When God rested, he endorsed all of creation—there was nothing more to do! This seven-day framework structured Israel’s week, with the seventh day as the precedent for their weekly Sabbath. The Sabbath was intended to celebrate God’s finished work; the seventh day would be set apart as holy and dedicated to the Creator, who also rested (see Exod 20:8-11; 31:12-17; cp. Matt 12:1-...","summary_en":"2:1-3 Humankind is the high point of God’s creative acts (1:26-31), while day 7 is the climax of the creation week. When God rested, he endorsed all of creation—there was nothing more to do! This seven-day framework structured Israel’s week, with the seventh day as the precedent for their weekly Sabbath. The Sabbath was intended to celebrate God’s finished work; the seventh day would be set apart as holy and dedicated to the Creator, who also rested (see Exod 20:8-11; 31:12-17; cp. Matt 12:1-...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":63734,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Beauty in Nature","title_en":"Beauty in Nature","content_ro":"<h3>Beauty in Nature<\/h3>\nAt the end of God’s work of Creation, God declared that everything he had made was “very good” (Gen 1:31). The beauty and wonder of God’s creation is often reflected on in Scripture, particularly in the psalms (see, e.g., Ps 8:3-4; Ps 104:1-35).<\/p>\nNature—and imagery from nature—also features prominently in the Song of Songs. The man and woman in the Song often express sexual intimacy in the countryside (2:8-17; 4:12–5:1; 6:2-3, 11-12), a place of pleasant fragrances and secluded meeting places. The garden, vineyard, and orchard create intimate and pleasant settings and evoke a romantic mood. The mystique of nature provides them with the environment in which their love is the most rustic, and at the same time the most exotic and exhilarating. Additionally, the couple uses extensive metaphors from nature to describe each other’s physical attributes and their arousing effects. Their portrayal of each other leads them to use illustrations from God’<\/p>\nNature points people to the Creator, as it contains evidence of his power, goodness, justice, and love (see Ps 19:1-4; Rom 1:18-20). God’s penchant for redemption, restoration, and new creation is also evidenced in many ways through the beauty of nature—for instance, in the changing of seasons, the growth of plants, and the birth of children.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:1-9; Pss 8:3-8; 19:1-6; 96:5-6; Song 2:8-17; 4:12–5:1; 6:2-3, 11-12; 7:10-13; Matt 6:26-30<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Beauty in Nature<\/h3>\nAt the end of God’s work of Creation, God declared that everything he had made was “very good” (Gen 1:31). The beauty and wonder of God’s creation is often reflected on in Scripture, particularly in the psalms (see, e.g., Ps 8:3-4; Ps 104:1-35).<\/p>\nNature—and imagery from nature—also features prominently in the Song of Songs. The man and woman in the Song often express sexual intimacy in the countryside (2:8-17; 4:12–5:1; 6:2-3, 11-12), a place of pleasant fragrances and secluded meeting places. The garden, vineyard, and orchard create intimate and pleasant settings and evoke a romantic mood. The mystique of nature provides them with the environment in which their love is the most rustic, and at the same time the most exotic and exhilarating. Additionally, the couple uses extensive metaphors from nature to describe each other’s physical attributes and their arousing effects. Their portrayal of each other leads them to use illustrations from God’<\/p>\nNature points people to the Creator, as it contains evidence of his power, goodness, justice, and love (see Ps 19:1-4; Rom 1:18-20). God’s penchant for redemption, restoration, and new creation is also evidenced in many ways through the beauty of nature—for instance, in the changing of seasons, the growth of plants, and the birth of children.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:1-9; Pss 8:3-8; 19:1-6; 96:5-6; Song 2:8-17; 4:12–5:1; 6:2-3, 11-12; 7:10-13; Matt 6:26-30<\/p>","summary_ro":"Beauty in Nature At the end of God’s work of Creation, God declared that everything he had made was “very good” (Gen 1:31). The beauty and wonder of God’s creation is often reflected on in Scripture, particularly in the psalms (see, e.g., Ps 8:3-4; Ps 104:1-35). Nature—and imagery from nature—also features prominently in the Song of Songs. The man and woman in the Song often express sexual intimacy in the countryside (2:8-17; 4:12–5:1; 6:2-3, 11-12), a place of pleasant fragrances and seclude...","summary_en":"Beauty in Nature At the end of God’s work of Creation, God declared that everything he had made was “very good” (Gen 1:31). The beauty and wonder of God’s creation is often reflected on in Scripture, particularly in the psalms (see, e.g., Ps 8:3-4; Ps 104:1-35). Nature—and imagery from nature—also features prominently in the Song of Songs. The man and woman in the Song often express sexual intimacy in the countryside (2:8-17; 4:12–5:1; 6:2-3, 11-12), a place of pleasant fragrances and seclude...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":67639,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"God’s Sabbath Rest","title_en":"God’s Sabbath Rest","content_ro":"<h3>God’s Sabbath Rest<\/h3>\nThe concept of God’s Sabbath rest, as found in Hebrews 4:1-11, has been a theological puzzle for commentators. The notion carries various connotations from the Old Testament, including the Promised Land as a place to rest from slavery and wandering and the Sabbath day as a weekly day of rest. In Hebrews 3:7-19, the author expounds on Psalm 95:7-11 and offers the wilderness wanderers as an example of those who failed to enter God’s rest because of their disobedience.<\/p>\nBut what is this “rest” they failed to enter, which still remains for the people of God (Heb 4:1-3)? The author of Hebrews clearly had more in mind than the physical land of Canaan as the place of “special rest” (4:8-9). Genesis 2:2 speaks of God’s rest as something that he prepared from the foundation of the world (Heb 4:3-4). God’s rest relates to ceasing from one’s own work as God did from his (4:10). This rest can be entered by those who “hear his voice,” don’t harden their hearts, and believe the Good News (4:1-3, 7).<\/p>\nIn the Old Testament, the Day of Atonement is called a “Sabbath day of complete rest” (Lev 16:29-31). On that day, people ceased completely from their own work. In the new covenant, Jesus as our Great High Priest has offered a once-for-all sacrifice that decisively dealt with sin (9:7-28). He has provided the ultimate atoning sacrifice, and he thus offers people a spiritual rest, which they enter by believing this Good News.<\/p>\nGod’s rest that is available through Jesus has two aspects. First, those who believe in him have ceased from their own works—that is, they no longer work for God’s acceptance, but they trust in Christ’s finished work (Eph 2:8-9) and enjoy the blessings of peace with God (John 14:27; Acts 10:36; Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19-21). Second, they look forward to an eternal life of rest and enjoyment in God’s presence (Isa 26:19; Rev 14:13). Jesus Christ gives complete and perfect rest (Matt 11:28-30).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:1-3; Exod 16:21-29; 20:8-11; 31:13-16; Lev 16:29-31; Isa 52:7; 54:13-14; 56:2, 4; 57:2, 21; 58:13; Ezek 20:20; Matt 11:28-30; Mark 2:23-28; Luke 8:48; John 14:27; Acts 10:36; Rom 5:1; 15:13; 2 Cor 5:19-21; Eph 2:17; Col 1:20; 2:16; 3:15; Heb 4:1-11; 2 Pet 1:2<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>God’s Sabbath Rest<\/h3>\nThe concept of God’s Sabbath rest, as found in Hebrews 4:1-11, has been a theological puzzle for commentators. The notion carries various connotations from the Old Testament, including the Promised Land as a place to rest from slavery and wandering and the Sabbath day as a weekly day of rest. In Hebrews 3:7-19, the author expounds on Psalm 95:7-11 and offers the wilderness wanderers as an example of those who failed to enter God’s rest because of their disobedience.<\/p>\nBut what is this “rest” they failed to enter, which still remains for the people of God (Heb 4:1-3)? The author of Hebrews clearly had more in mind than the physical land of Canaan as the place of “special rest” (4:8-9). Genesis 2:2 speaks of God’s rest as something that he prepared from the foundation of the world (Heb 4:3-4). God’s rest relates to ceasing from one’s own work as God did from his (4:10). This rest can be entered by those who “hear his voice,” don’t harden their hearts, and believe the Good News (4:1-3, 7).<\/p>\nIn the Old Testament, the Day of Atonement is called a “Sabbath day of complete rest” (Lev 16:29-31). On that day, people ceased completely from their own work. In the new covenant, Jesus as our Great High Priest has offered a once-for-all sacrifice that decisively dealt with sin (9:7-28). He has provided the ultimate atoning sacrifice, and he thus offers people a spiritual rest, which they enter by believing this Good News.<\/p>\nGod’s rest that is available through Jesus has two aspects. First, those who believe in him have ceased from their own works—that is, they no longer work for God’s acceptance, but they trust in Christ’s finished work (Eph 2:8-9) and enjoy the blessings of peace with God (John 14:27; Acts 10:36; Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19-21). Second, they look forward to an eternal life of rest and enjoyment in God’s presence (Isa 26:19; Rev 14:13). Jesus Christ gives complete and perfect rest (Matt 11:28-30).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:1-3; Exod 16:21-29; 20:8-11; 31:13-16; Lev 16:29-31; Isa 52:7; 54:13-14; 56:2, 4; 57:2, 21; 58:13; Ezek 20:20; Matt 11:28-30; Mark 2:23-28; Luke 8:48; John 14:27; Acts 10:36; Rom 5:1; 15:13; 2 Cor 5:19-21; Eph 2:17; Col 1:20; 2:16; 3:15; Heb 4:1-11; 2 Pet 1:2<\/p>","summary_ro":"God’s Sabbath Rest The concept of God’s Sabbath rest, as found in Hebrews 4:1-11, has been a theological puzzle for commentators. The notion carries various connotations from the Old Testament, including the Promised Land as a place to rest from slavery and wandering and the Sabbath day as a weekly day of rest. In Hebrews 3:7-19, the author expounds on Psalm 95:7-11 and offers the wilderness wanderers as an example of those who failed to enter God’s rest because of their disobedience. But wha...","summary_en":"God’s Sabbath Rest The concept of God’s Sabbath rest, as found in Hebrews 4:1-11, has been a theological puzzle for commentators. The notion carries various connotations from the Old Testament, including the Promised Land as a place to rest from slavery and wandering and the Sabbath day as a weekly day of rest. In Hebrews 3:7-19, the author expounds on Psalm 95:7-11 and offers the wilderness wanderers as an example of those who failed to enter God’s rest because of their disobedience. But wha...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":91360,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Beauty in Nature","title_en":"Beauty in Nature","content_ro":"<h3>Beauty in Nature<\/h3>\nAt the end of God’s work of Creation, God declared that everything he had made was “very good” (Gen 1:31). The beauty and wonder of God’s creation is often reflected on in Scripture, particularly in the psalms (see, e.g., Ps 8:3-4; Ps 104:1-35).<\/p>\nNature—and imagery from nature—also features prominently in the Song of Songs. The man and woman in the Song often express sexual intimacy in the countryside (2:8-17; 4:12–5:1; 6:2-3, 11-12), a place of pleasant fragrances and secluded meeting places. The garden, vineyard, and orchard create intimate and pleasant settings and evoke a romantic mood. The mystique of nature provides them with the environment in which their love is the most rustic, and at the same time the most exotic and exhilarating. Additionally, the couple uses extensive metaphors from nature to describe each other’s physical attributes and their arousing effects. Their portrayal of each other leads them to use illustrations from God’<\/p>\nNature points people to the Creator, as it contains evidence of his power, goodness, justice, and love (see Ps 19:1-4; Rom 1:18-20). God’s penchant for redemption, restoration, and new creation is also evidenced in many ways through the beauty of nature—for instance, in the changing of seasons, the growth of plants, and the birth of children.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:1-9; Pss 8:3-8; 19:1-6; 96:5-6; Song 2:8-17; 4:12–5:1; 6:2-3, 11-12; 7:10-13; Matt 6:26-30<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Beauty in Nature<\/h3>\nAt the end of God’s work of Creation, God declared that everything he had made was “very good” (Gen 1:31). The beauty and wonder of God’s creation is often reflected on in Scripture, particularly in the psalms (see, e.g., Ps 8:3-4; Ps 104:1-35).<\/p>\nNature—and imagery from nature—also features prominently in the Song of Songs. The man and woman in the Song often express sexual intimacy in the countryside (2:8-17; 4:12–5:1; 6:2-3, 11-12), a place of pleasant fragrances and secluded meeting places. The garden, vineyard, and orchard create intimate and pleasant settings and evoke a romantic mood. The mystique of nature provides them with the environment in which their love is the most rustic, and at the same time the most exotic and exhilarating. Additionally, the couple uses extensive metaphors from nature to describe each other’s physical attributes and their arousing effects. Their portrayal of each other leads them to use illustrations from God’<\/p>\nNature points people to the Creator, as it contains evidence of his power, goodness, justice, and love (see Ps 19:1-4; Rom 1:18-20). God’s penchant for redemption, restoration, and new creation is also evidenced in many ways through the beauty of nature—for instance, in the changing of seasons, the growth of plants, and the birth of children.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:1-9; Pss 8:3-8; 19:1-6; 96:5-6; Song 2:8-17; 4:12–5:1; 6:2-3, 11-12; 7:10-13; Matt 6:26-30<\/p>","summary_ro":"Beauty in Nature At the end of God’s work of Creation, God declared that everything he had made was “very good” (Gen 1:31). The beauty and wonder of God’s creation is often reflected on in Scripture, particularly in the psalms (see, e.g., Ps 8:3-4; Ps 104:1-35). Nature—and imagery from nature—also features prominently in the Song of Songs. The man and woman in the Song often express sexual intimacy in the countryside (2:8-17; 4:12–5:1; 6:2-3, 11-12), a place of pleasant fragrances and seclude...","summary_en":"Beauty in Nature At the end of God’s work of Creation, God declared that everything he had made was “very good” (Gen 1:31). The beauty and wonder of God’s creation is often reflected on in Scripture, particularly in the psalms (see, e.g., Ps 8:3-4; Ps 104:1-35). Nature—and imagery from nature—also features prominently in the Song of Songs. The man and woman in the Song often express sexual intimacy in the countryside (2:8-17; 4:12–5:1; 6:2-3, 11-12), a place of pleasant fragrances and seclude...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":95265,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"God’s Sabbath Rest","title_en":"God’s Sabbath Rest","content_ro":"<h3>God’s Sabbath Rest<\/h3>\nThe concept of God’s Sabbath rest, as found in Hebrews 4:1-11, has been a theological puzzle for commentators. The notion carries various connotations from the Old Testament, including the Promised Land as a place to rest from slavery and wandering and the Sabbath day as a weekly day of rest. In Hebrews 3:7-19, the author expounds on Psalm 95:7-11 and offers the wilderness wanderers as an example of those who failed to enter God’s rest because of their disobedience.<\/p>\nBut what is this “rest” they failed to enter, which still remains for the people of God (Heb 4:1-3)? The author of Hebrews clearly had more in mind than the physical land of Canaan as the place of “special rest” (4:8-9). Genesis 2:2 speaks of God’s rest as something that he prepared from the foundation of the world (Heb 4:3-4). God’s rest relates to ceasing from one’s own work as God did from his (4:10). This rest can be entered by those who “hear his voice,” don’t harden their hearts, and believe the Good News (4:1-3, 7).<\/p>\nIn the Old Testament, the Day of Atonement is called a “Sabbath day of complete rest” (Lev 16:29-31). On that day, people ceased completely from their own work. In the new covenant, Jesus as our Great High Priest has offered a once-for-all sacrifice that decisively dealt with sin (9:7-28). He has provided the ultimate atoning sacrifice, and he thus offers people a spiritual rest, which they enter by believing this Good News.<\/p>\nGod’s rest that is available through Jesus has two aspects. First, those who believe in him have ceased from their own works—that is, they no longer work for God’s acceptance, but they trust in Christ’s finished work (Eph 2:8-9) and enjoy the blessings of peace with God (John 14:27; Acts 10:36; Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19-21). Second, they look forward to an eternal life of rest and enjoyment in God’s presence (Isa 26:19; Rev 14:13). Jesus Christ gives complete and perfect rest (Matt 11:28-30).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:1-3; Exod 16:21-29; 20:8-11; 31:13-16; Lev 16:29-31; Isa 52:7; 54:13-14; 56:2, 4; 57:2, 21; 58:13; Ezek 20:20; Matt 11:28-30; Mark 2:23-28; Luke 8:48; John 14:27; Acts 10:36; Rom 5:1; 15:13; 2 Cor 5:19-21; Eph 2:17; Col 1:20; 2:16; 3:15; Heb 4:1-11; 2 Pet 1:2<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>God’s Sabbath Rest<\/h3>\nThe concept of God’s Sabbath rest, as found in Hebrews 4:1-11, has been a theological puzzle for commentators. The notion carries various connotations from the Old Testament, including the Promised Land as a place to rest from slavery and wandering and the Sabbath day as a weekly day of rest. In Hebrews 3:7-19, the author expounds on Psalm 95:7-11 and offers the wilderness wanderers as an example of those who failed to enter God’s rest because of their disobedience.<\/p>\nBut what is this “rest” they failed to enter, which still remains for the people of God (Heb 4:1-3)? The author of Hebrews clearly had more in mind than the physical land of Canaan as the place of “special rest” (4:8-9). Genesis 2:2 speaks of God’s rest as something that he prepared from the foundation of the world (Heb 4:3-4). God’s rest relates to ceasing from one’s own work as God did from his (4:10). This rest can be entered by those who “hear his voice,” don’t harden their hearts, and believe the Good News (4:1-3, 7).<\/p>\nIn the Old Testament, the Day of Atonement is called a “Sabbath day of complete rest” (Lev 16:29-31). On that day, people ceased completely from their own work. In the new covenant, Jesus as our Great High Priest has offered a once-for-all sacrifice that decisively dealt with sin (9:7-28). He has provided the ultimate atoning sacrifice, and he thus offers people a spiritual rest, which they enter by believing this Good News.<\/p>\nGod’s rest that is available through Jesus has two aspects. First, those who believe in him have ceased from their own works—that is, they no longer work for God’s acceptance, but they trust in Christ’s finished work (Eph 2:8-9) and enjoy the blessings of peace with God (John 14:27; Acts 10:36; Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19-21). Second, they look forward to an eternal life of rest and enjoyment in God’s presence (Isa 26:19; Rev 14:13). Jesus Christ gives complete and perfect rest (Matt 11:28-30).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:1-3; Exod 16:21-29; 20:8-11; 31:13-16; Lev 16:29-31; Isa 52:7; 54:13-14; 56:2, 4; 57:2, 21; 58:13; Ezek 20:20; Matt 11:28-30; Mark 2:23-28; Luke 8:48; John 14:27; Acts 10:36; Rom 5:1; 15:13; 2 Cor 5:19-21; Eph 2:17; Col 1:20; 2:16; 3:15; Heb 4:1-11; 2 Pet 1:2<\/p>","summary_ro":"God’s Sabbath Rest The concept of God’s Sabbath rest, as found in Hebrews 4:1-11, has been a theological puzzle for commentators. The notion carries various connotations from the Old Testament, including the Promised Land as a place to rest from slavery and wandering and the Sabbath day as a weekly day of rest. In Hebrews 3:7-19, the author expounds on Psalm 95:7-11 and offers the wilderness wanderers as an example of those who failed to enter God’s rest because of their disobedience. But wha...","summary_en":"God’s Sabbath Rest The concept of God’s Sabbath rest, as found in Hebrews 4:1-11, has been a theological puzzle for commentators. The notion carries various connotations from the Old Testament, including the Promised Land as a place to rest from slavery and wandering and the Sabbath day as a weekly day of rest. In Hebrews 3:7-19, the author expounds on Psalm 95:7-11 and offers the wilderness wanderers as an example of those who failed to enter God’s rest because of their disobedience. But wha...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":118986,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Beauty in Nature","title_en":"Beauty in Nature","content_ro":"<h3>Beauty in Nature<\/h3>\nAt the end of God’s work of Creation, God declared that everything he had made was “very good” (Gen 1:31). The beauty and wonder of God’s creation is often reflected on in Scripture, particularly in the psalms (see, e.g., Ps 8:3-4; Ps 104:1-35).<\/p>\nNature—and imagery from nature—also features prominently in the Song of Songs. The man and woman in the Song often express sexual intimacy in the countryside (2:8-17; 4:12–5:1; 6:2-3, 11-12), a place of pleasant fragrances and secluded meeting places. The garden, vineyard, and orchard create intimate and pleasant settings and evoke a romantic mood. The mystique of nature provides them with the environment in which their love is the most rustic, and at the same time the most exotic and exhilarating. Additionally, the couple uses extensive metaphors from nature to describe each other’s physical attributes and their arousing effects. Their portrayal of each other leads them to use illustrations from God’<\/p>\nNature points people to the Creator, as it contains evidence of his power, goodness, justice, and love (see Ps 19:1-4; Rom 1:18-20). God’s penchant for redemption, restoration, and new creation is also evidenced in many ways through the beauty of nature—for instance, in the changing of seasons, the growth of plants, and the birth of children.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:1-9; Pss 8:3-8; 19:1-6; 96:5-6; Song 2:8-17; 4:12–5:1; 6:2-3, 11-12; 7:10-13; Matt 6:26-30<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Beauty in Nature<\/h3>\nAt the end of God’s work of Creation, God declared that everything he had made was “very good” (Gen 1:31). The beauty and wonder of God’s creation is often reflected on in Scripture, particularly in the psalms (see, e.g., Ps 8:3-4; Ps 104:1-35).<\/p>\nNature—and imagery from nature—also features prominently in the Song of Songs. The man and woman in the Song often express sexual intimacy in the countryside (2:8-17; 4:12–5:1; 6:2-3, 11-12), a place of pleasant fragrances and secluded meeting places. The garden, vineyard, and orchard create intimate and pleasant settings and evoke a romantic mood. The mystique of nature provides them with the environment in which their love is the most rustic, and at the same time the most exotic and exhilarating. Additionally, the couple uses extensive metaphors from nature to describe each other’s physical attributes and their arousing effects. Their portrayal of each other leads them to use illustrations from God’<\/p>\nNature points people to the Creator, as it contains evidence of his power, goodness, justice, and love (see Ps 19:1-4; Rom 1:18-20). God’s penchant for redemption, restoration, and new creation is also evidenced in many ways through the beauty of nature—for instance, in the changing of seasons, the growth of plants, and the birth of children.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:1-9; Pss 8:3-8; 19:1-6; 96:5-6; Song 2:8-17; 4:12–5:1; 6:2-3, 11-12; 7:10-13; Matt 6:26-30<\/p>","summary_ro":"Beauty in Nature At the end of God’s work of Creation, God declared that everything he had made was “very good” (Gen 1:31). The beauty and wonder of God’s creation is often reflected on in Scripture, particularly in the psalms (see, e.g., Ps 8:3-4; Ps 104:1-35). Nature—and imagery from nature—also features prominently in the Song of Songs. The man and woman in the Song often express sexual intimacy in the countryside (2:8-17; 4:12–5:1; 6:2-3, 11-12), a place of pleasant fragrances and seclude...","summary_en":"Beauty in Nature At the end of God’s work of Creation, God declared that everything he had made was “very good” (Gen 1:31). The beauty and wonder of God’s creation is often reflected on in Scripture, particularly in the psalms (see, e.g., Ps 8:3-4; Ps 104:1-35). Nature—and imagery from nature—also features prominently in the Song of Songs. The man and woman in the Song often express sexual intimacy in the countryside (2:8-17; 4:12–5:1; 6:2-3, 11-12), a place of pleasant fragrances and seclude...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":122891,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"God’s Sabbath Rest","title_en":"God’s Sabbath Rest","content_ro":"<h3>God’s Sabbath Rest<\/h3>\nThe concept of God’s Sabbath rest, as found in Hebrews 4:1-11, has been a theological puzzle for commentators. The notion carries various connotations from the Old Testament, including the Promised Land as a place to rest from slavery and wandering and the Sabbath day as a weekly day of rest. In Hebrews 3:7-19, the author expounds on Psalm 95:7-11 and offers the wilderness wanderers as an example of those who failed to enter God’s rest because of their disobedience.<\/p>\nBut what is this “rest” they failed to enter, which still remains for the people of God (Heb 4:1-3)? The author of Hebrews clearly had more in mind than the physical land of Canaan as the place of “special rest” (4:8-9). Genesis 2:2 speaks of God’s rest as something that he prepared from the foundation of the world (Heb 4:3-4). God’s rest relates to ceasing from one’s own work as God did from his (4:10). This rest can be entered by those who “hear his voice,” don’t harden their hearts, and believe the Good News (4:1-3, 7).<\/p>\nIn the Old Testament, the Day of Atonement is called a “Sabbath day of complete rest” (Lev 16:29-31). On that day, people ceased completely from their own work. In the new covenant, Jesus as our Great High Priest has offered a once-for-all sacrifice that decisively dealt with sin (9:7-28). He has provided the ultimate atoning sacrifice, and he thus offers people a spiritual rest, which they enter by believing this Good News.<\/p>\nGod’s rest that is available through Jesus has two aspects. First, those who believe in him have ceased from their own works—that is, they no longer work for God’s acceptance, but they trust in Christ’s finished work (Eph 2:8-9) and enjoy the blessings of peace with God (John 14:27; Acts 10:36; Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19-21). Second, they look forward to an eternal life of rest and enjoyment in God’s presence (Isa 26:19; Rev 14:13). Jesus Christ gives complete and perfect rest (Matt 11:28-30).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:1-3; Exod 16:21-29; 20:8-11; 31:13-16; Lev 16:29-31; Isa 52:7; 54:13-14; 56:2, 4; 57:2, 21; 58:13; Ezek 20:20; Matt 11:28-30; Mark 2:23-28; Luke 8:48; John 14:27; Acts 10:36; Rom 5:1; 15:13; 2 Cor 5:19-21; Eph 2:17; Col 1:20; 2:16; 3:15; Heb 4:1-11; 2 Pet 1:2<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>God’s Sabbath Rest<\/h3>\nThe concept of God’s Sabbath rest, as found in Hebrews 4:1-11, has been a theological puzzle for commentators. The notion carries various connotations from the Old Testament, including the Promised Land as a place to rest from slavery and wandering and the Sabbath day as a weekly day of rest. In Hebrews 3:7-19, the author expounds on Psalm 95:7-11 and offers the wilderness wanderers as an example of those who failed to enter God’s rest because of their disobedience.<\/p>\nBut what is this “rest” they failed to enter, which still remains for the people of God (Heb 4:1-3)? The author of Hebrews clearly had more in mind than the physical land of Canaan as the place of “special rest” (4:8-9). Genesis 2:2 speaks of God’s rest as something that he prepared from the foundation of the world (Heb 4:3-4). God’s rest relates to ceasing from one’s own work as God did from his (4:10). This rest can be entered by those who “hear his voice,” don’t harden their hearts, and believe the Good News (4:1-3, 7).<\/p>\nIn the Old Testament, the Day of Atonement is called a “Sabbath day of complete rest” (Lev 16:29-31). On that day, people ceased completely from their own work. In the new covenant, Jesus as our Great High Priest has offered a once-for-all sacrifice that decisively dealt with sin (9:7-28). He has provided the ultimate atoning sacrifice, and he thus offers people a spiritual rest, which they enter by believing this Good News.<\/p>\nGod’s rest that is available through Jesus has two aspects. First, those who believe in him have ceased from their own works—that is, they no longer work for God’s acceptance, but they trust in Christ’s finished work (Eph 2:8-9) and enjoy the blessings of peace with God (John 14:27; Acts 10:36; Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19-21). Second, they look forward to an eternal life of rest and enjoyment in God’s presence (Isa 26:19; Rev 14:13). Jesus Christ gives complete and perfect rest (Matt 11:28-30).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:1-3; Exod 16:21-29; 20:8-11; 31:13-16; Lev 16:29-31; Isa 52:7; 54:13-14; 56:2, 4; 57:2, 21; 58:13; Ezek 20:20; Matt 11:28-30; Mark 2:23-28; Luke 8:48; John 14:27; Acts 10:36; Rom 5:1; 15:13; 2 Cor 5:19-21; Eph 2:17; Col 1:20; 2:16; 3:15; Heb 4:1-11; 2 Pet 1:2<\/p>","summary_ro":"God’s Sabbath Rest The concept of God’s Sabbath rest, as found in Hebrews 4:1-11, has been a theological puzzle for commentators. The notion carries various connotations from the Old Testament, including the Promised Land as a place to rest from slavery and wandering and the Sabbath day as a weekly day of rest. In Hebrews 3:7-19, the author expounds on Psalm 95:7-11 and offers the wilderness wanderers as an example of those who failed to enter God’s rest because of their disobedience. But wha...","summary_en":"God’s Sabbath Rest The concept of God’s Sabbath rest, as found in Hebrews 4:1-11, has been a theological puzzle for commentators. The notion carries various connotations from the Old Testament, including the Promised Land as a place to rest from slavery and wandering and the Sabbath day as a weekly day of rest. In Hebrews 3:7-19, the author expounds on Psalm 95:7-11 and offers the wilderness wanderers as an example of those who failed to enter God’s rest because of their disobedience. But wha...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":146612,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Beauty in Nature","title_en":"Beauty in Nature","content_ro":"<h3>Beauty in Nature<\/h3>\nAt the end of God’s work of Creation, God declared that everything he had made was “very good” (Gen 1:31). The beauty and wonder of God’s creation is often reflected on in Scripture, particularly in the psalms (see, e.g., Ps 8:3-4; Ps 104:1-35).<\/p>\nNature—and imagery from nature—also features prominently in the Song of Songs. The man and woman in the Song often express sexual intimacy in the countryside (2:8-17; 4:12–5:1; 6:2-3, 11-12), a place of pleasant fragrances and secluded meeting places. The garden, vineyard, and orchard create intimate and pleasant settings and evoke a romantic mood. The mystique of nature provides them with the environment in which their love is the most rustic, and at the same time the most exotic and exhilarating. Additionally, the couple uses extensive metaphors from nature to describe each other’s physical attributes and their arousing effects. Their portrayal of each other leads them to use illustrations from God’<\/p>\nNature points people to the Creator, as it contains evidence of his power, goodness, justice, and love (see Ps 19:1-4; Rom 1:18-20). God’s penchant for redemption, restoration, and new creation is also evidenced in many ways through the beauty of nature—for instance, in the changing of seasons, the growth of plants, and the birth of children.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:1-9; Pss 8:3-8; 19:1-6; 96:5-6; Song 2:8-17; 4:12–5:1; 6:2-3, 11-12; 7:10-13; Matt 6:26-30<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Beauty in Nature<\/h3>\nAt the end of God’s work of Creation, God declared that everything he had made was “very good” (Gen 1:31). The beauty and wonder of God’s creation is often reflected on in Scripture, particularly in the psalms (see, e.g., Ps 8:3-4; Ps 104:1-35).<\/p>\nNature—and imagery from nature—also features prominently in the Song of Songs. The man and woman in the Song often express sexual intimacy in the countryside (2:8-17; 4:12–5:1; 6:2-3, 11-12), a place of pleasant fragrances and secluded meeting places. The garden, vineyard, and orchard create intimate and pleasant settings and evoke a romantic mood. The mystique of nature provides them with the environment in which their love is the most rustic, and at the same time the most exotic and exhilarating. Additionally, the couple uses extensive metaphors from nature to describe each other’s physical attributes and their arousing effects. Their portrayal of each other leads them to use illustrations from God’<\/p>\nNature points people to the Creator, as it contains evidence of his power, goodness, justice, and love (see Ps 19:1-4; Rom 1:18-20). God’s penchant for redemption, restoration, and new creation is also evidenced in many ways through the beauty of nature—for instance, in the changing of seasons, the growth of plants, and the birth of children.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:1-9; Pss 8:3-8; 19:1-6; 96:5-6; Song 2:8-17; 4:12–5:1; 6:2-3, 11-12; 7:10-13; Matt 6:26-30<\/p>","summary_ro":"Beauty in Nature At the end of God’s work of Creation, God declared that everything he had made was “very good” (Gen 1:31). The beauty and wonder of God’s creation is often reflected on in Scripture, particularly in the psalms (see, e.g., Ps 8:3-4; Ps 104:1-35). Nature—and imagery from nature—also features prominently in the Song of Songs. The man and woman in the Song often express sexual intimacy in the countryside (2:8-17; 4:12–5:1; 6:2-3, 11-12), a place of pleasant fragrances and seclude...","summary_en":"Beauty in Nature At the end of God’s work of Creation, God declared that everything he had made was “very good” (Gen 1:31). The beauty and wonder of God’s creation is often reflected on in Scripture, particularly in the psalms (see, e.g., Ps 8:3-4; Ps 104:1-35). Nature—and imagery from nature—also features prominently in the Song of Songs. The man and woman in the Song often express sexual intimacy in the countryside (2:8-17; 4:12–5:1; 6:2-3, 11-12), a place of pleasant fragrances and seclude...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":150517,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"God’s Sabbath Rest","title_en":"God’s Sabbath Rest","content_ro":"<h3>God’s Sabbath Rest<\/h3>\nThe concept of God’s Sabbath rest, as found in Hebrews 4:1-11, has been a theological puzzle for commentators. The notion carries various connotations from the Old Testament, including the Promised Land as a place to rest from slavery and wandering and the Sabbath day as a weekly day of rest. In Hebrews 3:7-19, the author expounds on Psalm 95:7-11 and offers the wilderness wanderers as an example of those who failed to enter God’s rest because of their disobedience.<\/p>\nBut what is this “rest” they failed to enter, which still remains for the people of God (Heb 4:1-3)? The author of Hebrews clearly had more in mind than the physical land of Canaan as the place of “special rest” (4:8-9). Genesis 2:2 speaks of God’s rest as something that he prepared from the foundation of the world (Heb 4:3-4). God’s rest relates to ceasing from one’s own work as God did from his (4:10). This rest can be entered by those who “hear his voice,” don’t harden their hearts, and believe the Good News (4:1-3, 7).<\/p>\nIn the Old Testament, the Day of Atonement is called a “Sabbath day of complete rest” (Lev 16:29-31). On that day, people ceased completely from their own work. In the new covenant, Jesus as our Great High Priest has offered a once-for-all sacrifice that decisively dealt with sin (9:7-28). He has provided the ultimate atoning sacrifice, and he thus offers people a spiritual rest, which they enter by believing this Good News.<\/p>\nGod’s rest that is available through Jesus has two aspects. First, those who believe in him have ceased from their own works—that is, they no longer work for God’s acceptance, but they trust in Christ’s finished work (Eph 2:8-9) and enjoy the blessings of peace with God (John 14:27; Acts 10:36; Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19-21). Second, they look forward to an eternal life of rest and enjoyment in God’s presence (Isa 26:19; Rev 14:13). Jesus Christ gives complete and perfect rest (Matt 11:28-30).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:1-3; Exod 16:21-29; 20:8-11; 31:13-16; Lev 16:29-31; Isa 52:7; 54:13-14; 56:2, 4; 57:2, 21; 58:13; Ezek 20:20; Matt 11:28-30; Mark 2:23-28; Luke 8:48; John 14:27; Acts 10:36; Rom 5:1; 15:13; 2 Cor 5:19-21; Eph 2:17; Col 1:20; 2:16; 3:15; Heb 4:1-11; 2 Pet 1:2<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>God’s Sabbath Rest<\/h3>\nThe concept of God’s Sabbath rest, as found in Hebrews 4:1-11, has been a theological puzzle for commentators. The notion carries various connotations from the Old Testament, including the Promised Land as a place to rest from slavery and wandering and the Sabbath day as a weekly day of rest. In Hebrews 3:7-19, the author expounds on Psalm 95:7-11 and offers the wilderness wanderers as an example of those who failed to enter God’s rest because of their disobedience.<\/p>\nBut what is this “rest” they failed to enter, which still remains for the people of God (Heb 4:1-3)? The author of Hebrews clearly had more in mind than the physical land of Canaan as the place of “special rest” (4:8-9). Genesis 2:2 speaks of God’s rest as something that he prepared from the foundation of the world (Heb 4:3-4). God’s rest relates to ceasing from one’s own work as God did from his (4:10). This rest can be entered by those who “hear his voice,” don’t harden their hearts, and believe the Good News (4:1-3, 7).<\/p>\nIn the Old Testament, the Day of Atonement is called a “Sabbath day of complete rest” (Lev 16:29-31). On that day, people ceased completely from their own work. In the new covenant, Jesus as our Great High Priest has offered a once-for-all sacrifice that decisively dealt with sin (9:7-28). He has provided the ultimate atoning sacrifice, and he thus offers people a spiritual rest, which they enter by believing this Good News.<\/p>\nGod’s rest that is available through Jesus has two aspects. First, those who believe in him have ceased from their own works—that is, they no longer work for God’s acceptance, but they trust in Christ’s finished work (Eph 2:8-9) and enjoy the blessings of peace with God (John 14:27; Acts 10:36; Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19-21). Second, they look forward to an eternal life of rest and enjoyment in God’s presence (Isa 26:19; Rev 14:13). Jesus Christ gives complete and perfect rest (Matt 11:28-30).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:1-3; Exod 16:21-29; 20:8-11; 31:13-16; Lev 16:29-31; Isa 52:7; 54:13-14; 56:2, 4; 57:2, 21; 58:13; Ezek 20:20; Matt 11:28-30; Mark 2:23-28; Luke 8:48; John 14:27; Acts 10:36; Rom 5:1; 15:13; 2 Cor 5:19-21; Eph 2:17; Col 1:20; 2:16; 3:15; Heb 4:1-11; 2 Pet 1:2<\/p>","summary_ro":"God’s Sabbath Rest The concept of God’s Sabbath rest, as found in Hebrews 4:1-11, has been a theological puzzle for commentators. The notion carries various connotations from the Old Testament, including the Promised Land as a place to rest from slavery and wandering and the Sabbath day as a weekly day of rest. In Hebrews 3:7-19, the author expounds on Psalm 95:7-11 and offers the wilderness wanderers as an example of those who failed to enter God’s rest because of their disobedience. But wha...","summary_en":"God’s Sabbath Rest The concept of God’s Sabbath rest, as found in Hebrews 4:1-11, has been a theological puzzle for commentators. The notion carries various connotations from the Old Testament, including the Promised Land as a place to rest from slavery and wandering and the Sabbath day as a weekly day of rest. In Hebrews 3:7-19, the author expounds on Psalm 95:7-11 and offers the wilderness wanderers as an example of those who failed to enter God’s rest because of their disobedience. But wha...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"2":[{"id":27678,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"and Numerology*, Numbers","title_en":"and Numerology*, Numbers","content_ro":"<h3>NUMBERS AND NUMEROLOGY*<\/h3>\nIndividual numbers have a symbolic as well as a literal sense in the Bible. In Daniel, and to a lesser extent in Revelation, there is a developed system of numerology where interrelated systems of numbers are used in a definite pattern.<\/p>\nTraditionally, conservative Christians have been suspicious of numerology because of its unwise use by groups of Christians who see theological symbolism in every number in the OT, even the most factual. This view was inherited from mystical, pre-Christian Jewish groups, and later carried to extremes by the Kabbalists.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Expression of Numbers<\/p>\n• Ways of Writing Numerals<\/p>\n• Problems of Large Numbers<\/p>\n• Counting by Generations<\/p>\n• Approximate Use of Numbers<\/p>\n• Symbolic Use of Numbers<\/p>\n• Exact Statistics<\/p>\n• Numerology<\/p>\nExpression of Numbers<\/p>\nHebrew, and indeed any other Semitic language, has a simple but adequate system of numeration. The number one is an adjective. After that, the numerals are nouns, in parallel masculine and feminine forms, although the masculine is used with the feminine noun and vice versa. Ordinal numbers (first, second, third, etc.) exist alongside cardinal numbers (one, two, three), but as in most languages, the second set can be used instead of the first (“day two” instead of “second day”). From ten to nineteen, there is one composite form built like English “thirteen” (“three-ten”), but “twenty” is literally “tens” (the plural of “ten”). Thirty, forty, and so on are literally “threes,” “fours” (the plural of the words “three” and “four,” respectively) and so on, up to a hundred, which is a new word. There are also separate words for “thousand” and for “ten thousand,” as in Greek, Chinese, and many other languages. Larger numbers must be expressed by multiples of these (“ten thousand times ten thousand” and “thousands of thousands”), suggesting that large figures, rarely needed for small populations and tiny kingdoms, were expressed approximately. Hebrew has not only a singular and plural but also a dual form to express two of anything (two hundred, two thousand). Fractions (a half, a third, a tenth, etc.) could be expressed, and multiplication, division, addition, and subtraction were used. Indeed, instances of all four operations can be found in the Bible. The Hebrew mathematical system was basically part of the larger western Asian mathematical system, of which we know a great deal from Mesopotamia and Egypt. These countries, however, used a more highly developed mathematical system than Israel.<\/p>\nWays of Writing Numerals<\/p>\nIn the Bible, numbers are always written out in words, as on the famous Moabite Stone and the Siloam Inscription. But every nation in the ancient world could also express numbers by using figures or ciphers of various kinds (like our 1, 2, 3, . . .). Because of this danger of error, in later days numbers were normally written out in full, in words, where confusion, although still possible, was not nearly so likely. An additional way of writing numbers, known both to the Hebrews and the Greeks, was the use of consecutive letters of the alphabet instead of consecutive numerals (as if we used A for 1, B for 2, etc.). This system, in wide use by NT times, is the usual system in modern Hebrew and has the advantage that numerical combinations can be pronounced by inserting arbitrary vowels, thus making artificial words. For example, if the number of the beast (Rv 13:18), 666, is expressed in alphabetical letters, it can spell out the consonants of “Nero Caesar,” although other names are possible, especially if the variant reading 616 is used.<\/p>\n\nProblems of Large Numbers<\/p>\nEven allowing for all these possibilities, there remain certain problems connected with large numbers, particularly in the OT. The most obvious is that of the ten long-lived patriarchs, whose ages are recorded in Genesis 5. Different figures (varying by whole centuries) are recorded for their ages in the Hebrew text, the Samaritan text, and the earliest Greek translation (known as the Septuagint), but all figures are very large. Some interpret these figures literally and point out that there is a steady reduction from the ages attained by these patriarchs to the more modest 120 years allotted to man in Noah’s time (Gn 6:3) and the 70 years accepted later as the human life span (Ps 90:10). This would correspond to the progressive spiritual deterioration of mankind after the fall, from the perfect state of Adam to the present condition. Whatever the explanation of the figures, there is no doubt that this is the theological intent of the Bible.<\/p>\nThe large number of Israelites who left Egypt is also problematic. If there were actually 600,000 fighting men (Nm 1:46), this would correspond to a whole nation of some 2 million or more. Possibly the word translated “thousand” means “clan units”; it would clearly be a much smaller total body, whatever its exact size. Of course, God could have maintained any number of people in the desert. The evidence of archaeology as to the population of Canaan both before and after the Israelite onslaught seems to support a lower number. The same principle might explain the large numbers given for the fighting men of the various Israelite tribes, and the huge totals for Israel and Judah’s military strength given at later times in the historical books of the OT.<\/p>\nTo the ordinary Bible reader, perhaps one of the biggest problems is the different numbers recorded in Chronicles and Kings, when the same incidents are being described. Manuscript errors, or confusion of numbers written by signs or single letters of the alphabet, may account for numerous individual inconsistencies, but not for wholesale differences, particularly as the figures in Chronicles are consistently much larger. These very large round numbers may have symbolic significance and may not be intended to be taken in their literal sense at all. Indeed, since the Jews had before them the book of Kings and the book of Chronicles at the same time, they can hardly have taken both sets of numbers literally themselves.<\/p>\nCounting by Generations<\/p>\nOne of the problems of the OT is that of the dating of events. Even with an exact number system, there is no absolute fixed point from which to reckon. Later Jews and Christians counted from the presumed date of the Creation. Not until after the time of David and Solomon are both internal reference between the comparative dates of kings of Judah and Israel and external reference to monarchs outside Israel used. This open-endedness accounts for the vague period of “forty years” used so often in the OT (e.g., the book of Judges) for any long but indeterminate period of time, almost certainly corresponding to a generation (Hebrew, dor<\/span>). Counting by generations is specific in some places in the Bible and may be implicit in others. For instance, Abraham’s descendants are to return to Canaan “in the fourth generation” (Gn 15:16), and the genealogy of Christ is neatly constructed on a pattern of three groups of fourteen generations (Mt 1:17), rather than on periods of years. Wherever people use and recite genealogies, such counting by generations is natural. But Abraham’s descendants are said to have returned to Canaan approximately four centuries later (Gal 3:17), and therefore the word “generation” sometimes stands for 100 years. The Hebrew word for “generation” may mean 120 years (Gn 6:3). Usually, the ancient Hebrews used vague phrases like “in those days” or “after those days” or “the days are coming,” which expressed past, present, and future without any specific mention of number. In other words, the Bible writers were more concerned with theology than with mathematics.<\/p>\nApproximate Use of Numbers<\/p>\nIn the OT, Israel’s 40 years in the desert is a good example of the approximate use of numbers (Nm 14:33). In the NT, Jesus was in the wilderness 40 days during the temptation (Mt 4:2), and there were 40 days between his resurrection and ascension (Acts 1:3). Moses was 40 years old at his call (Acts 7:23), apparently lived 40 years in Midian (Ex 7:7), and spent 40 years leading Israel out of Egypt and through the desert (Dt 34:7), for he is said to be 120 years old at his death. However, two generations of 40 years is the normal maximum for a healthy man (Ps 90:10), and even this is often shortened to 70 years by the rigors of life. Seventy is also used at times in this approximate sense.<\/p>\nSymbolic Use of Numbers<\/p>\nIn Scripture, seven symbolizes completeness or perfection. On the seventh day God rested from his labors and creation is finished (Gn 2:2). Pharaoh in his dream saw seven cattle coming from the Nile (41:2). Samson’s sacred Nazirite locks were braided in seven plaits (Jgs 16:13). Seven devils left Mary of Magdala, signifying the totality of her previous possession by Satan (Lk 8:2); “seven other devils” will enter the purified but vacant life of a person (Mt 12:45). However, on the positive side, there were the seven spirits of God (Rv 3:1). In the seventh year the Hebrew slave was to be freed (Ex 21:2), having completed his time of captivity and service. Every seventh year was a sabbatical year (Lv 25:4). Seven times seven reiterates the sense of completeness. In the Year of Jubilee (at the completion of 7 x 7 years = the 50th year), all land is freed and returns to the original owners (Lv 25:10). Pentecost, the Feast of Weeks, is seven times seven days after Passover. “Seventy,” which is literally “sevens” in Hebrew, strengthens the concept of perfection. There are 70 elders (Ex 24:1) in Israel. Israel was exiled to Babylon for 70 years (Jer 25:12) to complete its punishment. “Seventy times seven” (Mt 18:22) reiterates this still further. The Lord was not giving Peter a mathematical number of times that he should forgive another person, but rather was insisting on limitless forgiveness for a brother’s sin.<\/p>\n“Three” may well share in this meaning of completion or perfection, although not so forcibly (2 Kgs 13:18). Many things happen “on the third day” (Hos 6:2). Jonah spent three days in the stomach of the fish (Mt 12:40), and the Lord rose again on the third day (1 Cor 15:4). David was offered a choice of divine punishments—three years, three months, three days (2 Sm 24:13). For the Christian, “three” takes on a far deeper significance as the number of Persons of the Trinity. The three Persons are clearly expressed, for instance, in the Great Commission (Mt 28:19) and in the Pauline benediction (2 Cor 13:13). Many echoes of this threefold expression are in the NT, and many anticipations of it in the OT, of which the thrice-repeated “Holy” in Isaiah 6:3 is the most famous.<\/p>\nSome scholars see four as another symbol of completeness (four winds of heaven, Dn 7:2; four horsemen, Rv 6:1-7; four living creatures around the throne of God, Rv 4:6). Five is certainly used in an indefinite sense as a small number (Is 19:18; 30:17). Nor do eight or nine seem to have any special significance, although, like other numbers, they may be used in a factual sense to describe any of God’s activities (nine plagues on Egypt, Ex 7–10). “Ten” does have significance because of the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:1-17), but not any special symbolism earlier in the Bible. If anything, “ten” is elsewhere used in a vague way. Laban changes Jacob’s wages ten times (Gn 31:7); Daniel and his friends are ten times better than all other students (Dn 1:20); ten times over, the Jewish settlers will be warned of impending enemy attacks (Neh 4:12).<\/p>\nEleven appears to have no special biblical significance, but 12 certainly has. The clearest proof of this is the existence of the 12 tribes in Israel. In Revelation 7:4-8, where it is mathematically important that the number of tribes be limited to 12, the tribe of Dan is altogether omitted—probably on account of Dan’s sin of idolatry (Jgs 18:14-20). Ishmael’s descendants were also divided into 12 clans (Gn 17:20), so that the number 12 was apparently significant outside Israel as well. In the NT Christ chose 12 apostles (Mt 10:1-4). The link with the number of tribes is made specific when Christ tells the apostles that they will sit on 12 thrones, judging the 12 tribes (Mt 19:28). However, it is interesting that, after the election and appointment of Matthias (Acts 1:26), the Christian church apparently made no subsequent efforts to maintain the number of apostles. Like “seven times seven,” “twelve times twelve” increases the force of the number. When this is further multiplied by a thousand, the figure becomes the 144,000 redeemed (Rv 7:4), who were sealed “out of all the tribes of Israel.”<\/p>\nExact Statistics<\/p>\nAs distinct from the metaphorical use of numbers to denote completion, immensity, and the like, numbers in Hebrew were often used to give exact tallies or measurements. Such usage is known to us only from clay tablets and ostraca (broken pieces of potsherd engraved in ink, used as rough notebooks). However, ascertaining exactly what the text was in its earliest form and what that text means is difficult.<\/p>\nAn example is the number of the sons of Jeconiah among the inhabitants of Beth-shemesh. They were struck down by the Lord because of their failure to rejoice with the others when God’s ark returned to Israel from the Philistine country (1 Sm 6:19). The Greek text (LXX) reads “seventy”; the later Hebrew manuscripts add “fifty thousand.” But, as Beth-shemesh itself was only a small frontier town, and the “sons of Jeconiah” was presumably only one clan among several, the smaller number is obviously the original, and the large addition due to some later manuscript confusion.<\/p>\nA good rule in trying to decide whether a number is statistical or impressionistic is to determine whether it is a small number, or an unusual number for which there is no obvious theological explanation. When the men of Ai killed some 36 Israelites at the first assault on the city (Jos 7:5), the smallness of the number is evidence that this is a vividly remembered factual detail. Similarly, in the case of the number of Abraham’s 318 men (Gn 14:14) or the catch of 153 fish after the resurrection (Jn 21:11), the numbers, though large, are not round numbers but unusual combinations, and are obviously meant in a literal or statistical sense. Irrelevant details like this have a habit of remaining in the memory, and are the best guarantee of the trustworthiness of the narrative.<\/p>\nNumerology<\/p>\nNumerology may be said to be an extended application of the metaphorical significance of numbers (7, 40, etc.) already discussed. In the Bible, this systematization of numbers always goes with a strong sense of the sovereignty of God, his control over human history, and a belief in his ongoing purpose and its triumphant conclusion.<\/p>\nPerhaps the first clear instance of numerology in the Bible is 1 Kings 6:1, where Solomon began to build the temple 480 years after the exodus, a period 5 times 10 times 12, or 4 times 120, the ideal life span of man in early days (Gn 6:3). First Chronicles 6:3-8 gives 12 generations of men (presumably 40 years each) to cover the same period, so “twelve generations” is probably the real basis for the computation, rather than any exact year-by-year tally. A tally would have been impossible in the days of the judges and unlikely before the monarchy. David was the first to establish an official scribe or recorder to keep daily annals in Israel (2 Sm 8:16-17), as was common in the great kingdoms from far earlier times. Such Israelite annals are later mentioned as sources of the books of the kings (2 Kgs 14:18). The number 480 is probably a rough approximation rather than exact and denotes the end of one of God’s epochs.<\/p>\nWhen Jeremiah prophesies an exile of 70 years for Judah (Jer 25:11; 29:10), it is not only a historical prediction that was literally fulfilled but also a symbol of completeness; Judah’s punishment is complete (cf. Is 40:2). Isaiah (Is 23:15) had made a similar prophecy of a 70-year punishment for Tyre, and Ezekiel (Ez 29:11-13) prophesied a 40-year “exile” for Egypt. When these 70 years are regarded as sabbatical years, where the land must lie untilled to compensate for the 7 times 70 years of sin before, then true numerology begins (2 Chr 36:21). Here numerology is used only as an explanation of past and present, but it can also be used to explain the future, especially in the book of Daniel.<\/p>\nDaniel (Dn 9:2) refers to the literal 70 years of the exile as foretold by Jeremiah. In Daniel 9:24, this has been extended to 70 weeks of years (490 years) applied to the distant future. Daniel 9:25 sees 69 of these (483 years) as elapsing before Messiah appears. Presumably, the last week of the 70 is therefore thought of as the time of his activity. However this may be interpreted in terms of actual dates, it must be harmonized with 9:26, where the Messiah is “cut off” after 62 weeks of years (434 years). The difficulty lies in establishing the starting point for this long period. This is an example of an elaborate numerology, embracing centuries of history, all ultimately based on the 70 years of Jeremiah. According to biblical principles, this can have both an “immediate” fulfillment in the return from exile, and a “prophetic” fulfillment in the far distant future in connection with the coming of Christ.<\/p>\nThe other major example of extended numerology in Daniel is in connection with the “time, times, and half a time” (7:25). This must stand for three and a half “times,” that is, half of seven “times.” Thus, it refers either to three and a half years (half a “week” of years) or three and a half “weeks” of years (cf. “seven times” in 4:16, where “seven years” is clearly meant). Whatever may be its ultimate prophetic fulfillment in Christ, the “initial” or “partial” fulfillment is the roughly three and a half years of bitter persecution of God’s people by Antiochus Epiphanes (167–164 BC<\/span>). This figure of three and a half years reappears in Revelation 11:2 (“forty-two months”), and 12:14 (“a time, and times, and half a time”), to describe the period of Rome’s persecution of the Christian church. The figure had possibly become a symbol of any bitter but limited persecution. The “two thousand three hundred evenings and mornings” of Daniel 8:14 may mean 1,150 days, which is approximately the same length of time.<\/p>\nThe three and a half years of Daniel 7:25 reappear in Revelation 11 in the form of “forty-two months,” the time when the heathen will trample down Jerusalem (Rv 11:2). The 1,290 days of Daniel 12:11 reappear here (in the slightly different form of 1,260 days) as the time that God’s two witnesses will prophesy (Rv 11:3). The 42 months reappear in Revelation 13:5 as the period that the wild beast will be allowed to blaspheme. While the “thousand years” of 20:6 is not derived from Daniel at all, the metaphorical use of “thousand” is familiar to the OT. The closest direct parallel is in Deuteronomy 7:9, where God’s covenant will be kept with a “thousand generations” to come.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>NUMBERS AND NUMEROLOGY*<\/h3>\nIndividual numbers have a symbolic as well as a literal sense in the Bible. In Daniel, and to a lesser extent in Revelation, there is a developed system of numerology where interrelated systems of numbers are used in a definite pattern.<\/p>\nTraditionally, conservative Christians have been suspicious of numerology because of its unwise use by groups of Christians who see theological symbolism in every number in the OT, even the most factual. This view was inherited from mystical, pre-Christian Jewish groups, and later carried to extremes by the Kabbalists.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Expression of Numbers<\/p>\n• Ways of Writing Numerals<\/p>\n• Problems of Large Numbers<\/p>\n• Counting by Generations<\/p>\n• Approximate Use of Numbers<\/p>\n• Symbolic Use of Numbers<\/p>\n• Exact Statistics<\/p>\n• Numerology<\/p>\nExpression of Numbers<\/p>\nHebrew, and indeed any other Semitic language, has a simple but adequate system of numeration. The number one is an adjective. After that, the numerals are nouns, in parallel masculine and feminine forms, although the masculine is used with the feminine noun and vice versa. Ordinal numbers (first, second, third, etc.) exist alongside cardinal numbers (one, two, three), but as in most languages, the second set can be used instead of the first (“day two” instead of “second day”). From ten to nineteen, there is one composite form built like English “thirteen” (“three-ten”), but “twenty” is literally “tens” (the plural of “ten”). Thirty, forty, and so on are literally “threes,” “fours” (the plural of the words “three” and “four,” respectively) and so on, up to a hundred, which is a new word. There are also separate words for “thousand” and for “ten thousand,” as in Greek, Chinese, and many other languages. Larger numbers must be expressed by multiples of these (“ten thousand times ten thousand” and “thousands of thousands”), suggesting that large figures, rarely needed for small populations and tiny kingdoms, were expressed approximately. Hebrew has not only a singular and plural but also a dual form to express two of anything (two hundred, two thousand). Fractions (a half, a third, a tenth, etc.) could be expressed, and multiplication, division, addition, and subtraction were used. Indeed, instances of all four operations can be found in the Bible. The Hebrew mathematical system was basically part of the larger western Asian mathematical system, of which we know a great deal from Mesopotamia and Egypt. These countries, however, used a more highly developed mathematical system than Israel.<\/p>\nWays of Writing Numerals<\/p>\nIn the Bible, numbers are always written out in words, as on the famous Moabite Stone and the Siloam Inscription. But every nation in the ancient world could also express numbers by using figures or ciphers of various kinds (like our 1, 2, 3, . . .). Because of this danger of error, in later days numbers were normally written out in full, in words, where confusion, although still possible, was not nearly so likely. An additional way of writing numbers, known both to the Hebrews and the Greeks, was the use of consecutive letters of the alphabet instead of consecutive numerals (as if we used A for 1, B for 2, etc.). This system, in wide use by NT times, is the usual system in modern Hebrew and has the advantage that numerical combinations can be pronounced by inserting arbitrary vowels, thus making artificial words. For example, if the number of the beast (Rv 13:18), 666, is expressed in alphabetical letters, it can spell out the consonants of “Nero Caesar,” although other names are possible, especially if the variant reading 616 is used.<\/p>\n\nProblems of Large Numbers<\/p>\nEven allowing for all these possibilities, there remain certain problems connected with large numbers, particularly in the OT. The most obvious is that of the ten long-lived patriarchs, whose ages are recorded in Genesis 5. Different figures (varying by whole centuries) are recorded for their ages in the Hebrew text, the Samaritan text, and the earliest Greek translation (known as the Septuagint), but all figures are very large. Some interpret these figures literally and point out that there is a steady reduction from the ages attained by these patriarchs to the more modest 120 years allotted to man in Noah’s time (Gn 6:3) and the 70 years accepted later as the human life span (Ps 90:10). This would correspond to the progressive spiritual deterioration of mankind after the fall, from the perfect state of Adam to the present condition. Whatever the explanation of the figures, there is no doubt that this is the theological intent of the Bible.<\/p>\nThe large number of Israelites who left Egypt is also problematic. If there were actually 600,000 fighting men (Nm 1:46), this would correspond to a whole nation of some 2 million or more. Possibly the word translated “thousand” means “clan units”; it would clearly be a much smaller total body, whatever its exact size. Of course, God could have maintained any number of people in the desert. The evidence of archaeology as to the population of Canaan both before and after the Israelite onslaught seems to support a lower number. The same principle might explain the large numbers given for the fighting men of the various Israelite tribes, and the huge totals for Israel and Judah’s military strength given at later times in the historical books of the OT.<\/p>\nTo the ordinary Bible reader, perhaps one of the biggest problems is the different numbers recorded in Chronicles and Kings, when the same incidents are being described. Manuscript errors, or confusion of numbers written by signs or single letters of the alphabet, may account for numerous individual inconsistencies, but not for wholesale differences, particularly as the figures in Chronicles are consistently much larger. These very large round numbers may have symbolic significance and may not be intended to be taken in their literal sense at all. Indeed, since the Jews had before them the book of Kings and the book of Chronicles at the same time, they can hardly have taken both sets of numbers literally themselves.<\/p>\nCounting by Generations<\/p>\nOne of the problems of the OT is that of the dating of events. Even with an exact number system, there is no absolute fixed point from which to reckon. Later Jews and Christians counted from the presumed date of the Creation. Not until after the time of David and Solomon are both internal reference between the comparative dates of kings of Judah and Israel and external reference to monarchs outside Israel used. This open-endedness accounts for the vague period of “forty years” used so often in the OT (e.g., the book of Judges) for any long but indeterminate period of time, almost certainly corresponding to a generation (Hebrew, dor<\/span>). Counting by generations is specific in some places in the Bible and may be implicit in others. For instance, Abraham’s descendants are to return to Canaan “in the fourth generation” (Gn 15:16), and the genealogy of Christ is neatly constructed on a pattern of three groups of fourteen generations (Mt 1:17), rather than on periods of years. Wherever people use and recite genealogies, such counting by generations is natural. But Abraham’s descendants are said to have returned to Canaan approximately four centuries later (Gal 3:17), and therefore the word “generation” sometimes stands for 100 years. The Hebrew word for “generation” may mean 120 years (Gn 6:3). Usually, the ancient Hebrews used vague phrases like “in those days” or “after those days” or “the days are coming,” which expressed past, present, and future without any specific mention of number. In other words, the Bible writers were more concerned with theology than with mathematics.<\/p>\nApproximate Use of Numbers<\/p>\nIn the OT, Israel’s 40 years in the desert is a good example of the approximate use of numbers (Nm 14:33). In the NT, Jesus was in the wilderness 40 days during the temptation (Mt 4:2), and there were 40 days between his resurrection and ascension (Acts 1:3). Moses was 40 years old at his call (Acts 7:23), apparently lived 40 years in Midian (Ex 7:7), and spent 40 years leading Israel out of Egypt and through the desert (Dt 34:7), for he is said to be 120 years old at his death. However, two generations of 40 years is the normal maximum for a healthy man (Ps 90:10), and even this is often shortened to 70 years by the rigors of life. Seventy is also used at times in this approximate sense.<\/p>\nSymbolic Use of Numbers<\/p>\nIn Scripture, seven symbolizes completeness or perfection. On the seventh day God rested from his labors and creation is finished (Gn 2:2). Pharaoh in his dream saw seven cattle coming from the Nile (41:2). Samson’s sacred Nazirite locks were braided in seven plaits (Jgs 16:13). Seven devils left Mary of Magdala, signifying the totality of her previous possession by Satan (Lk 8:2); “seven other devils” will enter the purified but vacant life of a person (Mt 12:45). However, on the positive side, there were the seven spirits of God (Rv 3:1). In the seventh year the Hebrew slave was to be freed (Ex 21:2), having completed his time of captivity and service. Every seventh year was a sabbatical year (Lv 25:4). Seven times seven reiterates the sense of completeness. In the Year of Jubilee (at the completion of 7 x 7 years = the 50th year), all land is freed and returns to the original owners (Lv 25:10). Pentecost, the Feast of Weeks, is seven times seven days after Passover. “Seventy,” which is literally “sevens” in Hebrew, strengthens the concept of perfection. There are 70 elders (Ex 24:1) in Israel. Israel was exiled to Babylon for 70 years (Jer 25:12) to complete its punishment. “Seventy times seven” (Mt 18:22) reiterates this still further. The Lord was not giving Peter a mathematical number of times that he should forgive another person, but rather was insisting on limitless forgiveness for a brother’s sin.<\/p>\n“Three” may well share in this meaning of completion or perfection, although not so forcibly (2 Kgs 13:18). Many things happen “on the third day” (Hos 6:2). Jonah spent three days in the stomach of the fish (Mt 12:40), and the Lord rose again on the third day (1 Cor 15:4). David was offered a choice of divine punishments—three years, three months, three days (2 Sm 24:13). For the Christian, “three” takes on a far deeper significance as the number of Persons of the Trinity. The three Persons are clearly expressed, for instance, in the Great Commission (Mt 28:19) and in the Pauline benediction (2 Cor 13:13). Many echoes of this threefold expression are in the NT, and many anticipations of it in the OT, of which the thrice-repeated “Holy” in Isaiah 6:3 is the most famous.<\/p>\nSome scholars see four as another symbol of completeness (four winds of heaven, Dn 7:2; four horsemen, Rv 6:1-7; four living creatures around the throne of God, Rv 4:6). Five is certainly used in an indefinite sense as a small number (Is 19:18; 30:17). Nor do eight or nine seem to have any special significance, although, like other numbers, they may be used in a factual sense to describe any of God’s activities (nine plagues on Egypt, Ex 7–10). “Ten” does have significance because of the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:1-17), but not any special symbolism earlier in the Bible. If anything, “ten” is elsewhere used in a vague way. Laban changes Jacob’s wages ten times (Gn 31:7); Daniel and his friends are ten times better than all other students (Dn 1:20); ten times over, the Jewish settlers will be warned of impending enemy attacks (Neh 4:12).<\/p>\nEleven appears to have no special biblical significance, but 12 certainly has. The clearest proof of this is the existence of the 12 tribes in Israel. In Revelation 7:4-8, where it is mathematically important that the number of tribes be limited to 12, the tribe of Dan is altogether omitted—probably on account of Dan’s sin of idolatry (Jgs 18:14-20). Ishmael’s descendants were also divided into 12 clans (Gn 17:20), so that the number 12 was apparently significant outside Israel as well. In the NT Christ chose 12 apostles (Mt 10:1-4). The link with the number of tribes is made specific when Christ tells the apostles that they will sit on 12 thrones, judging the 12 tribes (Mt 19:28). However, it is interesting that, after the election and appointment of Matthias (Acts 1:26), the Christian church apparently made no subsequent efforts to maintain the number of apostles. Like “seven times seven,” “twelve times twelve” increases the force of the number. When this is further multiplied by a thousand, the figure becomes the 144,000 redeemed (Rv 7:4), who were sealed “out of all the tribes of Israel.”<\/p>\nExact Statistics<\/p>\nAs distinct from the metaphorical use of numbers to denote completion, immensity, and the like, numbers in Hebrew were often used to give exact tallies or measurements. Such usage is known to us only from clay tablets and ostraca (broken pieces of potsherd engraved in ink, used as rough notebooks). However, ascertaining exactly what the text was in its earliest form and what that text means is difficult.<\/p>\nAn example is the number of the sons of Jeconiah among the inhabitants of Beth-shemesh. They were struck down by the Lord because of their failure to rejoice with the others when God’s ark returned to Israel from the Philistine country (1 Sm 6:19). The Greek text (LXX) reads “seventy”; the later Hebrew manuscripts add “fifty thousand.” But, as Beth-shemesh itself was only a small frontier town, and the “sons of Jeconiah” was presumably only one clan among several, the smaller number is obviously the original, and the large addition due to some later manuscript confusion.<\/p>\nA good rule in trying to decide whether a number is statistical or impressionistic is to determine whether it is a small number, or an unusual number for which there is no obvious theological explanation. When the men of Ai killed some 36 Israelites at the first assault on the city (Jos 7:5), the smallness of the number is evidence that this is a vividly remembered factual detail. Similarly, in the case of the number of Abraham’s 318 men (Gn 14:14) or the catch of 153 fish after the resurrection (Jn 21:11), the numbers, though large, are not round numbers but unusual combinations, and are obviously meant in a literal or statistical sense. Irrelevant details like this have a habit of remaining in the memory, and are the best guarantee of the trustworthiness of the narrative.<\/p>\nNumerology<\/p>\nNumerology may be said to be an extended application of the metaphorical significance of numbers (7, 40, etc.) already discussed. In the Bible, this systematization of numbers always goes with a strong sense of the sovereignty of God, his control over human history, and a belief in his ongoing purpose and its triumphant conclusion.<\/p>\nPerhaps the first clear instance of numerology in the Bible is 1 Kings 6:1, where Solomon began to build the temple 480 years after the exodus, a period 5 times 10 times 12, or 4 times 120, the ideal life span of man in early days (Gn 6:3). First Chronicles 6:3-8 gives 12 generations of men (presumably 40 years each) to cover the same period, so “twelve generations” is probably the real basis for the computation, rather than any exact year-by-year tally. A tally would have been impossible in the days of the judges and unlikely before the monarchy. David was the first to establish an official scribe or recorder to keep daily annals in Israel (2 Sm 8:16-17), as was common in the great kingdoms from far earlier times. Such Israelite annals are later mentioned as sources of the books of the kings (2 Kgs 14:18). The number 480 is probably a rough approximation rather than exact and denotes the end of one of God’s epochs.<\/p>\nWhen Jeremiah prophesies an exile of 70 years for Judah (Jer 25:11; 29:10), it is not only a historical prediction that was literally fulfilled but also a symbol of completeness; Judah’s punishment is complete (cf. Is 40:2). Isaiah (Is 23:15) had made a similar prophecy of a 70-year punishment for Tyre, and Ezekiel (Ez 29:11-13) prophesied a 40-year “exile” for Egypt. When these 70 years are regarded as sabbatical years, where the land must lie untilled to compensate for the 7 times 70 years of sin before, then true numerology begins (2 Chr 36:21). Here numerology is used only as an explanation of past and present, but it can also be used to explain the future, especially in the book of Daniel.<\/p>\nDaniel (Dn 9:2) refers to the literal 70 years of the exile as foretold by Jeremiah. In Daniel 9:24, this has been extended to 70 weeks of years (490 years) applied to the distant future. Daniel 9:25 sees 69 of these (483 years) as elapsing before Messiah appears. Presumably, the last week of the 70 is therefore thought of as the time of his activity. However this may be interpreted in terms of actual dates, it must be harmonized with 9:26, where the Messiah is “cut off” after 62 weeks of years (434 years). The difficulty lies in establishing the starting point for this long period. This is an example of an elaborate numerology, embracing centuries of history, all ultimately based on the 70 years of Jeremiah. According to biblical principles, this can have both an “immediate” fulfillment in the return from exile, and a “prophetic” fulfillment in the far distant future in connection with the coming of Christ.<\/p>\nThe other major example of extended numerology in Daniel is in connection with the “time, times, and half a time” (7:25). This must stand for three and a half “times,” that is, half of seven “times.” Thus, it refers either to three and a half years (half a “week” of years) or three and a half “weeks” of years (cf. “seven times” in 4:16, where “seven years” is clearly meant). Whatever may be its ultimate prophetic fulfillment in Christ, the “initial” or “partial” fulfillment is the roughly three and a half years of bitter persecution of God’s people by Antiochus Epiphanes (167–164 BC<\/span>). This figure of three and a half years reappears in Revelation 11:2 (“forty-two months”), and 12:14 (“a time, and times, and half a time”), to describe the period of Rome’s persecution of the Christian church. The figure had possibly become a symbol of any bitter but limited persecution. The “two thousand three hundred evenings and mornings” of Daniel 8:14 may mean 1,150 days, which is approximately the same length of time.<\/p>\nThe three and a half years of Daniel 7:25 reappear in Revelation 11 in the form of “forty-two months,” the time when the heathen will trample down Jerusalem (Rv 11:2). The 1,290 days of Daniel 12:11 reappear here (in the slightly different form of 1,260 days) as the time that God’s two witnesses will prophesy (Rv 11:3). The 42 months reappear in Revelation 13:5 as the period that the wild beast will be allowed to blaspheme. While the “thousand years” of 20:6 is not derived from Daniel at all, the metaphorical use of “thousand” is familiar to the OT. The closest direct parallel is in Deuteronomy 7:9, where God’s covenant will be kept with a “thousand generations” to come.<\/p>","summary_ro":"NUMBERS AND NUMEROLOGY* Individual numbers have a symbolic as well as a literal sense in the Bible. In Daniel, and to a lesser extent in Revelation, there is a developed system of numerology where interrelated systems of numbers are used in a definite pattern. Traditionally, conservative Christians have been suspicious of numerology because of its unwise use by groups of Christians who see theological symbolism in every number in the OT, even the most factual. This view was inherited from mys...","summary_en":"NUMBERS AND NUMEROLOGY* Individual numbers have a symbolic as well as a literal sense in the Bible. In Daniel, and to a lesser extent in Revelation, there is a developed system of numerology where interrelated systems of numbers are used in a definite pattern. Traditionally, conservative Christians have been suspicious of numerology because of its unwise use by groups of Christians who see theological symbolism in every number in the OT, even the most factual. This view was inherited from mys...","source":"Articles\/N.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":32765,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Rest","title_en":"Rest","content_ro":"<h3>REST<\/h3>\nFreedom from work or activity. The source of the Christian doctrine of rest is the rest of God himself, who, after completing the work of Creation in six days, “rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done” (Gn 2:2). This provides the basis for the Hebrew Sabbath as the weekly seventh day of rest (sabbath<\/span> is the Hebrew term for rest), which is presented as an ordinance of Creation. The fourth commandment demands the consecration of the Sabbath day to God and the limitation of labor to six days precisely because God made all things in six days and rested the seventh day (Ex 20:8-11).<\/p>\nThe biblical concept of rest, however, is not just past (Creation) and present (weekly) but also future. This future aspect received symbolic expression in the Israelites’ pilgrimage under the leadership of Moses through the wilderness from the bondage of Egypt to the “rest” of the Promised Land. That rest was attained under Joshua, who led them into the land and settled them there (see Jos 23–24).<\/p>\nThe 40 years of restless wandering in the wilderness meant that the whole adult generation that set out with Moses perished without entering the Promised Land. This was a judgment they brought upon themselves by their ingratitude and rebelliousness (Nm 14:26-35). Centuries later God warned their descendants against the danger of following this example of hard-heartedness and reaping a similar consequence of not entering his rest: “Today, when you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts” (Ps 95:7-11). The author of Hebrews cites this passage (Heb 3:7-8; 4:7) as evidence that God’s rest is not a matter of past history but that “the promise of entering his rest remains.” The word “today” indicates that the day of grace is not closed: “For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not speak later of another day. So then, there remains a sabbath rest for the people of God” (4:8-9, rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\nIt is God’s<\/em> rest into which all persons are encouraged to enter. The weekly day of rest is a reminder and a reflection of that rest. The rest of the Israelites in the Promised Land after their wilderness wanderings is a symbol of God’s eternal rest that his people will share. The rest that Christ gives to those who come to him (Mt 11:28) is a foretaste and a guarantee of the divine rest that awaits them. The rest after death of believers who have fallen asleep in Christ is a blissful intensification of the reality of this experience: “Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord. . . . They may rest from their labors” (Rv 14:13, rsv<\/span>). But the completion of this rest in its inexpressible fullness will take place at the return of Christ, when at last all who are his will be fully conformed to his likeness (1 Jn 3:2). Salvation will be consummated as they are clothed with imperishable, glorified bodies (2 Cor 5), and the renewed order of creation in which righteousness dwells will be established (2 Pt 3:13).<\/p>\nThis will be the climactic point of all history and the moment of the entry of God’s people into the full and unending enjoyment of his rest. The completion of the redemption purchased by Christ at the cross will mean rest and freedom from all sin, and this in turn will mean rest and freedom from all sorrow, pain, suffering, persecution, frustration, injustice, and death (Rv 7:9-17; 21:1-7). The rest of mankind, moreover, will involve the rest of God’s whole creation as it is brought to the perfection of that glorious destiny for which it was intended from the very beginning (cf. Rom 8:19-25).<\/p>\nRest is not synonymous with inactivity. What God rested from was the work of Creation. He continues constantly to be active, however, in providentially sustaining all that he has created and in the work both of righteous judgment and gracious salvation. Jesus Christ, indeed, in his incarnation, life, death, rising, and glorification, is precisely God in action (2 Cor 5:19). Hence the assertion of Jesus: “My Father is working still, and I am working” (Jn 5:17, rsv<\/span>). What the Christian will rest from is the struggle against the forces of evil and the afflictions by which this present life is marred. The rest into which the Christian will enter will not be a state of uneventful boredom. God himself is dynamic, not static, and so also is his rest.<\/p>\nConsequently, all that a Christian rests from simply sets him free to be active ceaselessly and joyfully in the service of God, the Creator and Redeemer. In perfect harmony with all God’s works, and in complete fulfillment, Christians exultantly praise and serve the triune God. Joy will be full, without possibility of improvement or deficiency (cf. Rv 4:8-11; 5:8-14; 7:9-12). Such will be the rest without end of that eternal Sabbath that has a morning but no evening: “Let us therefore strive to enter that rest” (Heb 4:11, rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Heaven; Lord’s Day, The; Sabbath.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>REST<\/h3>\nFreedom from work or activity. The source of the Christian doctrine of rest is the rest of God himself, who, after completing the work of Creation in six days, “rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done” (Gn 2:2). This provides the basis for the Hebrew Sabbath as the weekly seventh day of rest (sabbath<\/span> is the Hebrew term for rest), which is presented as an ordinance of Creation. The fourth commandment demands the consecration of the Sabbath day to God and the limitation of labor to six days precisely because God made all things in six days and rested the seventh day (Ex 20:8-11).<\/p>\nThe biblical concept of rest, however, is not just past (Creation) and present (weekly) but also future. This future aspect received symbolic expression in the Israelites’ pilgrimage under the leadership of Moses through the wilderness from the bondage of Egypt to the “rest” of the Promised Land. That rest was attained under Joshua, who led them into the land and settled them there (see Jos 23–24).<\/p>\nThe 40 years of restless wandering in the wilderness meant that the whole adult generation that set out with Moses perished without entering the Promised Land. This was a judgment they brought upon themselves by their ingratitude and rebelliousness (Nm 14:26-35). Centuries later God warned their descendants against the danger of following this example of hard-heartedness and reaping a similar consequence of not entering his rest: “Today, when you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts” (Ps 95:7-11). The author of Hebrews cites this passage (Heb 3:7-8; 4:7) as evidence that God’s rest is not a matter of past history but that “the promise of entering his rest remains.” The word “today” indicates that the day of grace is not closed: “For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not speak later of another day. So then, there remains a sabbath rest for the people of God” (4:8-9, rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\nIt is God’s<\/em> rest into which all persons are encouraged to enter. The weekly day of rest is a reminder and a reflection of that rest. The rest of the Israelites in the Promised Land after their wilderness wanderings is a symbol of God’s eternal rest that his people will share. The rest that Christ gives to those who come to him (Mt 11:28) is a foretaste and a guarantee of the divine rest that awaits them. The rest after death of believers who have fallen asleep in Christ is a blissful intensification of the reality of this experience: “Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord. . . . They may rest from their labors” (Rv 14:13, rsv<\/span>). But the completion of this rest in its inexpressible fullness will take place at the return of Christ, when at last all who are his will be fully conformed to his likeness (1 Jn 3:2). Salvation will be consummated as they are clothed with imperishable, glorified bodies (2 Cor 5), and the renewed order of creation in which righteousness dwells will be established (2 Pt 3:13).<\/p>\nThis will be the climactic point of all history and the moment of the entry of God’s people into the full and unending enjoyment of his rest. The completion of the redemption purchased by Christ at the cross will mean rest and freedom from all sin, and this in turn will mean rest and freedom from all sorrow, pain, suffering, persecution, frustration, injustice, and death (Rv 7:9-17; 21:1-7). The rest of mankind, moreover, will involve the rest of God’s whole creation as it is brought to the perfection of that glorious destiny for which it was intended from the very beginning (cf. Rom 8:19-25).<\/p>\nRest is not synonymous with inactivity. What God rested from was the work of Creation. He continues constantly to be active, however, in providentially sustaining all that he has created and in the work both of righteous judgment and gracious salvation. Jesus Christ, indeed, in his incarnation, life, death, rising, and glorification, is precisely God in action (2 Cor 5:19). Hence the assertion of Jesus: “My Father is working still, and I am working” (Jn 5:17, rsv<\/span>). What the Christian will rest from is the struggle against the forces of evil and the afflictions by which this present life is marred. The rest into which the Christian will enter will not be a state of uneventful boredom. God himself is dynamic, not static, and so also is his rest.<\/p>\nConsequently, all that a Christian rests from simply sets him free to be active ceaselessly and joyfully in the service of God, the Creator and Redeemer. In perfect harmony with all God’s works, and in complete fulfillment, Christians exultantly praise and serve the triune God. Joy will be full, without possibility of improvement or deficiency (cf. Rv 4:8-11; 5:8-14; 7:9-12). Such will be the rest without end of that eternal Sabbath that has a morning but no evening: “Let us therefore strive to enter that rest” (Heb 4:11, rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Heaven; Lord’s Day, The; Sabbath.<\/p>","summary_ro":"REST Freedom from work or activity. The source of the Christian doctrine of rest is the rest of God himself, who, after completing the work of Creation in six days, “rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done” (Gn 2:2). This provides the basis for the Hebrew Sabbath as the weekly seventh day of rest (sabbath is the Hebrew term for rest), which is presented as an ordinance of Creation. The fourth commandment demands the consecration of the Sabbath day to God and the limitati...","summary_en":"REST Freedom from work or activity. The source of the Christian doctrine of rest is the rest of God himself, who, after completing the work of Creation in six days, “rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done” (Gn 2:2). This provides the basis for the Hebrew Sabbath as the weekly seventh day of rest (sabbath is the Hebrew term for rest), which is presented as an ordinance of Creation. The fourth commandment demands the consecration of the Sabbath day to God and the limitati...","source":"Articles\/R.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":33396,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Sabbath","title_en":"Sabbath","content_ro":"<h3>SABBATH<\/h3>\nDerivation of a Hebrew word that means “cease” or “desist.” The Sabbath was a day (from Friday evening until Saturday evening in Jesus’ time) when all ordinary work stopped. The Scriptures relate that God gave his people the Sabbath as an opportunity to serve him and as a reminder of two great truths in the Bible—Creation and redemption.<\/p>\nIn the Old Testament<\/p>\nThe relationship between Creation and the Sabbath is first expressed in Genesis 2:2-3. God “ceased” his work in Creation after six days and then “blessed” the seventh day and “declared it holy.” In the fourth commandment (Ex 20:8-11), God’s “blessing” and “setting aside” of the seventh day after Creation (the words used are the same as those in Genesis) form the basis of his demand that people should observe the seventh day as a day of Sabbath rest.<\/p>\nThe idea of God resting from his work is a startling one. It comes across even more vividly in Exodus 31:17, where the Lord tells Moses how he was refreshed by his day of rest. This picture of the Creator as a manual laborer is one the Bible often paints. No doubt it is presented in vividly human terms in Exodus to reinforce the fundamental Sabbath lesson that people must follow the pattern their Creator has set for them. One day’s rest in seven is a necessity for individuals, families, households, and even animals (Ex 20:10).<\/p>\nThe Sabbath’s setting in the biblical account of Creation implies that it is one of those OT standards that are meant for all people and not just for Israel. The inclusion of the Sabbath law in the Ten Commandments underlines this important truth. The Decalogue occupied a special place in OT law. Alone of all God’s instructions, it was spoken by his audible voice (Ex 20:1), written by his finger (31:18), and placed in the tabernacle ark at the heart of Israel’s worship (25:16). The NT, too, confirms the strong impression that the Decalogue as a whole embodies principles that are permanently valid for all people in all places at all times. Whether or not Sunday is recognized as the Christian Sabbath, one is obliged to accept the central principle of this biblical teaching as far as the Sabbath is concerned. God’s instructions require people to observe a regular weekly break from work.<\/p>\nSignificantly, the second main strand of the Bible’s Sabbath teaching—that of redemption—also features in a list of the Ten Commandments. The Sabbath law (already noted in Ex 20:8-11) reappears in Deuteronomy 5:12-15, but here a different reason is attached to its observance: “Remember that you were once slaves in Egypt and that the Lord<\/span> your God brought you out with amazing power and mighty deeds. That is why the Lord<\/span> your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day” (v 15, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nThe differences between these two accounts of the fourth commandment are important. The first (Ex 20) is addressed, through<\/em> Israel, to all people as created beings. The second (Dt 5) is directed to<\/em> Israel as God’s redeemed people. So the Sabbath is God’s signpost, pointing not only to his goodness toward all people as their Creator but also to his mercy toward his chosen people as their Redeemer.<\/p>\nThere is one other significant point in Deuteronomy’s version of the Sabbath commandment that must not be missed. The prohibition of all work on the Sabbath day is followed by an explanatory note—“On that day no one in your household may do any kind of work. This includes you, your sons and daughters, your male and female servants, your oxen and donkeys and other livestock, and any foreigners living among you. All your male and female servants must rest as you do” (Dt 5:14, nlt<\/span>). Practical concern for others is a feature of all the OT’s covenant teaching. So God’s loving concern for Israel in her Egyptian slavery must be matched by the Israelite family’s loving concern for those who served them. The Sabbath offered an ideal outlet for the practical expression of that concern. Jesus was especially keen to rescue this humanitarian side of Sabbath observance from the mass of callous regulations that threatened to suffocate it in his day (see, e.g., Mk 3:1-5).<\/p>\nThe OT’s provision for a “sabbatical year” develops this humanitarian theme further (see Ex 23:10-12; Lv 25:1-7; Dt 15:1-11; also the regulations for the “year of jubilee” in Lv 25:8-55). Every seventh year the land was to lie fallow and be uncultivated (Lv 25:4). It needed a regular rest just as much as the people it sustained. The primary purpose of this law was benevolent: “But you, your male and female slaves, your hired servants, and any foreigners who live with you may eat the produce that grows naturally during the Sabbath year. And your livestock and the wild animals will also be allowed to eat of the land’s bounty” (vv 6-7, nlt<\/span>). Deuteronomy 15:1-11 extends the same humanitarian principle into the world of commerce. The sabbatical year must see the canceling of all debts within God’s redeemed community. For the tight-fisted who might be tempted to refuse a loan if the sabbatical year was imminent, the law added a warning and a promise: “Do not be mean-spirited and refuse someone a loan because the year of release is close at hand. If you refuse to make the loan and the needy person cries out to the Lord<\/span>, you will be considered guilty of sin. Give freely without begrudging it, and the Lord<\/span> your God will bless you in everything you do” (Dt 15:9-10, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nObserving the sabbatical year was obviously a great test of the people’s obedience to God and of their willingness to depend on him for their livelihood. Sometimes the temptation to turn a blind eye was too strong. But history testifies to Israel’s courage in observing the letter of this law on many occasions, despite threats of invasion and famine. Both Alexander the Great and the Romans excused Jews from paying taxes every seventh year in recognition of the depth of their religious convictions.<\/p>\nReturning from the seventh year to the seventh day, the OT law codes go to considerable lengths to buttress the Sabbath ban on work by defining what may and may not be done by God’s people on the Sabbath day. The prohibitions were not meant to rule out activity of any kind. Their aim was to stop regular, everyday work, because if God had set aside the Sabbath (Ex 20:11), the most obvious way of profaning it was to treat it just like any other day. Rules were spelled out in specific terms that the farmer (34:21), the salesman (Jer 17:27), and even the housewife (Ex 35:2-3) would understand.<\/p>\nThe details may seem trivial, but obedience to the Sabbath law was seen as the main test of the people’s allegiance to the Lord. It was made quite clear that willful disobedience was a capital offense (Ex 35:2), and the fate of the person found gathering wood in defiance of Sabbath regulations showed that this was no idle threat (Nm 15:32-36).<\/p>\nHemmed in by so many rules and regulations (and with the death penalty overhanging all), the Sabbath easily could have become a day of fear—a day when the people were more afraid of committing an offense than worshiping the Lord and enjoying a weekly rest. But the Sabbath was intended to be a blessing, not a burden. Above everything else, it was a weekly sign that the Lord loved his people and wanted to draw them into an ever-closer relationship with himself. Those who valued that relationship enjoyed the Sabbath, calling it a delight (Is 58:13-14). Nowhere does the OT express its sheer joy in Sabbath worship more exuberantly than in Psalm 92, which has the title “A Song for the Sabbath.”<\/p>\nThe later prophets, were, however, far from blind to the darker side of human nature. They knew that a great deal of Sabbath observance was a sham. Many people treated the Sabbath day more as holiday than holy day, an opportunity for self-indulgence rather than delighting in the Lord (Is 58:13). Some greedy tradesmen found its restrictions an annoying irritant (Am 8:5).<\/p>\nAs God’s spokesman, the prophets did not shrink from exposing such neglect and abuse (Ez 22:26). Those who go through the motions of Sabbath worship with unrepentant hearts nauseate the Lord, Isaiah said (Is 1:10-15). As a symptom of rebellion against God, Jerusalem’s Sabbath breaking will bring destruction on the city, thunders Jeremiah (Jer 17:27). The Lord has been very forbearing with his people, warned Ezekiel, but prolonged neglect of his Sabbath makes judgment a certainty (Ez 20:12-24).<\/p>\nWhen the ax of judgment fell (in the exile to Babylon, 586 BC<\/span>), the surviving remnant of the nation took the lesson to heart. Sabbath keeping was one of the few distinctive marks faithful Jews could retain in a foreign land, so it assumed extra significance. At the prompting of prophets like Ezekiel, who set out rules for Sabbath worship in the rebuilt temple at Jerusalem (Ez 44:24; 45:17; 46:3), and under the leadership of men like Nehemiah, the returning exiles were more careful than their predecessors in observing the Sabbath day (Neh 10:31; 13:15-22).<\/p>\nIn the New Testament<\/p>\nPrior to the first century, some Jews in Palestine developed several rules for promoting the observance of the Sabbath. Two tractates of the Mishnah are devoted exclusively to these Sabbath rules and regulations. Their main purpose is to define work (one tractate does so under 39 headings) in an attempt to show every Israelite what is and is not permitted on the Sabbath. Unfortunately, this led to such hairsplitting complexities and evasions that ecclesiastical lawyers often differed among themselves in their interpretations, with the inevitable result that the main purpose of the Sabbath became lost beneath a mass of legalistic detail. The rabbis themselves were aware of how much they were adding to the straightforward teaching of the OT. As one of them put it, “The rules about the sabbath . . . are as mountains hanging by a hair, for Scripture is scanty and the rules many.”<\/p>\nJesus had many confrontations with the Jewish religious leaders over Sabbath observances. From their perspective, Jesus was a Sabbath breaker and therefore a lawbreaker. Jesus, however, never saw himself as a Sabbath breaker. He went to synagogue regularly on the Sabbath day (Lk 4:16). He read the lesson, preached, and taught (Mk 1:21; Lk 13:10). He clearly accepted the principle that the Sabbath was an appropriate day for worship.<\/p>\nHis point of collision with the Pharisees was the point at which their tradition departed from biblical teaching. He made this clear when he defended his disciples by appealing to Scripture, after they had been accused of breaking Sabbath tradition by walking through grainfields and breaking off heads of wheat (which fell into the category of “harvesting,” according to the Pharisees; Mk 2:23-26). He followed this up with a remark that took his hearers straight back to God’s Creation purpose for the Sabbath: “The Sabbath was made to benefit people, and not people to benefit the Sabbath” (Mk 2:27, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nRabbinic tradition had exalted the institution above the people it was meant to serve. By making it an end in itself, the Pharisees had effectively robbed the Sabbath of one of its main purposes. Jesus’ words must have sounded uncomfortably familiar in his opponents’ ears. A famous rabbi had once said, “The Sabbath is given over to you, but you are not given over to the Sabbath.”<\/p>\nMore than anything else, Jesus’ Sabbath healings put him on a collision course with rabbinic restrictions. The OT does not forbid cures on the Sabbath day, but the rabbis labeled all healing as work, which must always be avoided on the Sabbath unless life was at risk. Jesus fearlessly exposed the callousness and absurd inconsistencies to which this attitude led. How, he asked, could it be right to circumcise a baby or lead an animal to water on the Sabbath day (which tradition allowed) but wrong to heal a chronically handicapped woman and a crippled man, even if their lives were not in immediate danger (Lk 13:10-17; Jn 7:21-24)? The Sabbath, he taught, was a particularly appropriate day for acts of mercy (Mk 3:4-5).<\/p>\nJesus, the man from heaven, claimed that he was Lord of the Sabbath (Mk 2:28; cf. Mt 12:5-8). Just as God kept working, despite his Creation rest, to sustain the world in his mercy, so Jesus would continue to teach and to heal on the Sabbath day (Jn 5:2-17). But one day his redemptive work would be complete, and then the Sabbath’s purpose as a sign of redemption would be accomplished.<\/p>\nLiving on the other side of Jesus’ death and resurrection, Paul was quick to grasp the significance of both for Sabbath observance. He did not go so far as to ban all observance of the Jewish Sabbath. Indeed, he attended many Sabbath synagogue services himself in his evangelistic travels (see, e.g., Acts 13:14-16). Jewish Christians who insisted on keeping up their Sabbath practices were free to do so, provided they respected the opinions of those who differed (Rom 14:5-6, 13). But any suggestion that observing the Jewish calendar was necessary for salvation must be resisted (Gal 4:8-11). For Paul considered the Sabbath to be a shadow, while Christ himself is the reality of that shadow (Col 2:17).<\/p>\nFinally, it is the writer of the Letter to the Hebrews who explains how the twin biblical “sabbath themes” of creation and redemption find their joint fulfillment in Christ. He did so by linking together the ideas of God’s rest after Creation and his redemptive act in bringing Israel to her “rest” in Canaan, and by showing how both relate to the present and future rest that Christians can and do enjoy in Jesus (Heb 4:1-11).<\/p>\nGod intends all his people to share his rest—that is, his promise (Heb 4:1). He showed this intention clearly when he brought Israel to the Promised Land, but that did not mark the complete fulfillment of his promise. The full, complete rest still waiting for the people of God is in heaven. Christ has already entered there. He is resting from his work, just as God did after the Creation. And because of his redeeming work, he invites all those who believe in him to share that same “sabbath rest” now (v 9).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Lord’s Day, The; Sabbath Day’s Journey; Commandments, The Ten.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SABBATH<\/h3>\nDerivation of a Hebrew word that means “cease” or “desist.” The Sabbath was a day (from Friday evening until Saturday evening in Jesus’ time) when all ordinary work stopped. The Scriptures relate that God gave his people the Sabbath as an opportunity to serve him and as a reminder of two great truths in the Bible—Creation and redemption.<\/p>\nIn the Old Testament<\/p>\nThe relationship between Creation and the Sabbath is first expressed in Genesis 2:2-3. God “ceased” his work in Creation after six days and then “blessed” the seventh day and “declared it holy.” In the fourth commandment (Ex 20:8-11), God’s “blessing” and “setting aside” of the seventh day after Creation (the words used are the same as those in Genesis) form the basis of his demand that people should observe the seventh day as a day of Sabbath rest.<\/p>\nThe idea of God resting from his work is a startling one. It comes across even more vividly in Exodus 31:17, where the Lord tells Moses how he was refreshed by his day of rest. This picture of the Creator as a manual laborer is one the Bible often paints. No doubt it is presented in vividly human terms in Exodus to reinforce the fundamental Sabbath lesson that people must follow the pattern their Creator has set for them. One day’s rest in seven is a necessity for individuals, families, households, and even animals (Ex 20:10).<\/p>\nThe Sabbath’s setting in the biblical account of Creation implies that it is one of those OT standards that are meant for all people and not just for Israel. The inclusion of the Sabbath law in the Ten Commandments underlines this important truth. The Decalogue occupied a special place in OT law. Alone of all God’s instructions, it was spoken by his audible voice (Ex 20:1), written by his finger (31:18), and placed in the tabernacle ark at the heart of Israel’s worship (25:16). The NT, too, confirms the strong impression that the Decalogue as a whole embodies principles that are permanently valid for all people in all places at all times. Whether or not Sunday is recognized as the Christian Sabbath, one is obliged to accept the central principle of this biblical teaching as far as the Sabbath is concerned. God’s instructions require people to observe a regular weekly break from work.<\/p>\nSignificantly, the second main strand of the Bible’s Sabbath teaching—that of redemption—also features in a list of the Ten Commandments. The Sabbath law (already noted in Ex 20:8-11) reappears in Deuteronomy 5:12-15, but here a different reason is attached to its observance: “Remember that you were once slaves in Egypt and that the Lord<\/span> your God brought you out with amazing power and mighty deeds. That is why the Lord<\/span> your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day” (v 15, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nThe differences between these two accounts of the fourth commandment are important. The first (Ex 20) is addressed, through<\/em> Israel, to all people as created beings. The second (Dt 5) is directed to<\/em> Israel as God’s redeemed people. So the Sabbath is God’s signpost, pointing not only to his goodness toward all people as their Creator but also to his mercy toward his chosen people as their Redeemer.<\/p>\nThere is one other significant point in Deuteronomy’s version of the Sabbath commandment that must not be missed. The prohibition of all work on the Sabbath day is followed by an explanatory note—“On that day no one in your household may do any kind of work. This includes you, your sons and daughters, your male and female servants, your oxen and donkeys and other livestock, and any foreigners living among you. All your male and female servants must rest as you do” (Dt 5:14, nlt<\/span>). Practical concern for others is a feature of all the OT’s covenant teaching. So God’s loving concern for Israel in her Egyptian slavery must be matched by the Israelite family’s loving concern for those who served them. The Sabbath offered an ideal outlet for the practical expression of that concern. Jesus was especially keen to rescue this humanitarian side of Sabbath observance from the mass of callous regulations that threatened to suffocate it in his day (see, e.g., Mk 3:1-5).<\/p>\nThe OT’s provision for a “sabbatical year” develops this humanitarian theme further (see Ex 23:10-12; Lv 25:1-7; Dt 15:1-11; also the regulations for the “year of jubilee” in Lv 25:8-55). Every seventh year the land was to lie fallow and be uncultivated (Lv 25:4). It needed a regular rest just as much as the people it sustained. The primary purpose of this law was benevolent: “But you, your male and female slaves, your hired servants, and any foreigners who live with you may eat the produce that grows naturally during the Sabbath year. And your livestock and the wild animals will also be allowed to eat of the land’s bounty” (vv 6-7, nlt<\/span>). Deuteronomy 15:1-11 extends the same humanitarian principle into the world of commerce. The sabbatical year must see the canceling of all debts within God’s redeemed community. For the tight-fisted who might be tempted to refuse a loan if the sabbatical year was imminent, the law added a warning and a promise: “Do not be mean-spirited and refuse someone a loan because the year of release is close at hand. If you refuse to make the loan and the needy person cries out to the Lord<\/span>, you will be considered guilty of sin. Give freely without begrudging it, and the Lord<\/span> your God will bless you in everything you do” (Dt 15:9-10, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nObserving the sabbatical year was obviously a great test of the people’s obedience to God and of their willingness to depend on him for their livelihood. Sometimes the temptation to turn a blind eye was too strong. But history testifies to Israel’s courage in observing the letter of this law on many occasions, despite threats of invasion and famine. Both Alexander the Great and the Romans excused Jews from paying taxes every seventh year in recognition of the depth of their religious convictions.<\/p>\nReturning from the seventh year to the seventh day, the OT law codes go to considerable lengths to buttress the Sabbath ban on work by defining what may and may not be done by God’s people on the Sabbath day. The prohibitions were not meant to rule out activity of any kind. Their aim was to stop regular, everyday work, because if God had set aside the Sabbath (Ex 20:11), the most obvious way of profaning it was to treat it just like any other day. Rules were spelled out in specific terms that the farmer (34:21), the salesman (Jer 17:27), and even the housewife (Ex 35:2-3) would understand.<\/p>\nThe details may seem trivial, but obedience to the Sabbath law was seen as the main test of the people’s allegiance to the Lord. It was made quite clear that willful disobedience was a capital offense (Ex 35:2), and the fate of the person found gathering wood in defiance of Sabbath regulations showed that this was no idle threat (Nm 15:32-36).<\/p>\nHemmed in by so many rules and regulations (and with the death penalty overhanging all), the Sabbath easily could have become a day of fear—a day when the people were more afraid of committing an offense than worshiping the Lord and enjoying a weekly rest. But the Sabbath was intended to be a blessing, not a burden. Above everything else, it was a weekly sign that the Lord loved his people and wanted to draw them into an ever-closer relationship with himself. Those who valued that relationship enjoyed the Sabbath, calling it a delight (Is 58:13-14). Nowhere does the OT express its sheer joy in Sabbath worship more exuberantly than in Psalm 92, which has the title “A Song for the Sabbath.”<\/p>\nThe later prophets, were, however, far from blind to the darker side of human nature. They knew that a great deal of Sabbath observance was a sham. Many people treated the Sabbath day more as holiday than holy day, an opportunity for self-indulgence rather than delighting in the Lord (Is 58:13). Some greedy tradesmen found its restrictions an annoying irritant (Am 8:5).<\/p>\nAs God’s spokesman, the prophets did not shrink from exposing such neglect and abuse (Ez 22:26). Those who go through the motions of Sabbath worship with unrepentant hearts nauseate the Lord, Isaiah said (Is 1:10-15). As a symptom of rebellion against God, Jerusalem’s Sabbath breaking will bring destruction on the city, thunders Jeremiah (Jer 17:27). The Lord has been very forbearing with his people, warned Ezekiel, but prolonged neglect of his Sabbath makes judgment a certainty (Ez 20:12-24).<\/p>\nWhen the ax of judgment fell (in the exile to Babylon, 586 BC<\/span>), the surviving remnant of the nation took the lesson to heart. Sabbath keeping was one of the few distinctive marks faithful Jews could retain in a foreign land, so it assumed extra significance. At the prompting of prophets like Ezekiel, who set out rules for Sabbath worship in the rebuilt temple at Jerusalem (Ez 44:24; 45:17; 46:3), and under the leadership of men like Nehemiah, the returning exiles were more careful than their predecessors in observing the Sabbath day (Neh 10:31; 13:15-22).<\/p>\nIn the New Testament<\/p>\nPrior to the first century, some Jews in Palestine developed several rules for promoting the observance of the Sabbath. Two tractates of the Mishnah are devoted exclusively to these Sabbath rules and regulations. Their main purpose is to define work (one tractate does so under 39 headings) in an attempt to show every Israelite what is and is not permitted on the Sabbath. Unfortunately, this led to such hairsplitting complexities and evasions that ecclesiastical lawyers often differed among themselves in their interpretations, with the inevitable result that the main purpose of the Sabbath became lost beneath a mass of legalistic detail. The rabbis themselves were aware of how much they were adding to the straightforward teaching of the OT. As one of them put it, “The rules about the sabbath . . . are as mountains hanging by a hair, for Scripture is scanty and the rules many.”<\/p>\nJesus had many confrontations with the Jewish religious leaders over Sabbath observances. From their perspective, Jesus was a Sabbath breaker and therefore a lawbreaker. Jesus, however, never saw himself as a Sabbath breaker. He went to synagogue regularly on the Sabbath day (Lk 4:16). He read the lesson, preached, and taught (Mk 1:21; Lk 13:10). He clearly accepted the principle that the Sabbath was an appropriate day for worship.<\/p>\nHis point of collision with the Pharisees was the point at which their tradition departed from biblical teaching. He made this clear when he defended his disciples by appealing to Scripture, after they had been accused of breaking Sabbath tradition by walking through grainfields and breaking off heads of wheat (which fell into the category of “harvesting,” according to the Pharisees; Mk 2:23-26). He followed this up with a remark that took his hearers straight back to God’s Creation purpose for the Sabbath: “The Sabbath was made to benefit people, and not people to benefit the Sabbath” (Mk 2:27, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nRabbinic tradition had exalted the institution above the people it was meant to serve. By making it an end in itself, the Pharisees had effectively robbed the Sabbath of one of its main purposes. Jesus’ words must have sounded uncomfortably familiar in his opponents’ ears. A famous rabbi had once said, “The Sabbath is given over to you, but you are not given over to the Sabbath.”<\/p>\nMore than anything else, Jesus’ Sabbath healings put him on a collision course with rabbinic restrictions. The OT does not forbid cures on the Sabbath day, but the rabbis labeled all healing as work, which must always be avoided on the Sabbath unless life was at risk. Jesus fearlessly exposed the callousness and absurd inconsistencies to which this attitude led. How, he asked, could it be right to circumcise a baby or lead an animal to water on the Sabbath day (which tradition allowed) but wrong to heal a chronically handicapped woman and a crippled man, even if their lives were not in immediate danger (Lk 13:10-17; Jn 7:21-24)? The Sabbath, he taught, was a particularly appropriate day for acts of mercy (Mk 3:4-5).<\/p>\nJesus, the man from heaven, claimed that he was Lord of the Sabbath (Mk 2:28; cf. Mt 12:5-8). Just as God kept working, despite his Creation rest, to sustain the world in his mercy, so Jesus would continue to teach and to heal on the Sabbath day (Jn 5:2-17). But one day his redemptive work would be complete, and then the Sabbath’s purpose as a sign of redemption would be accomplished.<\/p>\nLiving on the other side of Jesus’ death and resurrection, Paul was quick to grasp the significance of both for Sabbath observance. He did not go so far as to ban all observance of the Jewish Sabbath. Indeed, he attended many Sabbath synagogue services himself in his evangelistic travels (see, e.g., Acts 13:14-16). Jewish Christians who insisted on keeping up their Sabbath practices were free to do so, provided they respected the opinions of those who differed (Rom 14:5-6, 13). But any suggestion that observing the Jewish calendar was necessary for salvation must be resisted (Gal 4:8-11). For Paul considered the Sabbath to be a shadow, while Christ himself is the reality of that shadow (Col 2:17).<\/p>\nFinally, it is the writer of the Letter to the Hebrews who explains how the twin biblical “sabbath themes” of creation and redemption find their joint fulfillment in Christ. He did so by linking together the ideas of God’s rest after Creation and his redemptive act in bringing Israel to her “rest” in Canaan, and by showing how both relate to the present and future rest that Christians can and do enjoy in Jesus (Heb 4:1-11).<\/p>\nGod intends all his people to share his rest—that is, his promise (Heb 4:1). He showed this intention clearly when he brought Israel to the Promised Land, but that did not mark the complete fulfillment of his promise. The full, complete rest still waiting for the people of God is in heaven. Christ has already entered there. He is resting from his work, just as God did after the Creation. And because of his redeeming work, he invites all those who believe in him to share that same “sabbath rest” now (v 9).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Lord’s Day, The; Sabbath Day’s Journey; Commandments, The Ten.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SABBATH Derivation of a Hebrew word that means “cease” or “desist.” The Sabbath was a day (from Friday evening until Saturday evening in Jesus’ time) when all ordinary work stopped. The Scriptures relate that God gave his people the Sabbath as an opportunity to serve him and as a reminder of two great truths in the Bible—Creation and redemption. In the Old Testament The relationship between Creation and the Sabbath is first expressed in Genesis 2:2-3. God “ceased” his work in Creation after s...","summary_en":"SABBATH Derivation of a Hebrew word that means “cease” or “desist.” The Sabbath was a day (from Friday evening until Saturday evening in Jesus’ time) when all ordinary work stopped. The Scriptures relate that God gave his people the Sabbath as an opportunity to serve him and as a reminder of two great truths in the Bible—Creation and redemption. In the Old Testament The relationship between Creation and the Sabbath is first expressed in Genesis 2:2-3. God “ceased” his work in Creation after s...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":35853,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Son of Man","title_en":"Son of Man","content_ro":"<h3>SON OF MAN<\/h3>\nMessianic title used by Jesus to express his heavenly origin, earthly mission, and glorious future coming. It does not refer merely to his human nature or humanity, as some church fathers or contemporary scholars believe. Rather, it reflects on the heavenly origin and divine dignity of Jesus, on the mystery of his manifestation in human form, and on his earthly mission that took him to the cross and then into glory.<\/p>\nThe background of the term “Son of Man” is to be found in the OT. The book of Ezekiel is the general source, since this prophet was referred to as “son of man” 90 times. For example, God addressed him, “Son of man, stand upon your feet, and I will speak with you” (Ez 2:1, rsv<\/span>). Jesus’ use of the term “Son of Man” and numerous themes from Ezekiel suggest his desire to identify himself as the eschatological prophet who, like Ezekiel (chs 4, 7, 10, 22, 40–48), had the last word about the destruction of Jerusalem and the restoration of the kingdom of God to Israel (Mt 23–24; Acts 1:6-8).<\/p>\nThe specific source of the term is Daniel 7:13-14, with its vision of one “like a son of man” who “comes with the clouds” into the presence of “the Ancient of Days,” who gives him the universal and eternal kingdom of God. Jesus repeatedly quoted parts of this text in teaching about his second coming (Mt 16:27; 19:28; 24:30; 25:31; 26:64). Clearly, Jesus understood this passage as a prophetic portrayal of his own person: his incarnation, ascension, and inheritance of the kingdom of God.<\/p>\nIn the Gospels, the term “Son of Man” is used by Jesus about 80 times as a mysterious, indirect way of speaking about himself (Mt, 32 times; Mk, 14 times; Lk, 26 times; Jn, 10 times). In all these texts, Jesus was always the speaker, and no one ever addressed him as “Son of Man.” In some texts the reference is cryptic enough for some interpreters to insist that Jesus was speaking about another person. Such uncertainty is recorded in only one text in John, where the crowd asks Jesus, “Who is this ‘Son of Man’?” (Jn 12:34). In most texts, the identification is clear. In some it is explicit: “Who do men say that the Son of Man is?”—followed by, “Who do you say that I am?” (Mt 16:13, 15). The conclusion generally drawn is that Jesus used the term as a messianic title for himself, so that he could speak modestly about his person and mission yet convey the exalted content he wished to reveal about himself. He could do this with considerable originality because the term was not fraught with popular misconceptions concerning the Messiah.<\/p>\nThe term occurs only four other times in the NT. In Acts 7:56, Stephen says, “Look, I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing in the place of honor at God’s right hand!” (nlt<\/span>). Hebrews 2:6 quotes Psalm 8:4 as applying to Jesus. Finally, Revelation 1:13 and 14:14 record visions of someone “like a son of man,” who is undoubtedly the glorified Jesus.<\/p>\nIn the synoptic Gospels, the first theme in Jesus’ self-revelation connected with his use of the title “Son of Man” concerns his coming to earth to accomplish his messianic mission. A general comparison of Jesus’ present earthly condition with that of his previous heavenly glory is expressed in the saying “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head” (Mt 8:20; see Lk 9:58). This saying indicates that the Son of Man gave up his heavenly home to suffer all the humiliations of his earthly ministry (Phil 2:5-11).<\/p>\nJesus used the title to claim divine prerogatives, saying, “The Son of Man is Lord of the sabbath” (Mt 12:8; Mk 2:28; Lk 6:5). The Sabbath, a divine institution, may not be revised by ordinary men. But since Jesus is the Son of Man from heaven, he is free to rule as Lord even of the Sabbath, because he is the same Lord who instituted the Sabbath (Gn 2:2; Ex 20:8-11). After healing the paralytic at Capernaum, Jesus claimed that “the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins” (Mt 9:6; Mk 2:10; Lk 5:24). Previously, forgiveness of sins came from heaven and from God, but now forgiveness comes from Capernaum and is given by Jesus.<\/p>\nThe second aspect of Jesus’ use of the “Son of Man” title concerns his suffering, death, and glorious resurrection as the mysterious method he would use to fulfill his earthly mission as the Son of Man. Jesus began expounding this passion theme after Peter confessed him to be Messiah and Son of God (Mt 16:16). Jesus’ prediction of his passion as the Son of Man begins in Mark 8:31-32 and is repeated in several other texts. The Gospels expand the theme to include his suffering of mockery and scourging (Mt 17:12; 20:18; Mk 8:31; Lk 9:22), betrayal by Judas (Mt 17:22; 26:24-25; Mk 14:21, 41), rejection by the Jewish leaders (Mt 20:18), death by crucifixion (Mt 20:19; Mk 9:12, 31; 10:33), burial for three days (Mt 12:40; Lk 11:30), and resurrection (Mt 17:22-23; Mk 8:31).<\/p>\nIn the famous text “The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mt 20:28; Mk 10:45), Jesus teaches that his death was a vicarious sacrifice for the salvation of his people. This idea of substitutionary atonement is a new element in the Son of Man material and derives from Jesus’ understanding of himself as the suffering Servant of the Lord (Is 53).<\/p>\nJesus also used the “Son of Man” title to teach about his second coming. As the Son of Man, Jesus will return to earth from heaven in the glory of his Father with the angels (Mt 16:27; Mk 8:38; Lk 9:26). First, he will be seated at the right hand of God, and then he will come again (Mt 26:64; Mk 14:62; Lk 22:69) with the clouds (Mt 24:30; Mk 13:26; Lk 21:27). This coming will be unexpected (Mt 24:27; Lk 12:40), like a flash of lightning or the flood of Noah (Mt 24:37; Lk 17:24). His coming will be for the gathering of the elect, the judgment of all the nations of the earth (Mt 19:28; 25:32), and the restoration of final righteousness in the world (19:28; 25:46).<\/p>\nIn these passages, Jesus’ focus shifts from the provisional victory in his passion and resurrection to the final victory of the Son of Man at his second coming. Here again, the dramatic emphasis is on the heavenly origin and divine prerogatives of the Son of Man. This man Jesus, the Son of Man, will be the final judge (cf. Acts 17:31).<\/p>\nThe Gospel of John has its own distinctive material concerning the Son of Man. The angels are said to ascend and descend on the Son of Man (Jn 1:51), thereby signifying that he is a preexistent person who has come from heaven to earth (3:13; 6:62). His being lifted up (by crucifixion) will bring about eternal life for all who believe in him (3:14). The Son of Man (3:14) is also the Son of God (3:16), God’s one and only Son (1:18; 3:18). Quite simply, in John’s Gospel, the “Son of Man” title is equivalent to the title “Son of God.” It reveals his divinity, preexistence, heavenly origin, and divine prerogatives. It affirms his present earthly condition for revelation and passion, and his future eschatological glory. The Father has given the Son of Man authority to raise the dead and to judge the world (5:25-27).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Christology; Jesus Christ, Teachings of; Messiah; Son of God.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SON OF MAN<\/h3>\nMessianic title used by Jesus to express his heavenly origin, earthly mission, and glorious future coming. It does not refer merely to his human nature or humanity, as some church fathers or contemporary scholars believe. Rather, it reflects on the heavenly origin and divine dignity of Jesus, on the mystery of his manifestation in human form, and on his earthly mission that took him to the cross and then into glory.<\/p>\nThe background of the term “Son of Man” is to be found in the OT. The book of Ezekiel is the general source, since this prophet was referred to as “son of man” 90 times. For example, God addressed him, “Son of man, stand upon your feet, and I will speak with you” (Ez 2:1, rsv<\/span>). Jesus’ use of the term “Son of Man” and numerous themes from Ezekiel suggest his desire to identify himself as the eschatological prophet who, like Ezekiel (chs 4, 7, 10, 22, 40–48), had the last word about the destruction of Jerusalem and the restoration of the kingdom of God to Israel (Mt 23–24; Acts 1:6-8).<\/p>\nThe specific source of the term is Daniel 7:13-14, with its vision of one “like a son of man” who “comes with the clouds” into the presence of “the Ancient of Days,” who gives him the universal and eternal kingdom of God. Jesus repeatedly quoted parts of this text in teaching about his second coming (Mt 16:27; 19:28; 24:30; 25:31; 26:64). Clearly, Jesus understood this passage as a prophetic portrayal of his own person: his incarnation, ascension, and inheritance of the kingdom of God.<\/p>\nIn the Gospels, the term “Son of Man” is used by Jesus about 80 times as a mysterious, indirect way of speaking about himself (Mt, 32 times; Mk, 14 times; Lk, 26 times; Jn, 10 times). In all these texts, Jesus was always the speaker, and no one ever addressed him as “Son of Man.” In some texts the reference is cryptic enough for some interpreters to insist that Jesus was speaking about another person. Such uncertainty is recorded in only one text in John, where the crowd asks Jesus, “Who is this ‘Son of Man’?” (Jn 12:34). In most texts, the identification is clear. In some it is explicit: “Who do men say that the Son of Man is?”—followed by, “Who do you say that I am?” (Mt 16:13, 15). The conclusion generally drawn is that Jesus used the term as a messianic title for himself, so that he could speak modestly about his person and mission yet convey the exalted content he wished to reveal about himself. He could do this with considerable originality because the term was not fraught with popular misconceptions concerning the Messiah.<\/p>\nThe term occurs only four other times in the NT. In Acts 7:56, Stephen says, “Look, I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing in the place of honor at God’s right hand!” (nlt<\/span>). Hebrews 2:6 quotes Psalm 8:4 as applying to Jesus. Finally, Revelation 1:13 and 14:14 record visions of someone “like a son of man,” who is undoubtedly the glorified Jesus.<\/p>\nIn the synoptic Gospels, the first theme in Jesus’ self-revelation connected with his use of the title “Son of Man” concerns his coming to earth to accomplish his messianic mission. A general comparison of Jesus’ present earthly condition with that of his previous heavenly glory is expressed in the saying “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head” (Mt 8:20; see Lk 9:58). This saying indicates that the Son of Man gave up his heavenly home to suffer all the humiliations of his earthly ministry (Phil 2:5-11).<\/p>\nJesus used the title to claim divine prerogatives, saying, “The Son of Man is Lord of the sabbath” (Mt 12:8; Mk 2:28; Lk 6:5). The Sabbath, a divine institution, may not be revised by ordinary men. But since Jesus is the Son of Man from heaven, he is free to rule as Lord even of the Sabbath, because he is the same Lord who instituted the Sabbath (Gn 2:2; Ex 20:8-11). After healing the paralytic at Capernaum, Jesus claimed that “the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins” (Mt 9:6; Mk 2:10; Lk 5:24). Previously, forgiveness of sins came from heaven and from God, but now forgiveness comes from Capernaum and is given by Jesus.<\/p>\nThe second aspect of Jesus’ use of the “Son of Man” title concerns his suffering, death, and glorious resurrection as the mysterious method he would use to fulfill his earthly mission as the Son of Man. Jesus began expounding this passion theme after Peter confessed him to be Messiah and Son of God (Mt 16:16). Jesus’ prediction of his passion as the Son of Man begins in Mark 8:31-32 and is repeated in several other texts. The Gospels expand the theme to include his suffering of mockery and scourging (Mt 17:12; 20:18; Mk 8:31; Lk 9:22), betrayal by Judas (Mt 17:22; 26:24-25; Mk 14:21, 41), rejection by the Jewish leaders (Mt 20:18), death by crucifixion (Mt 20:19; Mk 9:12, 31; 10:33), burial for three days (Mt 12:40; Lk 11:30), and resurrection (Mt 17:22-23; Mk 8:31).<\/p>\nIn the famous text “The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mt 20:28; Mk 10:45), Jesus teaches that his death was a vicarious sacrifice for the salvation of his people. This idea of substitutionary atonement is a new element in the Son of Man material and derives from Jesus’ understanding of himself as the suffering Servant of the Lord (Is 53).<\/p>\nJesus also used the “Son of Man” title to teach about his second coming. As the Son of Man, Jesus will return to earth from heaven in the glory of his Father with the angels (Mt 16:27; Mk 8:38; Lk 9:26). First, he will be seated at the right hand of God, and then he will come again (Mt 26:64; Mk 14:62; Lk 22:69) with the clouds (Mt 24:30; Mk 13:26; Lk 21:27). This coming will be unexpected (Mt 24:27; Lk 12:40), like a flash of lightning or the flood of Noah (Mt 24:37; Lk 17:24). His coming will be for the gathering of the elect, the judgment of all the nations of the earth (Mt 19:28; 25:32), and the restoration of final righteousness in the world (19:28; 25:46).<\/p>\nIn these passages, Jesus’ focus shifts from the provisional victory in his passion and resurrection to the final victory of the Son of Man at his second coming. Here again, the dramatic emphasis is on the heavenly origin and divine prerogatives of the Son of Man. This man Jesus, the Son of Man, will be the final judge (cf. Acts 17:31).<\/p>\nThe Gospel of John has its own distinctive material concerning the Son of Man. The angels are said to ascend and descend on the Son of Man (Jn 1:51), thereby signifying that he is a preexistent person who has come from heaven to earth (3:13; 6:62). His being lifted up (by crucifixion) will bring about eternal life for all who believe in him (3:14). The Son of Man (3:14) is also the Son of God (3:16), God’s one and only Son (1:18; 3:18). Quite simply, in John’s Gospel, the “Son of Man” title is equivalent to the title “Son of God.” It reveals his divinity, preexistence, heavenly origin, and divine prerogatives. It affirms his present earthly condition for revelation and passion, and his future eschatological glory. The Father has given the Son of Man authority to raise the dead and to judge the world (5:25-27).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Christology; Jesus Christ, Teachings of; Messiah; Son of God.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SON OF MAN Messianic title used by Jesus to express his heavenly origin, earthly mission, and glorious future coming. It does not refer merely to his human nature or humanity, as some church fathers or contemporary scholars believe. Rather, it reflects on the heavenly origin and divine dignity of Jesus, on the mystery of his manifestation in human form, and on his earthly mission that took him to the cross and then into glory. The background of the term “Son of Man” is to be found in the OT. ...","summary_en":"SON OF MAN Messianic title used by Jesus to express his heavenly origin, earthly mission, and glorious future coming. It does not refer merely to his human nature or humanity, as some church fathers or contemporary scholars believe. Rather, it reflects on the heavenly origin and divine dignity of Jesus, on the mystery of his manifestation in human form, and on his earthly mission that took him to the cross and then into glory. The background of the term “Son of Man” is to be found in the OT. ...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":38633,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Work","title_en":"Work","content_ro":"<h3>WORK<\/h3>\nA term referring either to God’s activity or to people’s regular occupation or employment.<\/p>\nThe Value of Work<\/p>\nThe Bible’s positive outlook on work is rooted in its teaching about God. Unlike other ancient religious writings, which regarded creation as something beneath the dignity of the Supreme Being, Scripture unashamedly describes God as a worker. Like a manual laborer, he made the universe as “the work of his fingers” (Ps 8:3). He worked with his raw material just as a potter works with the clay (Is 45:9). The intricate development of the unborn child in the womb and the vast, magnificent spread of the sky both display his supreme craftsmanship (Pss 139:13-16; 19:1). In fact, all creation bears witness to his wisdom and skill (104:24). The almighty Creator even had his rest day (Gn 2:2-3) and enjoyed job satisfaction when surveying his achievements at the end of the week (1:31).<\/p>\nThis vivid biblical description of a working God reaches its climax with the incarnation of Jesus. The “work” that Jesus was given to do (Jn 4:34) was, of course, the unique task of redemption. But he was also a worker in the ordinary sense. His contemporaries knew him as “a carpenter” (Mk 6:3). In NT times carpentry and joinery were muscle-building trades. So the Jesus who stormed through the temple, overturning tables and driving out the men and animals (Jn 2:14-16), was no pale weakling but a workingman whose hands had been hardened by years of toil with the ax, saw, and hammer. Hard, physical labor was not beneath the dignity of the Son of God.<\/p>\nIf the Bible’s teaching about God enhances work’s dignity, its account of mankind’s creation gives all human labor the mark of normality. God “took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to till it and keep it” (Gn 2:15). And God’s first command, to “fill the earth and subdue it” (1:28), implied a great deal of work for both man and woman. In an important sense, people today are obeying that command of their Creator when they do their daily work, whether they acknowledge him or not. Work did not, therefore, arrive in the world as a direct result of the fall into sin (though sin did spoil working conditions, 3:17-19). Work was planned by God from the dawn of history for mankind’s good—as natural to men and women as sunset is to day (Ps 104:19-23).<\/p>\nWith this firm emphasis on the dignity and normality of labor, it is no surprise to find that Scripture strongly condemns idleness. “Go to the ant, O sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise” (Prv 6:6, rsv<\/span>). Paul is equally blunt: “If any one will not work, let him not eat” (2 Thes 3:10, rsv<\/span>). He set a good example (Acts 20:33-35; 1 Thes 2:9). Those who refuse to work, he insists, even for spiritual reasons, earn no respect from non-Christian onlookers by depending on others to pay their bills (1 Thes 4:11-12). Wage earners, on the other hand, have the material resources of Christian service (Eph 4:28).<\/p>\nVocations<\/p>\nIn biblical times the Greeks and Romans catalogued jobs according to importance or desirability. Routine manual labor, for example, was considered inferior to work involving mental activity.<\/p>\nJewish teaching contrasts strongly with this attitude. “Hate not laborious work,” taught the rabbis (Ecclus 7:15). Even the scholar had to spend some time in manual work. A few trades, like that of the tanner, were regarded as undesirable (a taboo broken very quickly by the early church—see Acts 9:43), but there is no indication in the Bible that some jobs are more worthwhile than others in God’s sight. The Lord calls craftsmen into his service (Ex 31:1-11), just as much as prophets (Is 6:8-9). So Amos was summoned from his fruit-picking to prophesy (Am 7:14-15), but with no suggestion that he was being promoted to a superior role. The important thing was not the nature of the occupation but the readiness to obey God’s call and to witness faithfully to him, whatever the job.<\/p>\nThe Bible has some poignant things to say about the relationship between employer and employee. The OT prophets voice the strongest criticism. God is especially concerned to see that the weak get justice (Is 1:17; Mi 6:8). So, naturally, his spokesmen declare his anger when employers exploit their laborers and cheat them of their wages (Jer 22:13; Mal 3:5; cf. Jas 5:4). A person who wants to please God must “stop oppressing those who work for [him] and treat them fairly and give them what they earn” (Is 58:6, tlb<\/span>).<\/p>\nIn Bible times, the scales were weighted heavily in favor of the employer. But Scripture is not blind to the existence of selfish, greedy employees. Every worker deserves a just wage (Lk 10:7), but those with special power must not try to increase their pay by threats and violence (3:14).<\/p>\nWorking for Christ<\/p>\nGod is a working God who is pleased when his people work hard and conscientiously. That conviction lies at the heart of the Bible’s teaching about Christian attitudes toward secular employment. And quite naturally, the NT extends the same positive emphasis to cover all Christian service, paid or unpaid. The world is God’s harvest field, said Jesus, waiting for Christian reapers to move in and evangelize (Mt 9:37-38). Paul used the same agricultural illustration and added another from the building trade to describe the Lord’s work of evangelism and teaching (1 Cor 3:6-15). Church leaders must work especially hard, he said (1 Thes 5:12), to stimulate all<\/em> God’s people to be involved in the Lord’s work (1 Cor 15:58). All Christians should see themselves as “God’s coworkers” (3:9).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>WORK<\/h3>\nA term referring either to God’s activity or to people’s regular occupation or employment.<\/p>\nThe Value of Work<\/p>\nThe Bible’s positive outlook on work is rooted in its teaching about God. Unlike other ancient religious writings, which regarded creation as something beneath the dignity of the Supreme Being, Scripture unashamedly describes God as a worker. Like a manual laborer, he made the universe as “the work of his fingers” (Ps 8:3). He worked with his raw material just as a potter works with the clay (Is 45:9). The intricate development of the unborn child in the womb and the vast, magnificent spread of the sky both display his supreme craftsmanship (Pss 139:13-16; 19:1). In fact, all creation bears witness to his wisdom and skill (104:24). The almighty Creator even had his rest day (Gn 2:2-3) and enjoyed job satisfaction when surveying his achievements at the end of the week (1:31).<\/p>\nThis vivid biblical description of a working God reaches its climax with the incarnation of Jesus. The “work” that Jesus was given to do (Jn 4:34) was, of course, the unique task of redemption. But he was also a worker in the ordinary sense. His contemporaries knew him as “a carpenter” (Mk 6:3). In NT times carpentry and joinery were muscle-building trades. So the Jesus who stormed through the temple, overturning tables and driving out the men and animals (Jn 2:14-16), was no pale weakling but a workingman whose hands had been hardened by years of toil with the ax, saw, and hammer. Hard, physical labor was not beneath the dignity of the Son of God.<\/p>\nIf the Bible’s teaching about God enhances work’s dignity, its account of mankind’s creation gives all human labor the mark of normality. God “took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to till it and keep it” (Gn 2:15). And God’s first command, to “fill the earth and subdue it” (1:28), implied a great deal of work for both man and woman. In an important sense, people today are obeying that command of their Creator when they do their daily work, whether they acknowledge him or not. Work did not, therefore, arrive in the world as a direct result of the fall into sin (though sin did spoil working conditions, 3:17-19). Work was planned by God from the dawn of history for mankind’s good—as natural to men and women as sunset is to day (Ps 104:19-23).<\/p>\nWith this firm emphasis on the dignity and normality of labor, it is no surprise to find that Scripture strongly condemns idleness. “Go to the ant, O sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise” (Prv 6:6, rsv<\/span>). Paul is equally blunt: “If any one will not work, let him not eat” (2 Thes 3:10, rsv<\/span>). He set a good example (Acts 20:33-35; 1 Thes 2:9). Those who refuse to work, he insists, even for spiritual reasons, earn no respect from non-Christian onlookers by depending on others to pay their bills (1 Thes 4:11-12). Wage earners, on the other hand, have the material resources of Christian service (Eph 4:28).<\/p>\nVocations<\/p>\nIn biblical times the Greeks and Romans catalogued jobs according to importance or desirability. Routine manual labor, for example, was considered inferior to work involving mental activity.<\/p>\nJewish teaching contrasts strongly with this attitude. “Hate not laborious work,” taught the rabbis (Ecclus 7:15). Even the scholar had to spend some time in manual work. A few trades, like that of the tanner, were regarded as undesirable (a taboo broken very quickly by the early church—see Acts 9:43), but there is no indication in the Bible that some jobs are more worthwhile than others in God’s sight. The Lord calls craftsmen into his service (Ex 31:1-11), just as much as prophets (Is 6:8-9). So Amos was summoned from his fruit-picking to prophesy (Am 7:14-15), but with no suggestion that he was being promoted to a superior role. The important thing was not the nature of the occupation but the readiness to obey God’s call and to witness faithfully to him, whatever the job.<\/p>\nThe Bible has some poignant things to say about the relationship between employer and employee. The OT prophets voice the strongest criticism. God is especially concerned to see that the weak get justice (Is 1:17; Mi 6:8). So, naturally, his spokesmen declare his anger when employers exploit their laborers and cheat them of their wages (Jer 22:13; Mal 3:5; cf. Jas 5:4). A person who wants to please God must “stop oppressing those who work for [him] and treat them fairly and give them what they earn” (Is 58:6, tlb<\/span>).<\/p>\nIn Bible times, the scales were weighted heavily in favor of the employer. But Scripture is not blind to the existence of selfish, greedy employees. Every worker deserves a just wage (Lk 10:7), but those with special power must not try to increase their pay by threats and violence (3:14).<\/p>\nWorking for Christ<\/p>\nGod is a working God who is pleased when his people work hard and conscientiously. That conviction lies at the heart of the Bible’s teaching about Christian attitudes toward secular employment. And quite naturally, the NT extends the same positive emphasis to cover all Christian service, paid or unpaid. The world is God’s harvest field, said Jesus, waiting for Christian reapers to move in and evangelize (Mt 9:37-38). Paul used the same agricultural illustration and added another from the building trade to describe the Lord’s work of evangelism and teaching (1 Cor 3:6-15). Church leaders must work especially hard, he said (1 Thes 5:12), to stimulate all<\/em> God’s people to be involved in the Lord’s work (1 Cor 15:58). All Christians should see themselves as “God’s coworkers” (3:9).<\/p>","summary_ro":"WORK A term referring either to God’s activity or to people’s regular occupation or employment. The Value of Work The Bible’s positive outlook on work is rooted in its teaching about God. Unlike other ancient religious writings, which regarded creation as something beneath the dignity of the Supreme Being, Scripture unashamedly describes God as a worker. Like a manual laborer, he made the universe as “the work of his fingers” (Ps 8:3). He worked with his raw material just as a potter works wi...","summary_en":"WORK A term referring either to God’s activity or to people’s regular occupation or employment. The Value of Work The Bible’s positive outlook on work is rooted in its teaching about God. Unlike other ancient religious writings, which regarded creation as something beneath the dignity of the Supreme Being, Scripture unashamedly describes God as a worker. Like a manual laborer, he made the universe as “the work of his fingers” (Ps 8:3). He worked with his raw material just as a potter works wi...","source":"Articles\/W.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":67625,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"God’s Sabbath Rest","title_en":"God’s Sabbath Rest","content_ro":"<h3>God’s Sabbath Rest<\/h3>\nThe concept of God’s Sabbath rest, as found in Hebrews 4:1-11, has been a theological puzzle for commentators. The notion carries various connotations from the Old Testament, including the Promised Land as a place to rest from slavery and wandering and the Sabbath day as a weekly day of rest. In Hebrews 3:7-19, the author expounds on Psalm 95:7-11 and offers the wilderness wanderers as an example of those who failed to enter God’s rest because of their disobedience.<\/p>\nBut what is this “rest” they failed to enter, which still remains for the people of God (Heb 4:1-3)? The author of Hebrews clearly had more in mind than the physical land of Canaan as the place of “special rest” (4:8-9). Genesis 2:2 speaks of God’s rest as something that he prepared from the foundation of the world (Heb 4:3-4). God’s rest relates to ceasing from one’s own work as God did from his (4:10). This rest can be entered by those who “hear his voice,” don’t harden their hearts, and believe the Good News (4:1-3, 7).<\/p>\nIn the Old Testament, the Day of Atonement is called a “Sabbath day of complete rest” (Lev 16:29-31). On that day, people ceased completely from their own work. In the new covenant, Jesus as our Great High Priest has offered a once-for-all sacrifice that decisively dealt with sin (9:7-28). He has provided the ultimate atoning sacrifice, and he thus offers people a spiritual rest, which they enter by believing this Good News.<\/p>\nGod’s rest that is available through Jesus has two aspects. First, those who believe in him have ceased from their own works—that is, they no longer work for God’s acceptance, but they trust in Christ’s finished work (Eph 2:8-9) and enjoy the blessings of peace with God (John 14:27; Acts 10:36; Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19-21). Second, they look forward to an eternal life of rest and enjoyment in God’s presence (Isa 26:19; Rev 14:13). Jesus Christ gives complete and perfect rest (Matt 11:28-30).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:1-3; Exod 16:21-29; 20:8-11; 31:13-16; Lev 16:29-31; Isa 52:7; 54:13-14; 56:2, 4; 57:2, 21; 58:13; Ezek 20:20; Matt 11:28-30; Mark 2:23-28; Luke 8:48; John 14:27; Acts 10:36; Rom 5:1; 15:13; 2 Cor 5:19-21; Eph 2:17; Col 1:20; 2:16; 3:15; Heb 4:1-11; 2 Pet 1:2<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>God’s Sabbath Rest<\/h3>\nThe concept of God’s Sabbath rest, as found in Hebrews 4:1-11, has been a theological puzzle for commentators. The notion carries various connotations from the Old Testament, including the Promised Land as a place to rest from slavery and wandering and the Sabbath day as a weekly day of rest. In Hebrews 3:7-19, the author expounds on Psalm 95:7-11 and offers the wilderness wanderers as an example of those who failed to enter God’s rest because of their disobedience.<\/p>\nBut what is this “rest” they failed to enter, which still remains for the people of God (Heb 4:1-3)? The author of Hebrews clearly had more in mind than the physical land of Canaan as the place of “special rest” (4:8-9). Genesis 2:2 speaks of God’s rest as something that he prepared from the foundation of the world (Heb 4:3-4). God’s rest relates to ceasing from one’s own work as God did from his (4:10). This rest can be entered by those who “hear his voice,” don’t harden their hearts, and believe the Good News (4:1-3, 7).<\/p>\nIn the Old Testament, the Day of Atonement is called a “Sabbath day of complete rest” (Lev 16:29-31). On that day, people ceased completely from their own work. In the new covenant, Jesus as our Great High Priest has offered a once-for-all sacrifice that decisively dealt with sin (9:7-28). He has provided the ultimate atoning sacrifice, and he thus offers people a spiritual rest, which they enter by believing this Good News.<\/p>\nGod’s rest that is available through Jesus has two aspects. First, those who believe in him have ceased from their own works—that is, they no longer work for God’s acceptance, but they trust in Christ’s finished work (Eph 2:8-9) and enjoy the blessings of peace with God (John 14:27; Acts 10:36; Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19-21). Second, they look forward to an eternal life of rest and enjoyment in God’s presence (Isa 26:19; Rev 14:13). Jesus Christ gives complete and perfect rest (Matt 11:28-30).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:1-3; Exod 16:21-29; 20:8-11; 31:13-16; Lev 16:29-31; Isa 52:7; 54:13-14; 56:2, 4; 57:2, 21; 58:13; Ezek 20:20; Matt 11:28-30; Mark 2:23-28; Luke 8:48; John 14:27; Acts 10:36; Rom 5:1; 15:13; 2 Cor 5:19-21; Eph 2:17; Col 1:20; 2:16; 3:15; Heb 4:1-11; 2 Pet 1:2<\/p>","summary_ro":"God’s Sabbath Rest The concept of God’s Sabbath rest, as found in Hebrews 4:1-11, has been a theological puzzle for commentators. The notion carries various connotations from the Old Testament, including the Promised Land as a place to rest from slavery and wandering and the Sabbath day as a weekly day of rest. In Hebrews 3:7-19, the author expounds on Psalm 95:7-11 and offers the wilderness wanderers as an example of those who failed to enter God’s rest because of their disobedience. But wha...","summary_en":"God’s Sabbath Rest The concept of God’s Sabbath rest, as found in Hebrews 4:1-11, has been a theological puzzle for commentators. The notion carries various connotations from the Old Testament, including the Promised Land as a place to rest from slavery and wandering and the Sabbath day as a weekly day of rest. In Hebrews 3:7-19, the author expounds on Psalm 95:7-11 and offers the wilderness wanderers as an example of those who failed to enter God’s rest because of their disobedience. But wha...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":67968,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Symbolic Numbers","title_en":"Symbolic Numbers","content_ro":"<h3>Symbolic Numbers<\/h3>\nNumbers used in Scripture have often inspired wild speculation. An understanding of the symbolism of numbers in the ancient world can help ground our interpretation. Such symbolism, however, is not rigid or exact, so great care must be exercised when numbers are used in interpretation, so as not to push fanciful predictions about future events.<\/p>\nThe number one<\/em> can refer to God’s oneness (Deut 6:4; Gal 3:20; Jas 2:19). Two<\/em> is the minimum number required to give a legitimate witness (Deut 17:6; Rev 11:3), and three<\/em> can imply divine representation (Gen 18:1-2; 2 Cor 13:14; Rev 1:4-5). Four<\/em> can stand for the known world, represented in Revelation by living creatures, horsemen, winds, and angels (Rev 4:6-8; 6:1-8; 7:1) and in Genesis by four<\/em> rivers (Gen 2:10-14). When three<\/em> and four<\/em> are added to make seven,<\/em> they represent perfection or divine fulfillment, indicating that God and the world are in harmony. The multiplication of three<\/em> by four<\/em> yields twelve,<\/em> the number associated with God’s people (Gen 35:22-26; Exod 24:4; 28:21; Num 17:2; Josh 4:3-8; 1 Kgs 18:31; Matt 10:1-4; 19:28; Jas 1:1; Rev 12:1; 21:12–22:2. The number five<\/em> and its multiples, such as ten,<\/em> represent human completeness (e.g., five<\/em> fingers per hand); and six<\/em> carries a negative sense or implication of evil, being neither humanly complete (five<\/em>) nor divinely complete (seven<\/em>).<\/p>\nMultiples of ten<\/em> (e.g., forty<\/em>) are a symbolic way to indicate many<\/em>, whereas three sixes<\/em> (666) imply supreme evil (Rev 13:18). One thousand<\/em> is regarded as the foundational large number; 12,000 indicates a large number of God’s people (Rev 7:5-8); and 144,000 represents the complete people of God (Rev 7:4; 14:1). The number 10,000 and its multiples are probably best transliterated from Greek as myriads<\/em>, since they really mean “a huge number” rather than a precise count.<\/p>\nWhile some of the numbers in the Bible have symbolic meanings, using numbers to speculate on the time of Christ’s return or of the end of the world is highly dubious—only God possesses that knowledge (Mark 13:32). God did not intend for the symbolic numbers in Revelation to help us predict the future; rather, their symbolic meanings help to explain the significance of the visions. Because the numbers are symbolic, sometimes when we translate them into contemporary sizes, distances, and numbers for our ease of reading, it can result in the loss of theological significance. The use of these symbolic numbers can illuminate a vision’s relationship to the world or to the people of God.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:2-3; 4:15; 15:13; 41:53-54; Exod 20:6; 25:31-37; 32:15; Lev 16:14; 23:16; 2 Sam 24:13; 1 Kgs 4:26; 17:21; 18:31, 43-44; Job 1:2; Ps 90:4; Jer 15:3; 49:36; Ezek 14:21; Dan 4:16, 23-25; 7:3, 17, 24; Zech 4:2; 6:1; Matt 10:1-5; 12:40; 18:21-22; Mark 6:7; Luke 15:8; Acts 6:3; 10:16; 1 Cor 8:6; Eph 4:4-6; 2 Pet 3:8; Rev 1:16; 2:10; 4:4; 6:1; 7:1, 4-8; 12:1, 3; 13:1; 17:3-14; 20:2-7; 21:12-21<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Symbolic Numbers<\/h3>\nNumbers used in Scripture have often inspired wild speculation. An understanding of the symbolism of numbers in the ancient world can help ground our interpretation. Such symbolism, however, is not rigid or exact, so great care must be exercised when numbers are used in interpretation, so as not to push fanciful predictions about future events.<\/p>\nThe number one<\/em> can refer to God’s oneness (Deut 6:4; Gal 3:20; Jas 2:19). Two<\/em> is the minimum number required to give a legitimate witness (Deut 17:6; Rev 11:3), and three<\/em> can imply divine representation (Gen 18:1-2; 2 Cor 13:14; Rev 1:4-5). Four<\/em> can stand for the known world, represented in Revelation by living creatures, horsemen, winds, and angels (Rev 4:6-8; 6:1-8; 7:1) and in Genesis by four<\/em> rivers (Gen 2:10-14). When three<\/em> and four<\/em> are added to make seven,<\/em> they represent perfection or divine fulfillment, indicating that God and the world are in harmony. The multiplication of three<\/em> by four<\/em> yields twelve,<\/em> the number associated with God’s people (Gen 35:22-26; Exod 24:4; 28:21; Num 17:2; Josh 4:3-8; 1 Kgs 18:31; Matt 10:1-4; 19:28; Jas 1:1; Rev 12:1; 21:12–22:2. The number five<\/em> and its multiples, such as ten,<\/em> represent human completeness (e.g., five<\/em> fingers per hand); and six<\/em> carries a negative sense or implication of evil, being neither humanly complete (five<\/em>) nor divinely complete (seven<\/em>).<\/p>\nMultiples of ten<\/em> (e.g., forty<\/em>) are a symbolic way to indicate many<\/em>, whereas three sixes<\/em> (666) imply supreme evil (Rev 13:18). One thousand<\/em> is regarded as the foundational large number; 12,000 indicates a large number of God’s people (Rev 7:5-8); and 144,000 represents the complete people of God (Rev 7:4; 14:1). The number 10,000 and its multiples are probably best transliterated from Greek as myriads<\/em>, since they really mean “a huge number” rather than a precise count.<\/p>\nWhile some of the numbers in the Bible have symbolic meanings, using numbers to speculate on the time of Christ’s return or of the end of the world is highly dubious—only God possesses that knowledge (Mark 13:32). God did not intend for the symbolic numbers in Revelation to help us predict the future; rather, their symbolic meanings help to explain the significance of the visions. Because the numbers are symbolic, sometimes when we translate them into contemporary sizes, distances, and numbers for our ease of reading, it can result in the loss of theological significance. The use of these symbolic numbers can illuminate a vision’s relationship to the world or to the people of God.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:2-3; 4:15; 15:13; 41:53-54; Exod 20:6; 25:31-37; 32:15; Lev 16:14; 23:16; 2 Sam 24:13; 1 Kgs 4:26; 17:21; 18:31, 43-44; Job 1:2; Ps 90:4; Jer 15:3; 49:36; Ezek 14:21; Dan 4:16, 23-25; 7:3, 17, 24; Zech 4:2; 6:1; Matt 10:1-5; 12:40; 18:21-22; Mark 6:7; Luke 15:8; Acts 6:3; 10:16; 1 Cor 8:6; Eph 4:4-6; 2 Pet 3:8; Rev 1:16; 2:10; 4:4; 6:1; 7:1, 4-8; 12:1, 3; 13:1; 17:3-14; 20:2-7; 21:12-21<\/p>","summary_ro":"Symbolic Numbers Numbers used in Scripture have often inspired wild speculation. An understanding of the symbolism of numbers in the ancient world can help ground our interpretation. Such symbolism, however, is not rigid or exact, so great care must be exercised when numbers are used in interpretation, so as not to push fanciful predictions about future events. The number one can refer to God’s oneness (Deut 6:4; Gal 3:20; Jas 2:19). Two is the minimum number required to give a legitimate wit...","summary_en":"Symbolic Numbers Numbers used in Scripture have often inspired wild speculation. An understanding of the symbolism of numbers in the ancient world can help ground our interpretation. Such symbolism, however, is not rigid or exact, so great care must be exercised when numbers are used in interpretation, so as not to push fanciful predictions about future events. The number one can refer to God’s oneness (Deut 6:4; Gal 3:20; Jas 2:19). Two is the minimum number required to give a legitimate wit...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":95251,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"God’s Sabbath Rest","title_en":"God’s Sabbath Rest","content_ro":"<h3>God’s Sabbath Rest<\/h3>\nThe concept of God’s Sabbath rest, as found in Hebrews 4:1-11, has been a theological puzzle for commentators. The notion carries various connotations from the Old Testament, including the Promised Land as a place to rest from slavery and wandering and the Sabbath day as a weekly day of rest. In Hebrews 3:7-19, the author expounds on Psalm 95:7-11 and offers the wilderness wanderers as an example of those who failed to enter God’s rest because of their disobedience.<\/p>\nBut what is this “rest” they failed to enter, which still remains for the people of God (Heb 4:1-3)? The author of Hebrews clearly had more in mind than the physical land of Canaan as the place of “special rest” (4:8-9). Genesis 2:2 speaks of God’s rest as something that he prepared from the foundation of the world (Heb 4:3-4). God’s rest relates to ceasing from one’s own work as God did from his (4:10). This rest can be entered by those who “hear his voice,” don’t harden their hearts, and believe the Good News (4:1-3, 7).<\/p>\nIn the Old Testament, the Day of Atonement is called a “Sabbath day of complete rest” (Lev 16:29-31). On that day, people ceased completely from their own work. In the new covenant, Jesus as our Great High Priest has offered a once-for-all sacrifice that decisively dealt with sin (9:7-28). He has provided the ultimate atoning sacrifice, and he thus offers people a spiritual rest, which they enter by believing this Good News.<\/p>\nGod’s rest that is available through Jesus has two aspects. First, those who believe in him have ceased from their own works—that is, they no longer work for God’s acceptance, but they trust in Christ’s finished work (Eph 2:8-9) and enjoy the blessings of peace with God (John 14:27; Acts 10:36; Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19-21). Second, they look forward to an eternal life of rest and enjoyment in God’s presence (Isa 26:19; Rev 14:13). Jesus Christ gives complete and perfect rest (Matt 11:28-30).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:1-3; Exod 16:21-29; 20:8-11; 31:13-16; Lev 16:29-31; Isa 52:7; 54:13-14; 56:2, 4; 57:2, 21; 58:13; Ezek 20:20; Matt 11:28-30; Mark 2:23-28; Luke 8:48; John 14:27; Acts 10:36; Rom 5:1; 15:13; 2 Cor 5:19-21; Eph 2:17; Col 1:20; 2:16; 3:15; Heb 4:1-11; 2 Pet 1:2<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>God’s Sabbath Rest<\/h3>\nThe concept of God’s Sabbath rest, as found in Hebrews 4:1-11, has been a theological puzzle for commentators. The notion carries various connotations from the Old Testament, including the Promised Land as a place to rest from slavery and wandering and the Sabbath day as a weekly day of rest. In Hebrews 3:7-19, the author expounds on Psalm 95:7-11 and offers the wilderness wanderers as an example of those who failed to enter God’s rest because of their disobedience.<\/p>\nBut what is this “rest” they failed to enter, which still remains for the people of God (Heb 4:1-3)? The author of Hebrews clearly had more in mind than the physical land of Canaan as the place of “special rest” (4:8-9). Genesis 2:2 speaks of God’s rest as something that he prepared from the foundation of the world (Heb 4:3-4). God’s rest relates to ceasing from one’s own work as God did from his (4:10). This rest can be entered by those who “hear his voice,” don’t harden their hearts, and believe the Good News (4:1-3, 7).<\/p>\nIn the Old Testament, the Day of Atonement is called a “Sabbath day of complete rest” (Lev 16:29-31). On that day, people ceased completely from their own work. In the new covenant, Jesus as our Great High Priest has offered a once-for-all sacrifice that decisively dealt with sin (9:7-28). He has provided the ultimate atoning sacrifice, and he thus offers people a spiritual rest, which they enter by believing this Good News.<\/p>\nGod’s rest that is available through Jesus has two aspects. First, those who believe in him have ceased from their own works—that is, they no longer work for God’s acceptance, but they trust in Christ’s finished work (Eph 2:8-9) and enjoy the blessings of peace with God (John 14:27; Acts 10:36; Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19-21). Second, they look forward to an eternal life of rest and enjoyment in God’s presence (Isa 26:19; Rev 14:13). Jesus Christ gives complete and perfect rest (Matt 11:28-30).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:1-3; Exod 16:21-29; 20:8-11; 31:13-16; Lev 16:29-31; Isa 52:7; 54:13-14; 56:2, 4; 57:2, 21; 58:13; Ezek 20:20; Matt 11:28-30; Mark 2:23-28; Luke 8:48; John 14:27; Acts 10:36; Rom 5:1; 15:13; 2 Cor 5:19-21; Eph 2:17; Col 1:20; 2:16; 3:15; Heb 4:1-11; 2 Pet 1:2<\/p>","summary_ro":"God’s Sabbath Rest The concept of God’s Sabbath rest, as found in Hebrews 4:1-11, has been a theological puzzle for commentators. The notion carries various connotations from the Old Testament, including the Promised Land as a place to rest from slavery and wandering and the Sabbath day as a weekly day of rest. In Hebrews 3:7-19, the author expounds on Psalm 95:7-11 and offers the wilderness wanderers as an example of those who failed to enter God’s rest because of their disobedience. But wha...","summary_en":"God’s Sabbath Rest The concept of God’s Sabbath rest, as found in Hebrews 4:1-11, has been a theological puzzle for commentators. The notion carries various connotations from the Old Testament, including the Promised Land as a place to rest from slavery and wandering and the Sabbath day as a weekly day of rest. In Hebrews 3:7-19, the author expounds on Psalm 95:7-11 and offers the wilderness wanderers as an example of those who failed to enter God’s rest because of their disobedience. But wha...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":95594,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Symbolic Numbers","title_en":"Symbolic Numbers","content_ro":"<h3>Symbolic Numbers<\/h3>\nNumbers used in Scripture have often inspired wild speculation. An understanding of the symbolism of numbers in the ancient world can help ground our interpretation. Such symbolism, however, is not rigid or exact, so great care must be exercised when numbers are used in interpretation, so as not to push fanciful predictions about future events.<\/p>\nThe number one<\/em> can refer to God’s oneness (Deut 6:4; Gal 3:20; Jas 2:19). Two<\/em> is the minimum number required to give a legitimate witness (Deut 17:6; Rev 11:3), and three<\/em> can imply divine representation (Gen 18:1-2; 2 Cor 13:14; Rev 1:4-5). Four<\/em> can stand for the known world, represented in Revelation by living creatures, horsemen, winds, and angels (Rev 4:6-8; 6:1-8; 7:1) and in Genesis by four<\/em> rivers (Gen 2:10-14). When three<\/em> and four<\/em> are added to make seven,<\/em> they represent perfection or divine fulfillment, indicating that God and the world are in harmony. The multiplication of three<\/em> by four<\/em> yields twelve,<\/em> the number associated with God’s people (Gen 35:22-26; Exod 24:4; 28:21; Num 17:2; Josh 4:3-8; 1 Kgs 18:31; Matt 10:1-4; 19:28; Jas 1:1; Rev 12:1; 21:12–22:2. The number five<\/em> and its multiples, such as ten,<\/em> represent human completeness (e.g., five<\/em> fingers per hand); and six<\/em> carries a negative sense or implication of evil, being neither humanly complete (five<\/em>) nor divinely complete (seven<\/em>).<\/p>\nMultiples of ten<\/em> (e.g., forty<\/em>) are a symbolic way to indicate many<\/em>, whereas three sixes<\/em> (666) imply supreme evil (Rev 13:18). One thousand<\/em> is regarded as the foundational large number; 12,000 indicates a large number of God’s people (Rev 7:5-8); and 144,000 represents the complete people of God (Rev 7:4; 14:1). The number 10,000 and its multiples are probably best transliterated from Greek as myriads<\/em>, since they really mean “a huge number” rather than a precise count.<\/p>\nWhile some of the numbers in the Bible have symbolic meanings, using numbers to speculate on the time of Christ’s return or of the end of the world is highly dubious—only God possesses that knowledge (Mark 13:32). God did not intend for the symbolic numbers in Revelation to help us predict the future; rather, their symbolic meanings help to explain the significance of the visions. Because the numbers are symbolic, sometimes when we translate them into contemporary sizes, distances, and numbers for our ease of reading, it can result in the loss of theological significance. The use of these symbolic numbers can illuminate a vision’s relationship to the world or to the people of God.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:2-3; 4:15; 15:13; 41:53-54; Exod 20:6; 25:31-37; 32:15; Lev 16:14; 23:16; 2 Sam 24:13; 1 Kgs 4:26; 17:21; 18:31, 43-44; Job 1:2; Ps 90:4; Jer 15:3; 49:36; Ezek 14:21; Dan 4:16, 23-25; 7:3, 17, 24; Zech 4:2; 6:1; Matt 10:1-5; 12:40; 18:21-22; Mark 6:7; Luke 15:8; Acts 6:3; 10:16; 1 Cor 8:6; Eph 4:4-6; 2 Pet 3:8; Rev 1:16; 2:10; 4:4; 6:1; 7:1, 4-8; 12:1, 3; 13:1; 17:3-14; 20:2-7; 21:12-21<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Symbolic Numbers<\/h3>\nNumbers used in Scripture have often inspired wild speculation. An understanding of the symbolism of numbers in the ancient world can help ground our interpretation. Such symbolism, however, is not rigid or exact, so great care must be exercised when numbers are used in interpretation, so as not to push fanciful predictions about future events.<\/p>\nThe number one<\/em> can refer to God’s oneness (Deut 6:4; Gal 3:20; Jas 2:19). Two<\/em> is the minimum number required to give a legitimate witness (Deut 17:6; Rev 11:3), and three<\/em> can imply divine representation (Gen 18:1-2; 2 Cor 13:14; Rev 1:4-5). Four<\/em> can stand for the known world, represented in Revelation by living creatures, horsemen, winds, and angels (Rev 4:6-8; 6:1-8; 7:1) and in Genesis by four<\/em> rivers (Gen 2:10-14). When three<\/em> and four<\/em> are added to make seven,<\/em> they represent perfection or divine fulfillment, indicating that God and the world are in harmony. The multiplication of three<\/em> by four<\/em> yields twelve,<\/em> the number associated with God’s people (Gen 35:22-26; Exod 24:4; 28:21; Num 17:2; Josh 4:3-8; 1 Kgs 18:31; Matt 10:1-4; 19:28; Jas 1:1; Rev 12:1; 21:12–22:2. The number five<\/em> and its multiples, such as ten,<\/em> represent human completeness (e.g., five<\/em> fingers per hand); and six<\/em> carries a negative sense or implication of evil, being neither humanly complete (five<\/em>) nor divinely complete (seven<\/em>).<\/p>\nMultiples of ten<\/em> (e.g., forty<\/em>) are a symbolic way to indicate many<\/em>, whereas three sixes<\/em> (666) imply supreme evil (Rev 13:18). One thousand<\/em> is regarded as the foundational large number; 12,000 indicates a large number of God’s people (Rev 7:5-8); and 144,000 represents the complete people of God (Rev 7:4; 14:1). The number 10,000 and its multiples are probably best transliterated from Greek as myriads<\/em>, since they really mean “a huge number” rather than a precise count.<\/p>\nWhile some of the numbers in the Bible have symbolic meanings, using numbers to speculate on the time of Christ’s return or of the end of the world is highly dubious—only God possesses that knowledge (Mark 13:32). God did not intend for the symbolic numbers in Revelation to help us predict the future; rather, their symbolic meanings help to explain the significance of the visions. Because the numbers are symbolic, sometimes when we translate them into contemporary sizes, distances, and numbers for our ease of reading, it can result in the loss of theological significance. The use of these symbolic numbers can illuminate a vision’s relationship to the world or to the people of God.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:2-3; 4:15; 15:13; 41:53-54; Exod 20:6; 25:31-37; 32:15; Lev 16:14; 23:16; 2 Sam 24:13; 1 Kgs 4:26; 17:21; 18:31, 43-44; Job 1:2; Ps 90:4; Jer 15:3; 49:36; Ezek 14:21; Dan 4:16, 23-25; 7:3, 17, 24; Zech 4:2; 6:1; Matt 10:1-5; 12:40; 18:21-22; Mark 6:7; Luke 15:8; Acts 6:3; 10:16; 1 Cor 8:6; Eph 4:4-6; 2 Pet 3:8; Rev 1:16; 2:10; 4:4; 6:1; 7:1, 4-8; 12:1, 3; 13:1; 17:3-14; 20:2-7; 21:12-21<\/p>","summary_ro":"Symbolic Numbers Numbers used in Scripture have often inspired wild speculation. An understanding of the symbolism of numbers in the ancient world can help ground our interpretation. Such symbolism, however, is not rigid or exact, so great care must be exercised when numbers are used in interpretation, so as not to push fanciful predictions about future events. The number one can refer to God’s oneness (Deut 6:4; Gal 3:20; Jas 2:19). Two is the minimum number required to give a legitimate wit...","summary_en":"Symbolic Numbers Numbers used in Scripture have often inspired wild speculation. An understanding of the symbolism of numbers in the ancient world can help ground our interpretation. Such symbolism, however, is not rigid or exact, so great care must be exercised when numbers are used in interpretation, so as not to push fanciful predictions about future events. The number one can refer to God’s oneness (Deut 6:4; Gal 3:20; Jas 2:19). Two is the minimum number required to give a legitimate wit...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":122877,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"God’s Sabbath Rest","title_en":"God’s Sabbath Rest","content_ro":"<h3>God’s Sabbath Rest<\/h3>\nThe concept of God’s Sabbath rest, as found in Hebrews 4:1-11, has been a theological puzzle for commentators. The notion carries various connotations from the Old Testament, including the Promised Land as a place to rest from slavery and wandering and the Sabbath day as a weekly day of rest. In Hebrews 3:7-19, the author expounds on Psalm 95:7-11 and offers the wilderness wanderers as an example of those who failed to enter God’s rest because of their disobedience.<\/p>\nBut what is this “rest” they failed to enter, which still remains for the people of God (Heb 4:1-3)? The author of Hebrews clearly had more in mind than the physical land of Canaan as the place of “special rest” (4:8-9). Genesis 2:2 speaks of God’s rest as something that he prepared from the foundation of the world (Heb 4:3-4). God’s rest relates to ceasing from one’s own work as God did from his (4:10). This rest can be entered by those who “hear his voice,” don’t harden their hearts, and believe the Good News (4:1-3, 7).<\/p>\nIn the Old Testament, the Day of Atonement is called a “Sabbath day of complete rest” (Lev 16:29-31). On that day, people ceased completely from their own work. In the new covenant, Jesus as our Great High Priest has offered a once-for-all sacrifice that decisively dealt with sin (9:7-28). He has provided the ultimate atoning sacrifice, and he thus offers people a spiritual rest, which they enter by believing this Good News.<\/p>\nGod’s rest that is available through Jesus has two aspects. First, those who believe in him have ceased from their own works—that is, they no longer work for God’s acceptance, but they trust in Christ’s finished work (Eph 2:8-9) and enjoy the blessings of peace with God (John 14:27; Acts 10:36; Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19-21). Second, they look forward to an eternal life of rest and enjoyment in God’s presence (Isa 26:19; Rev 14:13). Jesus Christ gives complete and perfect rest (Matt 11:28-30).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:1-3; Exod 16:21-29; 20:8-11; 31:13-16; Lev 16:29-31; Isa 52:7; 54:13-14; 56:2, 4; 57:2, 21; 58:13; Ezek 20:20; Matt 11:28-30; Mark 2:23-28; Luke 8:48; John 14:27; Acts 10:36; Rom 5:1; 15:13; 2 Cor 5:19-21; Eph 2:17; Col 1:20; 2:16; 3:15; Heb 4:1-11; 2 Pet 1:2<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>God’s Sabbath Rest<\/h3>\nThe concept of God’s Sabbath rest, as found in Hebrews 4:1-11, has been a theological puzzle for commentators. The notion carries various connotations from the Old Testament, including the Promised Land as a place to rest from slavery and wandering and the Sabbath day as a weekly day of rest. In Hebrews 3:7-19, the author expounds on Psalm 95:7-11 and offers the wilderness wanderers as an example of those who failed to enter God’s rest because of their disobedience.<\/p>\nBut what is this “rest” they failed to enter, which still remains for the people of God (Heb 4:1-3)? The author of Hebrews clearly had more in mind than the physical land of Canaan as the place of “special rest” (4:8-9). Genesis 2:2 speaks of God’s rest as something that he prepared from the foundation of the world (Heb 4:3-4). God’s rest relates to ceasing from one’s own work as God did from his (4:10). This rest can be entered by those who “hear his voice,” don’t harden their hearts, and believe the Good News (4:1-3, 7).<\/p>\nIn the Old Testament, the Day of Atonement is called a “Sabbath day of complete rest” (Lev 16:29-31). On that day, people ceased completely from their own work. In the new covenant, Jesus as our Great High Priest has offered a once-for-all sacrifice that decisively dealt with sin (9:7-28). He has provided the ultimate atoning sacrifice, and he thus offers people a spiritual rest, which they enter by believing this Good News.<\/p>\nGod’s rest that is available through Jesus has two aspects. First, those who believe in him have ceased from their own works—that is, they no longer work for God’s acceptance, but they trust in Christ’s finished work (Eph 2:8-9) and enjoy the blessings of peace with God (John 14:27; Acts 10:36; Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19-21). Second, they look forward to an eternal life of rest and enjoyment in God’s presence (Isa 26:19; Rev 14:13). Jesus Christ gives complete and perfect rest (Matt 11:28-30).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:1-3; Exod 16:21-29; 20:8-11; 31:13-16; Lev 16:29-31; Isa 52:7; 54:13-14; 56:2, 4; 57:2, 21; 58:13; Ezek 20:20; Matt 11:28-30; Mark 2:23-28; Luke 8:48; John 14:27; Acts 10:36; Rom 5:1; 15:13; 2 Cor 5:19-21; Eph 2:17; Col 1:20; 2:16; 3:15; Heb 4:1-11; 2 Pet 1:2<\/p>","summary_ro":"God’s Sabbath Rest The concept of God’s Sabbath rest, as found in Hebrews 4:1-11, has been a theological puzzle for commentators. The notion carries various connotations from the Old Testament, including the Promised Land as a place to rest from slavery and wandering and the Sabbath day as a weekly day of rest. In Hebrews 3:7-19, the author expounds on Psalm 95:7-11 and offers the wilderness wanderers as an example of those who failed to enter God’s rest because of their disobedience. But wha...","summary_en":"God’s Sabbath Rest The concept of God’s Sabbath rest, as found in Hebrews 4:1-11, has been a theological puzzle for commentators. The notion carries various connotations from the Old Testament, including the Promised Land as a place to rest from slavery and wandering and the Sabbath day as a weekly day of rest. In Hebrews 3:7-19, the author expounds on Psalm 95:7-11 and offers the wilderness wanderers as an example of those who failed to enter God’s rest because of their disobedience. But wha...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":123220,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Symbolic Numbers","title_en":"Symbolic Numbers","content_ro":"<h3>Symbolic Numbers<\/h3>\nNumbers used in Scripture have often inspired wild speculation. An understanding of the symbolism of numbers in the ancient world can help ground our interpretation. Such symbolism, however, is not rigid or exact, so great care must be exercised when numbers are used in interpretation, so as not to push fanciful predictions about future events.<\/p>\nThe number one<\/em> can refer to God’s oneness (Deut 6:4; Gal 3:20; Jas 2:19). Two<\/em> is the minimum number required to give a legitimate witness (Deut 17:6; Rev 11:3), and three<\/em> can imply divine representation (Gen 18:1-2; 2 Cor 13:14; Rev 1:4-5). Four<\/em> can stand for the known world, represented in Revelation by living creatures, horsemen, winds, and angels (Rev 4:6-8; 6:1-8; 7:1) and in Genesis by four<\/em> rivers (Gen 2:10-14). When three<\/em> and four<\/em> are added to make seven,<\/em> they represent perfection or divine fulfillment, indicating that God and the world are in harmony. The multiplication of three<\/em> by four<\/em> yields twelve,<\/em> the number associated with God’s people (Gen 35:22-26; Exod 24:4; 28:21; Num 17:2; Josh 4:3-8; 1 Kgs 18:31; Matt 10:1-4; 19:28; Jas 1:1; Rev 12:1; 21:12–22:2. The number five<\/em> and its multiples, such as ten,<\/em> represent human completeness (e.g., five<\/em> fingers per hand); and six<\/em> carries a negative sense or implication of evil, being neither humanly complete (five<\/em>) nor divinely complete (seven<\/em>).<\/p>\nMultiples of ten<\/em> (e.g., forty<\/em>) are a symbolic way to indicate many<\/em>, whereas three sixes<\/em> (666) imply supreme evil (Rev 13:18). One thousand<\/em> is regarded as the foundational large number; 12,000 indicates a large number of God’s people (Rev 7:5-8); and 144,000 represents the complete people of God (Rev 7:4; 14:1). The number 10,000 and its multiples are probably best transliterated from Greek as myriads<\/em>, since they really mean “a huge number” rather than a precise count.<\/p>\nWhile some of the numbers in the Bible have symbolic meanings, using numbers to speculate on the time of Christ’s return or of the end of the world is highly dubious—only God possesses that knowledge (Mark 13:32). God did not intend for the symbolic numbers in Revelation to help us predict the future; rather, their symbolic meanings help to explain the significance of the visions. Because the numbers are symbolic, sometimes when we translate them into contemporary sizes, distances, and numbers for our ease of reading, it can result in the loss of theological significance. The use of these symbolic numbers can illuminate a vision’s relationship to the world or to the people of God.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:2-3; 4:15; 15:13; 41:53-54; Exod 20:6; 25:31-37; 32:15; Lev 16:14; 23:16; 2 Sam 24:13; 1 Kgs 4:26; 17:21; 18:31, 43-44; Job 1:2; Ps 90:4; Jer 15:3; 49:36; Ezek 14:21; Dan 4:16, 23-25; 7:3, 17, 24; Zech 4:2; 6:1; Matt 10:1-5; 12:40; 18:21-22; Mark 6:7; Luke 15:8; Acts 6:3; 10:16; 1 Cor 8:6; Eph 4:4-6; 2 Pet 3:8; Rev 1:16; 2:10; 4:4; 6:1; 7:1, 4-8; 12:1, 3; 13:1; 17:3-14; 20:2-7; 21:12-21<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Symbolic Numbers<\/h3>\nNumbers used in Scripture have often inspired wild speculation. An understanding of the symbolism of numbers in the ancient world can help ground our interpretation. Such symbolism, however, is not rigid or exact, so great care must be exercised when numbers are used in interpretation, so as not to push fanciful predictions about future events.<\/p>\nThe number one<\/em> can refer to God’s oneness (Deut 6:4; Gal 3:20; Jas 2:19). Two<\/em> is the minimum number required to give a legitimate witness (Deut 17:6; Rev 11:3), and three<\/em> can imply divine representation (Gen 18:1-2; 2 Cor 13:14; Rev 1:4-5). Four<\/em> can stand for the known world, represented in Revelation by living creatures, horsemen, winds, and angels (Rev 4:6-8; 6:1-8; 7:1) and in Genesis by four<\/em> rivers (Gen 2:10-14). When three<\/em> and four<\/em> are added to make seven,<\/em> they represent perfection or divine fulfillment, indicating that God and the world are in harmony. The multiplication of three<\/em> by four<\/em> yields twelve,<\/em> the number associated with God’s people (Gen 35:22-26; Exod 24:4; 28:21; Num 17:2; Josh 4:3-8; 1 Kgs 18:31; Matt 10:1-4; 19:28; Jas 1:1; Rev 12:1; 21:12–22:2. The number five<\/em> and its multiples, such as ten,<\/em> represent human completeness (e.g., five<\/em> fingers per hand); and six<\/em> carries a negative sense or implication of evil, being neither humanly complete (five<\/em>) nor divinely complete (seven<\/em>).<\/p>\nMultiples of ten<\/em> (e.g., forty<\/em>) are a symbolic way to indicate many<\/em>, whereas three sixes<\/em> (666) imply supreme evil (Rev 13:18). One thousand<\/em> is regarded as the foundational large number; 12,000 indicates a large number of God’s people (Rev 7:5-8); and 144,000 represents the complete people of God (Rev 7:4; 14:1). The number 10,000 and its multiples are probably best transliterated from Greek as myriads<\/em>, since they really mean “a huge number” rather than a precise count.<\/p>\nWhile some of the numbers in the Bible have symbolic meanings, using numbers to speculate on the time of Christ’s return or of the end of the world is highly dubious—only God possesses that knowledge (Mark 13:32). God did not intend for the symbolic numbers in Revelation to help us predict the future; rather, their symbolic meanings help to explain the significance of the visions. Because the numbers are symbolic, sometimes when we translate them into contemporary sizes, distances, and numbers for our ease of reading, it can result in the loss of theological significance. The use of these symbolic numbers can illuminate a vision’s relationship to the world or to the people of God.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:2-3; 4:15; 15:13; 41:53-54; Exod 20:6; 25:31-37; 32:15; Lev 16:14; 23:16; 2 Sam 24:13; 1 Kgs 4:26; 17:21; 18:31, 43-44; Job 1:2; Ps 90:4; Jer 15:3; 49:36; Ezek 14:21; Dan 4:16, 23-25; 7:3, 17, 24; Zech 4:2; 6:1; Matt 10:1-5; 12:40; 18:21-22; Mark 6:7; Luke 15:8; Acts 6:3; 10:16; 1 Cor 8:6; Eph 4:4-6; 2 Pet 3:8; Rev 1:16; 2:10; 4:4; 6:1; 7:1, 4-8; 12:1, 3; 13:1; 17:3-14; 20:2-7; 21:12-21<\/p>","summary_ro":"Symbolic Numbers Numbers used in Scripture have often inspired wild speculation. An understanding of the symbolism of numbers in the ancient world can help ground our interpretation. Such symbolism, however, is not rigid or exact, so great care must be exercised when numbers are used in interpretation, so as not to push fanciful predictions about future events. The number one can refer to God’s oneness (Deut 6:4; Gal 3:20; Jas 2:19). Two is the minimum number required to give a legitimate wit...","summary_en":"Symbolic Numbers Numbers used in Scripture have often inspired wild speculation. An understanding of the symbolism of numbers in the ancient world can help ground our interpretation. Such symbolism, however, is not rigid or exact, so great care must be exercised when numbers are used in interpretation, so as not to push fanciful predictions about future events. The number one can refer to God’s oneness (Deut 6:4; Gal 3:20; Jas 2:19). Two is the minimum number required to give a legitimate wit...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":150503,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"God’s Sabbath Rest","title_en":"God’s Sabbath Rest","content_ro":"<h3>God’s Sabbath Rest<\/h3>\nThe concept of God’s Sabbath rest, as found in Hebrews 4:1-11, has been a theological puzzle for commentators. The notion carries various connotations from the Old Testament, including the Promised Land as a place to rest from slavery and wandering and the Sabbath day as a weekly day of rest. In Hebrews 3:7-19, the author expounds on Psalm 95:7-11 and offers the wilderness wanderers as an example of those who failed to enter God’s rest because of their disobedience.<\/p>\nBut what is this “rest” they failed to enter, which still remains for the people of God (Heb 4:1-3)? The author of Hebrews clearly had more in mind than the physical land of Canaan as the place of “special rest” (4:8-9). Genesis 2:2 speaks of God’s rest as something that he prepared from the foundation of the world (Heb 4:3-4). God’s rest relates to ceasing from one’s own work as God did from his (4:10). This rest can be entered by those who “hear his voice,” don’t harden their hearts, and believe the Good News (4:1-3, 7).<\/p>\nIn the Old Testament, the Day of Atonement is called a “Sabbath day of complete rest” (Lev 16:29-31). On that day, people ceased completely from their own work. In the new covenant, Jesus as our Great High Priest has offered a once-for-all sacrifice that decisively dealt with sin (9:7-28). He has provided the ultimate atoning sacrifice, and he thus offers people a spiritual rest, which they enter by believing this Good News.<\/p>\nGod’s rest that is available through Jesus has two aspects. First, those who believe in him have ceased from their own works—that is, they no longer work for God’s acceptance, but they trust in Christ’s finished work (Eph 2:8-9) and enjoy the blessings of peace with God (John 14:27; Acts 10:36; Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19-21). Second, they look forward to an eternal life of rest and enjoyment in God’s presence (Isa 26:19; Rev 14:13). Jesus Christ gives complete and perfect rest (Matt 11:28-30).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:1-3; Exod 16:21-29; 20:8-11; 31:13-16; Lev 16:29-31; Isa 52:7; 54:13-14; 56:2, 4; 57:2, 21; 58:13; Ezek 20:20; Matt 11:28-30; Mark 2:23-28; Luke 8:48; John 14:27; Acts 10:36; Rom 5:1; 15:13; 2 Cor 5:19-21; Eph 2:17; Col 1:20; 2:16; 3:15; Heb 4:1-11; 2 Pet 1:2<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>God’s Sabbath Rest<\/h3>\nThe concept of God’s Sabbath rest, as found in Hebrews 4:1-11, has been a theological puzzle for commentators. The notion carries various connotations from the Old Testament, including the Promised Land as a place to rest from slavery and wandering and the Sabbath day as a weekly day of rest. In Hebrews 3:7-19, the author expounds on Psalm 95:7-11 and offers the wilderness wanderers as an example of those who failed to enter God’s rest because of their disobedience.<\/p>\nBut what is this “rest” they failed to enter, which still remains for the people of God (Heb 4:1-3)? The author of Hebrews clearly had more in mind than the physical land of Canaan as the place of “special rest” (4:8-9). Genesis 2:2 speaks of God’s rest as something that he prepared from the foundation of the world (Heb 4:3-4). God’s rest relates to ceasing from one’s own work as God did from his (4:10). This rest can be entered by those who “hear his voice,” don’t harden their hearts, and believe the Good News (4:1-3, 7).<\/p>\nIn the Old Testament, the Day of Atonement is called a “Sabbath day of complete rest” (Lev 16:29-31). On that day, people ceased completely from their own work. In the new covenant, Jesus as our Great High Priest has offered a once-for-all sacrifice that decisively dealt with sin (9:7-28). He has provided the ultimate atoning sacrifice, and he thus offers people a spiritual rest, which they enter by believing this Good News.<\/p>\nGod’s rest that is available through Jesus has two aspects. First, those who believe in him have ceased from their own works—that is, they no longer work for God’s acceptance, but they trust in Christ’s finished work (Eph 2:8-9) and enjoy the blessings of peace with God (John 14:27; Acts 10:36; Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19-21). Second, they look forward to an eternal life of rest and enjoyment in God’s presence (Isa 26:19; Rev 14:13). Jesus Christ gives complete and perfect rest (Matt 11:28-30).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:1-3; Exod 16:21-29; 20:8-11; 31:13-16; Lev 16:29-31; Isa 52:7; 54:13-14; 56:2, 4; 57:2, 21; 58:13; Ezek 20:20; Matt 11:28-30; Mark 2:23-28; Luke 8:48; John 14:27; Acts 10:36; Rom 5:1; 15:13; 2 Cor 5:19-21; Eph 2:17; Col 1:20; 2:16; 3:15; Heb 4:1-11; 2 Pet 1:2<\/p>","summary_ro":"God’s Sabbath Rest The concept of God’s Sabbath rest, as found in Hebrews 4:1-11, has been a theological puzzle for commentators. The notion carries various connotations from the Old Testament, including the Promised Land as a place to rest from slavery and wandering and the Sabbath day as a weekly day of rest. In Hebrews 3:7-19, the author expounds on Psalm 95:7-11 and offers the wilderness wanderers as an example of those who failed to enter God’s rest because of their disobedience. But wha...","summary_en":"God’s Sabbath Rest The concept of God’s Sabbath rest, as found in Hebrews 4:1-11, has been a theological puzzle for commentators. The notion carries various connotations from the Old Testament, including the Promised Land as a place to rest from slavery and wandering and the Sabbath day as a weekly day of rest. In Hebrews 3:7-19, the author expounds on Psalm 95:7-11 and offers the wilderness wanderers as an example of those who failed to enter God’s rest because of their disobedience. But wha...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":150846,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Symbolic Numbers","title_en":"Symbolic Numbers","content_ro":"<h3>Symbolic Numbers<\/h3>\nNumbers used in Scripture have often inspired wild speculation. An understanding of the symbolism of numbers in the ancient world can help ground our interpretation. Such symbolism, however, is not rigid or exact, so great care must be exercised when numbers are used in interpretation, so as not to push fanciful predictions about future events.<\/p>\nThe number one<\/em> can refer to God’s oneness (Deut 6:4; Gal 3:20; Jas 2:19). Two<\/em> is the minimum number required to give a legitimate witness (Deut 17:6; Rev 11:3), and three<\/em> can imply divine representation (Gen 18:1-2; 2 Cor 13:14; Rev 1:4-5). Four<\/em> can stand for the known world, represented in Revelation by living creatures, horsemen, winds, and angels (Rev 4:6-8; 6:1-8; 7:1) and in Genesis by four<\/em> rivers (Gen 2:10-14). When three<\/em> and four<\/em> are added to make seven,<\/em> they represent perfection or divine fulfillment, indicating that God and the world are in harmony. The multiplication of three<\/em> by four<\/em> yields twelve,<\/em> the number associated with God’s people (Gen 35:22-26; Exod 24:4; 28:21; Num 17:2; Josh 4:3-8; 1 Kgs 18:31; Matt 10:1-4; 19:28; Jas 1:1; Rev 12:1; 21:12–22:2. The number five<\/em> and its multiples, such as ten,<\/em> represent human completeness (e.g., five<\/em> fingers per hand); and six<\/em> carries a negative sense or implication of evil, being neither humanly complete (five<\/em>) nor divinely complete (seven<\/em>).<\/p>\nMultiples of ten<\/em> (e.g., forty<\/em>) are a symbolic way to indicate many<\/em>, whereas three sixes<\/em> (666) imply supreme evil (Rev 13:18). One thousand<\/em> is regarded as the foundational large number; 12,000 indicates a large number of God’s people (Rev 7:5-8); and 144,000 represents the complete people of God (Rev 7:4; 14:1). The number 10,000 and its multiples are probably best transliterated from Greek as myriads<\/em>, since they really mean “a huge number” rather than a precise count.<\/p>\nWhile some of the numbers in the Bible have symbolic meanings, using numbers to speculate on the time of Christ’s return or of the end of the world is highly dubious—only God possesses that knowledge (Mark 13:32). God did not intend for the symbolic numbers in Revelation to help us predict the future; rather, their symbolic meanings help to explain the significance of the visions. Because the numbers are symbolic, sometimes when we translate them into contemporary sizes, distances, and numbers for our ease of reading, it can result in the loss of theological significance. The use of these symbolic numbers can illuminate a vision’s relationship to the world or to the people of God.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:2-3; 4:15; 15:13; 41:53-54; Exod 20:6; 25:31-37; 32:15; Lev 16:14; 23:16; 2 Sam 24:13; 1 Kgs 4:26; 17:21; 18:31, 43-44; Job 1:2; Ps 90:4; Jer 15:3; 49:36; Ezek 14:21; Dan 4:16, 23-25; 7:3, 17, 24; Zech 4:2; 6:1; Matt 10:1-5; 12:40; 18:21-22; Mark 6:7; Luke 15:8; Acts 6:3; 10:16; 1 Cor 8:6; Eph 4:4-6; 2 Pet 3:8; Rev 1:16; 2:10; 4:4; 6:1; 7:1, 4-8; 12:1, 3; 13:1; 17:3-14; 20:2-7; 21:12-21<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Symbolic Numbers<\/h3>\nNumbers used in Scripture have often inspired wild speculation. An understanding of the symbolism of numbers in the ancient world can help ground our interpretation. Such symbolism, however, is not rigid or exact, so great care must be exercised when numbers are used in interpretation, so as not to push fanciful predictions about future events.<\/p>\nThe number one<\/em> can refer to God’s oneness (Deut 6:4; Gal 3:20; Jas 2:19). Two<\/em> is the minimum number required to give a legitimate witness (Deut 17:6; Rev 11:3), and three<\/em> can imply divine representation (Gen 18:1-2; 2 Cor 13:14; Rev 1:4-5). Four<\/em> can stand for the known world, represented in Revelation by living creatures, horsemen, winds, and angels (Rev 4:6-8; 6:1-8; 7:1) and in Genesis by four<\/em> rivers (Gen 2:10-14). When three<\/em> and four<\/em> are added to make seven,<\/em> they represent perfection or divine fulfillment, indicating that God and the world are in harmony. The multiplication of three<\/em> by four<\/em> yields twelve,<\/em> the number associated with God’s people (Gen 35:22-26; Exod 24:4; 28:21; Num 17:2; Josh 4:3-8; 1 Kgs 18:31; Matt 10:1-4; 19:28; Jas 1:1; Rev 12:1; 21:12–22:2. The number five<\/em> and its multiples, such as ten,<\/em> represent human completeness (e.g., five<\/em> fingers per hand); and six<\/em> carries a negative sense or implication of evil, being neither humanly complete (five<\/em>) nor divinely complete (seven<\/em>).<\/p>\nMultiples of ten<\/em> (e.g., forty<\/em>) are a symbolic way to indicate many<\/em>, whereas three sixes<\/em> (666) imply supreme evil (Rev 13:18). One thousand<\/em> is regarded as the foundational large number; 12,000 indicates a large number of God’s people (Rev 7:5-8); and 144,000 represents the complete people of God (Rev 7:4; 14:1). The number 10,000 and its multiples are probably best transliterated from Greek as myriads<\/em>, since they really mean “a huge number” rather than a precise count.<\/p>\nWhile some of the numbers in the Bible have symbolic meanings, using numbers to speculate on the time of Christ’s return or of the end of the world is highly dubious—only God possesses that knowledge (Mark 13:32). God did not intend for the symbolic numbers in Revelation to help us predict the future; rather, their symbolic meanings help to explain the significance of the visions. Because the numbers are symbolic, sometimes when we translate them into contemporary sizes, distances, and numbers for our ease of reading, it can result in the loss of theological significance. The use of these symbolic numbers can illuminate a vision’s relationship to the world or to the people of God.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:2-3; 4:15; 15:13; 41:53-54; Exod 20:6; 25:31-37; 32:15; Lev 16:14; 23:16; 2 Sam 24:13; 1 Kgs 4:26; 17:21; 18:31, 43-44; Job 1:2; Ps 90:4; Jer 15:3; 49:36; Ezek 14:21; Dan 4:16, 23-25; 7:3, 17, 24; Zech 4:2; 6:1; Matt 10:1-5; 12:40; 18:21-22; Mark 6:7; Luke 15:8; Acts 6:3; 10:16; 1 Cor 8:6; Eph 4:4-6; 2 Pet 3:8; Rev 1:16; 2:10; 4:4; 6:1; 7:1, 4-8; 12:1, 3; 13:1; 17:3-14; 20:2-7; 21:12-21<\/p>","summary_ro":"Symbolic Numbers Numbers used in Scripture have often inspired wild speculation. An understanding of the symbolism of numbers in the ancient world can help ground our interpretation. Such symbolism, however, is not rigid or exact, so great care must be exercised when numbers are used in interpretation, so as not to push fanciful predictions about future events. The number one can refer to God’s oneness (Deut 6:4; Gal 3:20; Jas 2:19). Two is the minimum number required to give a legitimate wit...","summary_en":"Symbolic Numbers Numbers used in Scripture have often inspired wild speculation. An understanding of the symbolism of numbers in the ancient world can help ground our interpretation. Such symbolism, however, is not rigid or exact, so great care must be exercised when numbers are used in interpretation, so as not to push fanciful predictions about future events. The number one can refer to God’s oneness (Deut 6:4; Gal 3:20; Jas 2:19). Two is the minimum number required to give a legitimate wit...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"3":[{"id":8813,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Day","title_en":"Day","content_ro":"<h3>DAY<\/h3>\nMost literally, a period of time delimited by the earth’s rotation around its axis, such as the period between two consecutive sunrises; also, the portion of that period in which the sun is visible, the other portion being called “night.” The word “day” occurs over 2,000 times in the OT, over 350 times in the NT. The Hebrew word for “day” is used in a variety of ways, not merely in the literal sense. The Hebrew day began in the evening and continued until the following evening, a reckoning presumably based on the Torah (cf. Gn 1:14, 19). That kind of literal solar (24-hour) day is known as a civil day. Among other ancient Near Eastern nations the civil day began at different times. Greek custom agreed with that of the Hebrews; the Babylonians started their day at sunrise; the Egyptian and Roman day stretched from one midnight to the next.<\/p>\nBiblical Days and Weeks<\/p>\nCommonly recognized units of the visible (12-hour) day were morning, noonday, and evening (Ps 55:17). Those divisions were sometimes defined by terms for dawn (Jb 3:9), the heat of the day (1 Sm 11:11), noon (Gn 43:16), the cool of the day (3:8), and evening (Ru 2:17). The Hebrew phrase “between the two evenings” (Ex 12:6, rsv<\/span> mg) probably referred to dusk, the dark part of twilight (Ex 16:12). Division of days into consecutive hours did not take place until the time of Christ. The closest OT approximation to such a unit was the division of the day into quarters (Neh 9:3), perhaps a counterpart of the preexilic division of the night into watches.<\/p>\nThe ancient Hebrews did not name the days of the week other than the Sabbath. Rather, they referred to them numerically, a practice carried over into NT times (Lk 24:1). Because of the traditional Hebrew emphasis on the Sabbath, it was important for the Jews to know the exact time when the Sabbath began. The Pharisees therefore decided that the appearance of three stars following sunset would determine the Sabbath day’s beginning.<\/p>\nDays of Creation<\/p>\nMany people believe that the days mentioned in the Genesis Creation narrative were 24-hour periods. The phrase “there was evening, there was morning” is used to support that idea. That expression, however, is actually a Sumerian literary figure that pairs opposites together to describe totality. Thus “evening-morning” means a complete phase of time within the total creative cycle; it emphasizes the completeness or comprehensiveness of the process, not the specific period of time in which that process was accomplished. The totality of Creation, phase by phase, may have been thus depicted without any necessary reference to a defined time period.<\/p>\nSince the Sumerian civil day included only the visible (12-hour) period, a legal day of other nations was actually a “double day” (24 hours). If the early Genesis material reflects Sumerian culture, the use of “evening-morning” would preclude current concepts of a civil day and point instead to a phase or general time period.<\/p>\nOld Testament<\/p>\nIn the OT, “day” frequently has a figurative meaning—for example, the “day of the Lord” (Jl 1:15; Am 5:18), the “day of trouble” (Ps 20:1), and the “day of God’s wrath” (Jb 20:28). The plural form is sometimes used to describe a king’s reign (1 Kgs 10:21) or the extent of an individual’s life (Gn 5:4; 1 Kgs 3:14; Ps 90:12). God is described in the book of Daniel as the “Ancient of Days” (Dn 7:9, 13).<\/p>\nIn addition to the Sabbath (Gn 2:3; Ex 20:8-11), which was reserved for rest and worship, “day” was applied to the Passover celebration each spring (Ex 12:14; Lv 23:5) and the Day of Atonement (Lv 16:29-31) each autumn. As with the Sabbath, no work was performed on those occasions; prescribed religious rituals were observed.<\/p>\nNew Testament<\/p>\nIn the NT the use of “day” followed Semitic usage to some extent, although the four military night watches were of Greek and Roman origin. The 12-hour day of NT times was a legacy of Babylonian astronomy (cf. Jn 11:9).<\/p>\nIn addition to the literal usage of “day,” NT authors sometimes employed it figuratively, as in such expressions as the “day of salvation” (2 Cor 6:2) and the “day of Jesus Christ” (Phil 1:6). Or they described specified periods of time, as in the “days of his Temple duties” (Lk 1:23, tlb<\/span>). Special feasts mentioned include the Passover (Jn 12:1), the days of Unleavened Bread (Acts 12:3), and the Day of Pentecost (2:1).<\/p>\nAs in the OT, the period of human life is described as days (Jn 9:4). Christians are called “children of the light and of the day” (1 Thes 5:5, nlt<\/span>). Longer periods or eras are referred to as days (2 Cor 6:2; Eph 5:16; 6:13; Heb 5:7). The ominous note struck by the Hebrew prophets about a day of judgment is matched by NT stress on a day of final divine judgment when the Son of Man (Jesus) will reveal himself as Lord (Lk 17:30; Jn 6:39-44; 1 Cor 5:5; 1 Thes 5:2; 2 Pt 2:9; 3:7, 12; 1 Jn 4:17; Rv 16:14). The “day of eternity” marks that point at which time will become eternity (2 Pt 3:18, rsv<\/span>). The new Jerusalem, dwelling place of God’s people, is described as a place of perpetual day (Rv 21:25).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Calendars, Ancient and Modern; Day of the Lord; Eschatology.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>DAY<\/h3>\nMost literally, a period of time delimited by the earth’s rotation around its axis, such as the period between two consecutive sunrises; also, the portion of that period in which the sun is visible, the other portion being called “night.” The word “day” occurs over 2,000 times in the OT, over 350 times in the NT. The Hebrew word for “day” is used in a variety of ways, not merely in the literal sense. The Hebrew day began in the evening and continued until the following evening, a reckoning presumably based on the Torah (cf. Gn 1:14, 19). That kind of literal solar (24-hour) day is known as a civil day. Among other ancient Near Eastern nations the civil day began at different times. Greek custom agreed with that of the Hebrews; the Babylonians started their day at sunrise; the Egyptian and Roman day stretched from one midnight to the next.<\/p>\nBiblical Days and Weeks<\/p>\nCommonly recognized units of the visible (12-hour) day were morning, noonday, and evening (Ps 55:17). Those divisions were sometimes defined by terms for dawn (Jb 3:9), the heat of the day (1 Sm 11:11), noon (Gn 43:16), the cool of the day (3:8), and evening (Ru 2:17). The Hebrew phrase “between the two evenings” (Ex 12:6, rsv<\/span> mg) probably referred to dusk, the dark part of twilight (Ex 16:12). Division of days into consecutive hours did not take place until the time of Christ. The closest OT approximation to such a unit was the division of the day into quarters (Neh 9:3), perhaps a counterpart of the preexilic division of the night into watches.<\/p>\nThe ancient Hebrews did not name the days of the week other than the Sabbath. Rather, they referred to them numerically, a practice carried over into NT times (Lk 24:1). Because of the traditional Hebrew emphasis on the Sabbath, it was important for the Jews to know the exact time when the Sabbath began. The Pharisees therefore decided that the appearance of three stars following sunset would determine the Sabbath day’s beginning.<\/p>\nDays of Creation<\/p>\nMany people believe that the days mentioned in the Genesis Creation narrative were 24-hour periods. The phrase “there was evening, there was morning” is used to support that idea. That expression, however, is actually a Sumerian literary figure that pairs opposites together to describe totality. Thus “evening-morning” means a complete phase of time within the total creative cycle; it emphasizes the completeness or comprehensiveness of the process, not the specific period of time in which that process was accomplished. The totality of Creation, phase by phase, may have been thus depicted without any necessary reference to a defined time period.<\/p>\nSince the Sumerian civil day included only the visible (12-hour) period, a legal day of other nations was actually a “double day” (24 hours). If the early Genesis material reflects Sumerian culture, the use of “evening-morning” would preclude current concepts of a civil day and point instead to a phase or general time period.<\/p>\nOld Testament<\/p>\nIn the OT, “day” frequently has a figurative meaning—for example, the “day of the Lord” (Jl 1:15; Am 5:18), the “day of trouble” (Ps 20:1), and the “day of God’s wrath” (Jb 20:28). The plural form is sometimes used to describe a king’s reign (1 Kgs 10:21) or the extent of an individual’s life (Gn 5:4; 1 Kgs 3:14; Ps 90:12). God is described in the book of Daniel as the “Ancient of Days” (Dn 7:9, 13).<\/p>\nIn addition to the Sabbath (Gn 2:3; Ex 20:8-11), which was reserved for rest and worship, “day” was applied to the Passover celebration each spring (Ex 12:14; Lv 23:5) and the Day of Atonement (Lv 16:29-31) each autumn. As with the Sabbath, no work was performed on those occasions; prescribed religious rituals were observed.<\/p>\nNew Testament<\/p>\nIn the NT the use of “day” followed Semitic usage to some extent, although the four military night watches were of Greek and Roman origin. The 12-hour day of NT times was a legacy of Babylonian astronomy (cf. Jn 11:9).<\/p>\nIn addition to the literal usage of “day,” NT authors sometimes employed it figuratively, as in such expressions as the “day of salvation” (2 Cor 6:2) and the “day of Jesus Christ” (Phil 1:6). Or they described specified periods of time, as in the “days of his Temple duties” (Lk 1:23, tlb<\/span>). Special feasts mentioned include the Passover (Jn 12:1), the days of Unleavened Bread (Acts 12:3), and the Day of Pentecost (2:1).<\/p>\nAs in the OT, the period of human life is described as days (Jn 9:4). Christians are called “children of the light and of the day” (1 Thes 5:5, nlt<\/span>). Longer periods or eras are referred to as days (2 Cor 6:2; Eph 5:16; 6:13; Heb 5:7). The ominous note struck by the Hebrew prophets about a day of judgment is matched by NT stress on a day of final divine judgment when the Son of Man (Jesus) will reveal himself as Lord (Lk 17:30; Jn 6:39-44; 1 Cor 5:5; 1 Thes 5:2; 2 Pt 2:9; 3:7, 12; 1 Jn 4:17; Rv 16:14). The “day of eternity” marks that point at which time will become eternity (2 Pt 3:18, rsv<\/span>). The new Jerusalem, dwelling place of God’s people, is described as a place of perpetual day (Rv 21:25).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Calendars, Ancient and Modern; Day of the Lord; Eschatology.<\/p>","summary_ro":"DAY Most literally, a period of time delimited by the earth’s rotation around its axis, such as the period between two consecutive sunrises; also, the portion of that period in which the sun is visible, the other portion being called “night.” The word “day” occurs over 2,000 times in the OT, over 350 times in the NT. The Hebrew word for “day” is used in a variety of ways, not merely in the literal sense. The Hebrew day began in the evening and continued until the following evening, a reckonin...","summary_en":"DAY Most literally, a period of time delimited by the earth’s rotation around its axis, such as the period between two consecutive sunrises; also, the portion of that period in which the sun is visible, the other portion being called “night.” The word “day” occurs over 2,000 times in the OT, over 350 times in the NT. The Hebrew word for “day” is used in a variety of ways, not merely in the literal sense. The Hebrew day began in the evening and continued until the following evening, a reckonin...","source":"Articles\/D.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":12130,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Feasts and Festivals of Israel","title_en":"Feasts and Festivals of Israel","content_ro":"<h3>FEASTS AND FESTIVALS OF ISRAEL<\/h3>\nOccasions of public or private rejoicing to commemorate some significant event or personage. The element of celebration has a special meaning in the cycle of religious occasions and the rites and ceremonies associated with these particular days. While the idea of a feast commonly implies a banquet with plenteous food and drink, this element is not indispensable. Sometimes there is only a token amount, as in the celebration of Holy Communion.<\/p>\n\nIn contemporary usage “festival” usually refers to activities extending over a period of time, while “feast” indicates one part of the celebration, often a meal. However, in religious usage, both ancient and modern, the two words are used interchangeably. The ancient Hebrews employed the words mo’ed<\/span> (“seasons”) and hag<\/span> for their great public celebrations, while feasts of a more private nature were commonly described by the term mishteh<\/span>.<\/em> The majority of English translations of Scripture do not differentiate between these words.<\/p>\nFeasts and Their Functions<\/p>\nEach festival places great emphasis on community participation and on the continuity of social or religious tradition, especially where the celebrations are elements of a regular civil or religious calendar. Without community backing, even in a family celebration, no festival can be successful. When there is communal participation, a festival can reinforce the individual and community memory of specific occasions, and can perpetuate that store of recollection over years and generations. Such shared memory has a cohesive effect upon a cooperating community, large or small, and serves to establish the traditions by which the group lives. If the festival commemorates a particular event or celebrates some lofty ideal, that theme becomes more firmly embedded in the minds of the participants by being associated repeatedly with the rites and ceremonies performed. The feasts of the ancient Hebrews had this positive function. The great festivals of their religious calendar commemorated specific occasions when God had reached out in power to intervene for his people or had provided for them in their distress. By celebrating these feasts on a regular basis, the Hebrews continually affirmed that their God had directed their destiny. Their repeated rehearsal of God’s help and love for them reminded them that he was still able to sustain them. Especially in times of hardship, it pointed to the reality of God’s presence and activity among them. Faith sustained by this means furnished an invaluable spiritual dimension to the life of the nation and provided a sense of continuity under divine provision and guidance. Only when corrupt or pagan elements were introduced into festive occasions did this important ingredient of national life begin to lose its vitality.<\/p>\nOld Testament Festivals<\/p>\n<h5>General Festivals<\/h5>\nThese occasions were surprisingly numerous in Israel, considering the rather austere mode of life reflected in much of the OT. No doubt such celebrations offset or compensated for the hardships and insecurities of existence in the ancient Near East, and the Israelites made the most of every opportunity. A wedding was one of the most obvious occasions for celebration, and it is not surprising that a feast was prepared for the marriage of Rachel and Jacob (Gn 29:22) in which the whole neighborhood participated. Just how long this particular feast lasted is unknown, but some marriage festivals continued for a week, as in the case of the marriage between Samson and the woman of Timnah (Jgs 14:17). Wine that makes glad man’s heart (Ps 104:15) was consumed freely on such occasions.<\/p>\nBirthdays were often observed in a festive spirit, especially where a royal person was concerned (Gn 40:20). Solomon’s dream was commemorated with a feast provided for his servants (1 Kgs 3:15), and when the temple was dedicated, the occasion was celebrated for a full week (8:65). Kings and queens held feasts periodically to mark certain occasions or to express goodwill (cf. Est 1:3; 2:18; 5:4, 14; 7:2, 7; Dn 5:1). Herdsmen traditionally made a feast for the shearing of the first sheep (Dt 18:4).<\/p>\n<h5>Preexilic Festivals<\/h5>\nIn addition to the general festivals, which were frequently of a secular nature, communal feasts were prescribed for the Israelites that had a specifically spiritual significance. They were meant to emphasize the activity of God on behalf of his people and to remind them that continued divine blessing depended upon their obedience to his will. The catalog of festivals in Leviticus 23:2 began with an injunction to observe the Sabbath. The seventh day, in which God ceased from creating (Gn 2:3), was holy, though it is difficult to determine the extent to which it was kept until the time of Moses (Ex 20:8-11). From that time on, Sabbath observance stressed refraining from all work so as to commemorate properly God’s own rest from creative activity (31:17) and his deliverance of his people from bondage in Egypt (Dt 5:12-15). Sabbath celebration was the sign of a special relationship between God and the Israelites. During this 24-hour period, even trivial tasks like making a fire (Ex 35:3) or gathering wood (Nm 15:32-33) were prohibited on pain of death. Journeys of any distance also came under the Sabbath ban (Ex 16:29). Special offerings were part of the observance (Nm 28:9-10), and the bread of the Presence was replaced in the tabernacle (Lv 24:5-8). Despite the restrictions on activity, the Sabbath was meant to symbolize a time of happiness and security in the presence of God (cf. Is 58:13-14), since its observance would bring blessing to the individual and to the whole land.<\/p>\n<h6>Festival of the New Moon<\/h6>\nThe new moon was a monthly celebration based on the lunar calendar. It was especially appropriate for an agricultural people, since everyone could tell when the moon was new. Special offerings were prescribed for this festival, consisting of a burnt sacrifice, a grain offering, and a drink offering (Nm 28:11-15). In addition, a male goat was sacrificed to God as a sin offering, and trumpet blasts were sounded over the sacrificial offerings as a memorial before God (10:10). The sacrifices prescribed for the new moon festival were significantly greater than those required in Numbers 28:9-10 for the weekly Sabbath.<\/p>\nThis lunar feast was popular throughout Israelite history. During the monarchy, the Levites were required to assist the Aaronic priests at the new moon festival, as well as on the Sabbath (1 Chr 23:29-31). The preexilic prophets may well have taken advantage of the large gatherings to give guidance to the people or proclaim prophetic oracles (cf. 2 Kgs 4:23), though to what extent this was done is uncertain. Not everyone found the period of rest and celebration valuable, however, and Amos (Am 8:5) complained about those avaricious Israelites who felt that such observances interfered with the business of making a living. The feast could not be observed when the Judeans were in exile in Babylonia (cf. Hos 2:11), but under Ezra and Nehemiah, its observance was restored (Neh 10:33). In Isaiah 66:22-23 it was related to Israel’s final destiny and was an accepted part of the ordinances for Ezekiel’s ideal temple (Ez 45:17).<\/p>\nThe purpose of the festival was to enhance the unity of national life by reminding the Israelites that God’s covenant with their ancestors was permanent and still binding upon the nation. It also stressed the loving nature and providence of a God who could begin such a relationship and carry out his promises with complete faithfulness (cf. Ps 104:19).<\/p>\n<h6>The Festival of Trumpets<\/h6>\nThe Festival of Trumpets was celebrated on the first day of the seventh new moon. This month, subsequently named Tishri, was especially holy, and for this reason was governed by certain regulations different from those of ordinary new moon festivals. The trumpets were blown on the first day (Lv 23:24) as the animal and cereal sacrifices were offered. From Numbers 29:2-6 it appears that the offerings required for this particular feast exceeded those prescribed for normal Sabbath sacrifice, but were somewhat less than those required for the regular new moon festival (cf. Nm 28:11). This feast was to be observed as a day of solemn rest and as a holy convocation, and the trumpets were sounded as a triumphant memorial to God’s great provision for his people through the Sinai covenant.<\/p>\nThe seventh month was particularly sacred, partly because of its place in the hallowed cycle of sevens, but also because the Day of Atonement (or Yom Kippur) and the Feast of Tabernacles, or Booths (Shelters), occurred during this period. The latter feast followed the Day of Atonement by some five days (Lv 23:33), and its joyful character served to offset somewhat the solemnity of the annual penitential occasion when the nation confessed its collective sins and saw them banished symbolically into the wilderness as the scapegoat was driven from the congregation.<\/p>\n<h6>The Sabbatical Year<\/h6>\nAnother festival closely connected with the institution of the Sabbath was the sabbatical year. At the end of each cycle of six years, the following 12 months were observed as a “sabbath of rest for the land.” During this interval, the ground was to lie fallow (Ex 23:11) without any form of cultivation, and whatever sprouted and grew from it naturally was assigned to the poor and needy (Lv 25:6). This provision for the land itself constituted one of the most important ecological principles of Scripture. Like God’s people, the land was holy, and just as they needed to have regular intervals of rest from daily work in order to regain their energy and spiritual vitality through worship, so the ground needed to rest and recuperate from the strain of constant cultivation. The festival reminded the Israelites that the land on which they lived had been given to them by God in fulfillment of his covenant undertaking to provide richly for their physical needs (cf. Dt 8:7-10). To keep the Israelites from experiencing any shortages or other hardships during the Year of Sabbath, God promised that in the year immediately preceding the sabbatical period, the land would bear fruit to suffice for the next three years (Lv 25:21). This assurance was based upon the experience of the wilderness wanderings, when on the sixth day of the week sufficient manna appeared to last through the Sabbath (Ex 16:5).<\/p>\nIn this festival period, God’s absolute claim over the land was reaffirmed (cf. Lv 25:23), and the faith of the nation in God’s ability to provide for future needs was reinforced. The provisions that freed the land for a year from agricultural bondage were paralleled in the seventh year of rest by those requiring liberation of slaves and debtors. These underprivileged members of society were to be released from their obligations of servitude. As a result, men and women who had become slaves for one reason or another were given personal liberty (Ex 21:2-6), and under proclamation of the Lord’s release, the provisions applying to debt were rescinded (Dt 15:1-6). The sabbatical year seems to have been a regular part of preexilic Israelite life, although some abuses were noted in Jeremiah 34:8-22. There the prophet took advantage of the opportunity presented to instruct the people in the nature and purpose of the sabbatical year ordinance. He also warned the wayward Judeans that because they had disobeyed the commands of God in denying proper liberty to their slaves, they would have their own freedom taken away in a far more serious manner by being carried captive to Babylonia after seeing their land destroyed. The lesson was not lost upon those who returned from exile, for under the administration of Nehemiah, the Jews bound themselves by a covenant to observe the principle of the sabbatical year (Neh 10:31). This undertaking evidently took its impetus from the reading of the law of Moses at the Feast of Booths (Shelters), which coincidentally occurred at the beginning of the sabbatical year (Neh 8:13-18).<\/p>\n<h6>Jubilee<\/h6>\nStill another feast based on the principle of the sabbath was the Year of Jubilee, or Pentecostal year (Lv 25:8-55; 27:17-24). As the sabbatical year was related to the concept of the seventh day, so the Pentecostal (50th) year marked the completion of a cycle of seven sabbatical years. The commencement of a jubilee year was proclaimed on the Day of Atonement throughout the land by means of trumpet blasts (Lv 25:9). The activities that took place during the Pentecostal year were similar to those prescribed for the sabbatical year. A special feature was that land that had been sold during the preceding 49 years was returned to its original owners, a procedure that sometimes involved financial adjustments. To prevent abuse of the process through opportunism or speculation, the Hebrews were instructed to deal fairly and honestly with one another in the fear of God, who was the real owner of the land (Lv 25:14-17). As with the sabbatical year, God promised to make provision before the jubilee year so that no one would suffer hardship. It was during the Year of Jubilee that those who were slaves in Hebrew households were given their liberty, so that everyone in the land would commence a new cycle of sabbatical years on the same footing, as free persons under God.<\/p>\n<h5>Seasonal Festivals<\/h5>\nThree annual festivals that followed the seasons of the year rather than phases of the moon furnished important occasions for commemorating God’s power and provision in national life. These festivals were designated by the term hag<\/span>,<\/em> indicating a festival usually observed by some sort of pilgrimage. These three festivals were prescribed in Exodus 23:14-17 and Deuteronomy 16:16, and consisted of the Feast of Passover and Unleavened Bread, the Feast of Weeks (Pentecost), and the Festival of Booths (Tabernacles). On these occasions, all the males of Israel were commanded to make pilgrimage to the sanctuary and celebrate these festivals (Ex 12:14). The Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread were originally separate ordinances, but since the latter always followed immediately upon the Passover rite, they naturally blended into a single festival.<\/p>\n<h6>Passover<\/h6>\nThe Passover was of supreme theological significance for the Israelites, since it marked one of the most momentous acts of divine intervention in their history, the beginning of their deliverance from bondage in Egypt when, in the final plague, God destroyed the firstborn of the Egyptians but spared those Israelites whose homes had blood smeared on the doorposts (Ex 12:11-30). God commanded that the day was to be observed as a memorial feast (v 14), and the next Passover celebration occurred in the Sinai Desert (Nm 9:1-5). In the Hebrew calendar the Passover festival came in the first month, called Abib in Deuteronomy 16:1, but known after the exile as Nisan (cf. Neh 2:1). The Passover rite took place the 14th evening (Lv 23:5), and this was followed by a seven-day period during which nothing leavened was to be eaten. The principle for removing all leaven from bread was similar to that underlying the draining of blood from animal flesh. Both leaven and blood had quickening power and were to be kept separate as an offering to God. The first and seventh days of this period were marked by a holy assembly, during which the only work permitted was the preparation of food (Ex 12:16). This period when unleavened bread was eaten was described as a festival because it opened the seven-week period of grain harvest (Dt 16:9). During this feast, special burnt sacrifices were offered, followed with a sheaf of newly harvested barley at the Feast of Firstfruits. By NT times the festivals of Passover and Unleavened Bread were well-attended celebrations and were known as the “days of unleavened bread” (Lk 22:1; Acts 12:3). The theme of Israel’s deliverance from the power of Egypt by divine intervention assured the Israelites that God was always ready to act on behalf of a faithful and obedient covenant people. It also reminded them that they had once been slaves (Dt 16:12). In Israelite life the early Passover and Unleavened Bread observances were comparatively simple in character, but during the monarchy more elaborate Passover rituals came into use (cf. 2 Kgs 23:21-23; 2 Chr 35:1-19).<\/p>\n<h6>Pentecost<\/h6>\nThe second great festival, Pentecost (or Weeks) lasted one day only and was observed on the 50th day after the newly harvested barley sheaf had been waved before the Lord at the end of the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Dt 16:9-12). The festival marked the end of the barley harvest and the beginning of the wheat harvest, the beginning of the period when firstfruits could be offered (cf. Ex 23:16; 34:22; Nm 28:26). The feast day was marked by the presentation of two wheat-flour loaves along with sacrifices of seven lambs, two rams, and a bull (Lv 23:15-20). Freewill gifts to God were presented to reflect gratitude for his blessings, and the entire occasion was one of communal rejoicing (Dt 16:10-11). Since Pentecost was essentially a harvest festival (Ex 23:16), the Israelites were called on to recognize that they depended entirely upon God for their material prosperity. In Deuteronomy 26, specific instructions were given for the ritual of presenting firstfruits from the harvest. It comprised a great confession of faith set within the framework of Israel’s history, and it recounted God’s deliverance of the nation from Egyptian oppression and his provision of a land that could amply supply the needs of his people.<\/p>\n<h6>Festival of Tabernacles<\/h6>\nThis festival, known variously as the Feast of Booths, Tabernacles, Shelters (Lv 23:34; Dt 16:13), or Ingathering (Ex 34:22), was the third great occasion that all Hebrew males were required to observe annually. It began on the 15th day of the seventh month (Tishri), shortly after the observance of the Day of Atonement, which fell on the 10th day. The Feast of Booths lasted for one week and involved pilgrimage. It was associated initially with the end of the year (Ex 34:22), when the agricultural work had been completed. The first day was marked by a symbolic cessation from all activity, after which burnt offerings were presented to the Lord. The eighth day was also one on which the congregation of Israel abstained from manual work and again offered burnt sacrifices. Leviticus 23:39-43 furnished details for the rituals that gave the festival its special name of booths or shelters or tabernacles. The fruit of “goodly trees” was to be gathered on the first day of the feast, along with palm fronds, willow branches, and boughs from trees in full leaf. From these, rough shelters or booths were to be constructed in which the people lived for the week of the feast. Every seventh year the observances were marked by a public recital of the covenant provisions to which the Israelites under Moses had committed themselves, a procedure designed to keep fresh in their minds the obligations as well as the blessings of the covenant relationship. A particularly significant observance of the Feast of Tabernacles took place in the time of Ezra, when the Judean community returned from Babylon—a celebration of a kind unknown for centuries (Neh 8:13-18). From the context it appears that observance of the feast had lapsed during the monarchy. The feast at Shiloh where Hannah was mistaken for a drunken woman and the feast referred to in Judges 21:19 were evidently the Feast of Booths. In a prophetic vision in which he saw all nations coming to Jerusalem to observe the Festival of Booths, Zechariah warned that those who did not continue this tradition could expect hardship and shortages of food (Zec 14:16-19).<\/p>\n<h5>Postexilic Festivals<\/h5>\nThere are a few minor festivals that were created in the period after the Jews returned from exile; some of these festivals had their origin in specific historical occasions.<\/p>\n<h6>The Festival of Purim<\/h6>\nThe Festival of Purim, also known as the Festival of Lots, was a joyful occasion occurring on the 14th day of the 12th month (Adar). It celebrated the way in which Esther and Mordecai were used by God to deliver his people in the Persian Empire from extermination by Haman (Est 9:21, 24-28). The feast was observed on the 14th day of Adar by those living in villages, and on the 15th by the inhabitants of walled towns and cities. The explanation of the name of the festival is given in Esther 9:24-26, and its observance reminded the Hebrews of God’s ability to save them during a time of anti-Semitic activity in Persia. The deliverance memorialized in this festival has consoled the Jews on other occasions when they have suffered persecution. Traditionally the scroll of Esther was read aloud in the synagogue on the evening before the feast, and there was a great outcry, especially among the children present, whenever the names of the hated Haman and his sons were mentioned.<\/p>\n<h6>Festival of the Dedication of the Temple<\/h6>\nAnother joyous festival that lasted for eight days was the Feast of the Dedication of the Temple (1 Macc 4:52-59; 2 Macc 10:6-8), familiar to modern readers as Hanukkah, or the Festival of Lights. The specific dedication that prompted the feast occurred in 164 BC<\/span>, when Judas Maccabeus reconsecrated the temple in Jerusalem after it had been defiled by Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The celebrations commenced on the 25th day of the ninth month (Kislev) and were marked at night by blazing lights and lanterns. The stories of brave opposition by the Maccabees to the crushing forces of paganism were recounted, and the feast was one of praise to God for his marvelous deliverance of the Jews during the Maccabean period.<\/p>\nNew Testament Festivals<\/p>\nIn Christ’s time the Sabbath was observed rigorously and was the occasion for synagogue worship (cf. Lk 4:16; Acts 13:14; 18:4). Pharisaic law prohibited all work, and Jesus came into conflict with the authorities periodically for breaches of the Sabbath regulations (cf. Mt 12:1-4; Mk 3:1-5; Lk 13:10-17). In the primitive church, worship occurred on “the first day of the week” (i.e., Sunday) to commemorate Christ’s resurrection. The early Christians initially participated in Jewish ceremonies (cf. Acts 20:16; 1 Cor 16:8). It was during the Feast of Pentecost, after Christ’s resurrection and ascension, that the Spirit was poured out (Acts 2:1-4), fulfilling Joel 2:28-32 and commencing the history of the Christian church as such.<\/p>\nThe Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread were of great significance in the life of Christ (cf. Jn 4:45; 5:1; 6:4; 12:1-26), for the occasion was a very popular one in NT times (cf. 12:20). On the Passover, Pilate had instituted the custom of clemency to a prisoner nominated by the populace (Mt 27:15; Mk 15:6). Jesus participated actively in the Passover rituals (cf. Lk 2:42; Jn 2:13; 6:4). The Last Supper with his disciples occurred just prior to the Passover (Jn 13:1), when Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus to the Pharisees (Lk 22:4-6). The breaking of bread and the drinking of wine at that Passover celebration (Mk 14:22-25) were related directly to Christ’s forthcoming death on the cross in a sacramental manner. Christ’s disciples were instructed to observe this rite as a memorial of his suffering and death for human sin (1 Cor 11:24-26) and as a proclamation of the power of the cross until the Lord returns in glory. Some scholars have suggested that Christ was actually hanging on the cross when the Passover lamb was being slaughtered, and if that chronology is correct, it would represent Jesus graphically as the “Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (Jn 1:29, rsv<\/span>). Jesus was also present once when the Feast of Tabernacles was celebrated (7:10). In his day water was carried in procession from the pool of Siloam as an offering to God, and the ceremony most probably prompted Christ’s discourse on living water and eternal life (vv 37-39). On at least one occasion Jesus was in Jerusalem when the Festival of Lights occurred (Jn 10:22) and narrowly missed death by stoning.<\/p>\nJesus was entertained occasionally at private feasts (cf. Lk 5:29), and once remedied an emergency situation when the wine ran out at a wedding ceremony (Jn 2:8-10). He was critical of the Pharisees for securing the chief seats at feasts (Mt 23:6; Mk 12:39; Lk 20:46) and taught that festivals ought to benefit the poor (Lk 14:13).<\/p>\nSymbolism of Feasts<\/p>\nMany aspects of the ancient Hebrew feasts were interpreted symbolically in the early church. Paul regarded the earliest Hebrew Christians as the firstfruits of the Israel of God (Rom 11:16). In Romans 8:23, the Holy Spirit as possessed by Christians was regarded as only a token of what was to come, and as such was the firstfruit of the Spirit. Christians themselves were described in James 1:18 as the firstfruits of God’s creatures who were brought forth by the Word of Truth. The resurrection of Jesus was considered by Paul to be the firstfruits of those who slept (1 Cor 15:20, 23). In an allusion to OT festivals, Paul spoke of the Sabbaths, new moons, and feasts as merely being a shadow of good things to come (Col 2:16-17). The Passover was used figuratively to emphasize that Christ our Passover Lamb had been sacrificed for us. Believers were urged to keep the feast with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth, and not with the old leaven of malice and evil (1 Cor 5:7-8).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Calendars, Ancient and Modern; Offerings and Sacrifices; Tabernacle; Temple.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>FEASTS AND FESTIVALS OF ISRAEL<\/h3>\nOccasions of public or private rejoicing to commemorate some significant event or personage. The element of celebration has a special meaning in the cycle of religious occasions and the rites and ceremonies associated with these particular days. While the idea of a feast commonly implies a banquet with plenteous food and drink, this element is not indispensable. Sometimes there is only a token amount, as in the celebration of Holy Communion.<\/p>\n\nIn contemporary usage “festival” usually refers to activities extending over a period of time, while “feast” indicates one part of the celebration, often a meal. However, in religious usage, both ancient and modern, the two words are used interchangeably. The ancient Hebrews employed the words mo’ed<\/span> (“seasons”) and hag<\/span> for their great public celebrations, while feasts of a more private nature were commonly described by the term mishteh<\/span>.<\/em> The majority of English translations of Scripture do not differentiate between these words.<\/p>\nFeasts and Their Functions<\/p>\nEach festival places great emphasis on community participation and on the continuity of social or religious tradition, especially where the celebrations are elements of a regular civil or religious calendar. Without community backing, even in a family celebration, no festival can be successful. When there is communal participation, a festival can reinforce the individual and community memory of specific occasions, and can perpetuate that store of recollection over years and generations. Such shared memory has a cohesive effect upon a cooperating community, large or small, and serves to establish the traditions by which the group lives. If the festival commemorates a particular event or celebrates some lofty ideal, that theme becomes more firmly embedded in the minds of the participants by being associated repeatedly with the rites and ceremonies performed. The feasts of the ancient Hebrews had this positive function. The great festivals of their religious calendar commemorated specific occasions when God had reached out in power to intervene for his people or had provided for them in their distress. By celebrating these feasts on a regular basis, the Hebrews continually affirmed that their God had directed their destiny. Their repeated rehearsal of God’s help and love for them reminded them that he was still able to sustain them. Especially in times of hardship, it pointed to the reality of God’s presence and activity among them. Faith sustained by this means furnished an invaluable spiritual dimension to the life of the nation and provided a sense of continuity under divine provision and guidance. Only when corrupt or pagan elements were introduced into festive occasions did this important ingredient of national life begin to lose its vitality.<\/p>\nOld Testament Festivals<\/p>\n<h5>General Festivals<\/h5>\nThese occasions were surprisingly numerous in Israel, considering the rather austere mode of life reflected in much of the OT. No doubt such celebrations offset or compensated for the hardships and insecurities of existence in the ancient Near East, and the Israelites made the most of every opportunity. A wedding was one of the most obvious occasions for celebration, and it is not surprising that a feast was prepared for the marriage of Rachel and Jacob (Gn 29:22) in which the whole neighborhood participated. Just how long this particular feast lasted is unknown, but some marriage festivals continued for a week, as in the case of the marriage between Samson and the woman of Timnah (Jgs 14:17). Wine that makes glad man’s heart (Ps 104:15) was consumed freely on such occasions.<\/p>\nBirthdays were often observed in a festive spirit, especially where a royal person was concerned (Gn 40:20). Solomon’s dream was commemorated with a feast provided for his servants (1 Kgs 3:15), and when the temple was dedicated, the occasion was celebrated for a full week (8:65). Kings and queens held feasts periodically to mark certain occasions or to express goodwill (cf. Est 1:3; 2:18; 5:4, 14; 7:2, 7; Dn 5:1). Herdsmen traditionally made a feast for the shearing of the first sheep (Dt 18:4).<\/p>\n<h5>Preexilic Festivals<\/h5>\nIn addition to the general festivals, which were frequently of a secular nature, communal feasts were prescribed for the Israelites that had a specifically spiritual significance. They were meant to emphasize the activity of God on behalf of his people and to remind them that continued divine blessing depended upon their obedience to his will. The catalog of festivals in Leviticus 23:2 began with an injunction to observe the Sabbath. The seventh day, in which God ceased from creating (Gn 2:3), was holy, though it is difficult to determine the extent to which it was kept until the time of Moses (Ex 20:8-11). From that time on, Sabbath observance stressed refraining from all work so as to commemorate properly God’s own rest from creative activity (31:17) and his deliverance of his people from bondage in Egypt (Dt 5:12-15). Sabbath celebration was the sign of a special relationship between God and the Israelites. During this 24-hour period, even trivial tasks like making a fire (Ex 35:3) or gathering wood (Nm 15:32-33) were prohibited on pain of death. Journeys of any distance also came under the Sabbath ban (Ex 16:29). Special offerings were part of the observance (Nm 28:9-10), and the bread of the Presence was replaced in the tabernacle (Lv 24:5-8). Despite the restrictions on activity, the Sabbath was meant to symbolize a time of happiness and security in the presence of God (cf. Is 58:13-14), since its observance would bring blessing to the individual and to the whole land.<\/p>\n<h6>Festival of the New Moon<\/h6>\nThe new moon was a monthly celebration based on the lunar calendar. It was especially appropriate for an agricultural people, since everyone could tell when the moon was new. Special offerings were prescribed for this festival, consisting of a burnt sacrifice, a grain offering, and a drink offering (Nm 28:11-15). In addition, a male goat was sacrificed to God as a sin offering, and trumpet blasts were sounded over the sacrificial offerings as a memorial before God (10:10). The sacrifices prescribed for the new moon festival were significantly greater than those required in Numbers 28:9-10 for the weekly Sabbath.<\/p>\nThis lunar feast was popular throughout Israelite history. During the monarchy, the Levites were required to assist the Aaronic priests at the new moon festival, as well as on the Sabbath (1 Chr 23:29-31). The preexilic prophets may well have taken advantage of the large gatherings to give guidance to the people or proclaim prophetic oracles (cf. 2 Kgs 4:23), though to what extent this was done is uncertain. Not everyone found the period of rest and celebration valuable, however, and Amos (Am 8:5) complained about those avaricious Israelites who felt that such observances interfered with the business of making a living. The feast could not be observed when the Judeans were in exile in Babylonia (cf. Hos 2:11), but under Ezra and Nehemiah, its observance was restored (Neh 10:33). In Isaiah 66:22-23 it was related to Israel’s final destiny and was an accepted part of the ordinances for Ezekiel’s ideal temple (Ez 45:17).<\/p>\nThe purpose of the festival was to enhance the unity of national life by reminding the Israelites that God’s covenant with their ancestors was permanent and still binding upon the nation. It also stressed the loving nature and providence of a God who could begin such a relationship and carry out his promises with complete faithfulness (cf. Ps 104:19).<\/p>\n<h6>The Festival of Trumpets<\/h6>\nThe Festival of Trumpets was celebrated on the first day of the seventh new moon. This month, subsequently named Tishri, was especially holy, and for this reason was governed by certain regulations different from those of ordinary new moon festivals. The trumpets were blown on the first day (Lv 23:24) as the animal and cereal sacrifices were offered. From Numbers 29:2-6 it appears that the offerings required for this particular feast exceeded those prescribed for normal Sabbath sacrifice, but were somewhat less than those required for the regular new moon festival (cf. Nm 28:11). This feast was to be observed as a day of solemn rest and as a holy convocation, and the trumpets were sounded as a triumphant memorial to God’s great provision for his people through the Sinai covenant.<\/p>\nThe seventh month was particularly sacred, partly because of its place in the hallowed cycle of sevens, but also because the Day of Atonement (or Yom Kippur) and the Feast of Tabernacles, or Booths (Shelters), occurred during this period. The latter feast followed the Day of Atonement by some five days (Lv 23:33), and its joyful character served to offset somewhat the solemnity of the annual penitential occasion when the nation confessed its collective sins and saw them banished symbolically into the wilderness as the scapegoat was driven from the congregation.<\/p>\n<h6>The Sabbatical Year<\/h6>\nAnother festival closely connected with the institution of the Sabbath was the sabbatical year. At the end of each cycle of six years, the following 12 months were observed as a “sabbath of rest for the land.” During this interval, the ground was to lie fallow (Ex 23:11) without any form of cultivation, and whatever sprouted and grew from it naturally was assigned to the poor and needy (Lv 25:6). This provision for the land itself constituted one of the most important ecological principles of Scripture. Like God’s people, the land was holy, and just as they needed to have regular intervals of rest from daily work in order to regain their energy and spiritual vitality through worship, so the ground needed to rest and recuperate from the strain of constant cultivation. The festival reminded the Israelites that the land on which they lived had been given to them by God in fulfillment of his covenant undertaking to provide richly for their physical needs (cf. Dt 8:7-10). To keep the Israelites from experiencing any shortages or other hardships during the Year of Sabbath, God promised that in the year immediately preceding the sabbatical period, the land would bear fruit to suffice for the next three years (Lv 25:21). This assurance was based upon the experience of the wilderness wanderings, when on the sixth day of the week sufficient manna appeared to last through the Sabbath (Ex 16:5).<\/p>\nIn this festival period, God’s absolute claim over the land was reaffirmed (cf. Lv 25:23), and the faith of the nation in God’s ability to provide for future needs was reinforced. The provisions that freed the land for a year from agricultural bondage were paralleled in the seventh year of rest by those requiring liberation of slaves and debtors. These underprivileged members of society were to be released from their obligations of servitude. As a result, men and women who had become slaves for one reason or another were given personal liberty (Ex 21:2-6), and under proclamation of the Lord’s release, the provisions applying to debt were rescinded (Dt 15:1-6). The sabbatical year seems to have been a regular part of preexilic Israelite life, although some abuses were noted in Jeremiah 34:8-22. There the prophet took advantage of the opportunity presented to instruct the people in the nature and purpose of the sabbatical year ordinance. He also warned the wayward Judeans that because they had disobeyed the commands of God in denying proper liberty to their slaves, they would have their own freedom taken away in a far more serious manner by being carried captive to Babylonia after seeing their land destroyed. The lesson was not lost upon those who returned from exile, for under the administration of Nehemiah, the Jews bound themselves by a covenant to observe the principle of the sabbatical year (Neh 10:31). This undertaking evidently took its impetus from the reading of the law of Moses at the Feast of Booths (Shelters), which coincidentally occurred at the beginning of the sabbatical year (Neh 8:13-18).<\/p>\n<h6>Jubilee<\/h6>\nStill another feast based on the principle of the sabbath was the Year of Jubilee, or Pentecostal year (Lv 25:8-55; 27:17-24). As the sabbatical year was related to the concept of the seventh day, so the Pentecostal (50th) year marked the completion of a cycle of seven sabbatical years. The commencement of a jubilee year was proclaimed on the Day of Atonement throughout the land by means of trumpet blasts (Lv 25:9). The activities that took place during the Pentecostal year were similar to those prescribed for the sabbatical year. A special feature was that land that had been sold during the preceding 49 years was returned to its original owners, a procedure that sometimes involved financial adjustments. To prevent abuse of the process through opportunism or speculation, the Hebrews were instructed to deal fairly and honestly with one another in the fear of God, who was the real owner of the land (Lv 25:14-17). As with the sabbatical year, God promised to make provision before the jubilee year so that no one would suffer hardship. It was during the Year of Jubilee that those who were slaves in Hebrew households were given their liberty, so that everyone in the land would commence a new cycle of sabbatical years on the same footing, as free persons under God.<\/p>\n<h5>Seasonal Festivals<\/h5>\nThree annual festivals that followed the seasons of the year rather than phases of the moon furnished important occasions for commemorating God’s power and provision in national life. These festivals were designated by the term hag<\/span>,<\/em> indicating a festival usually observed by some sort of pilgrimage. These three festivals were prescribed in Exodus 23:14-17 and Deuteronomy 16:16, and consisted of the Feast of Passover and Unleavened Bread, the Feast of Weeks (Pentecost), and the Festival of Booths (Tabernacles). On these occasions, all the males of Israel were commanded to make pilgrimage to the sanctuary and celebrate these festivals (Ex 12:14). The Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread were originally separate ordinances, but since the latter always followed immediately upon the Passover rite, they naturally blended into a single festival.<\/p>\n<h6>Passover<\/h6>\nThe Passover was of supreme theological significance for the Israelites, since it marked one of the most momentous acts of divine intervention in their history, the beginning of their deliverance from bondage in Egypt when, in the final plague, God destroyed the firstborn of the Egyptians but spared those Israelites whose homes had blood smeared on the doorposts (Ex 12:11-30). God commanded that the day was to be observed as a memorial feast (v 14), and the next Passover celebration occurred in the Sinai Desert (Nm 9:1-5). In the Hebrew calendar the Passover festival came in the first month, called Abib in Deuteronomy 16:1, but known after the exile as Nisan (cf. Neh 2:1). The Passover rite took place the 14th evening (Lv 23:5), and this was followed by a seven-day period during which nothing leavened was to be eaten. The principle for removing all leaven from bread was similar to that underlying the draining of blood from animal flesh. Both leaven and blood had quickening power and were to be kept separate as an offering to God. The first and seventh days of this period were marked by a holy assembly, during which the only work permitted was the preparation of food (Ex 12:16). This period when unleavened bread was eaten was described as a festival because it opened the seven-week period of grain harvest (Dt 16:9). During this feast, special burnt sacrifices were offered, followed with a sheaf of newly harvested barley at the Feast of Firstfruits. By NT times the festivals of Passover and Unleavened Bread were well-attended celebrations and were known as the “days of unleavened bread” (Lk 22:1; Acts 12:3). The theme of Israel’s deliverance from the power of Egypt by divine intervention assured the Israelites that God was always ready to act on behalf of a faithful and obedient covenant people. It also reminded them that they had once been slaves (Dt 16:12). In Israelite life the early Passover and Unleavened Bread observances were comparatively simple in character, but during the monarchy more elaborate Passover rituals came into use (cf. 2 Kgs 23:21-23; 2 Chr 35:1-19).<\/p>\n<h6>Pentecost<\/h6>\nThe second great festival, Pentecost (or Weeks) lasted one day only and was observed on the 50th day after the newly harvested barley sheaf had been waved before the Lord at the end of the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Dt 16:9-12). The festival marked the end of the barley harvest and the beginning of the wheat harvest, the beginning of the period when firstfruits could be offered (cf. Ex 23:16; 34:22; Nm 28:26). The feast day was marked by the presentation of two wheat-flour loaves along with sacrifices of seven lambs, two rams, and a bull (Lv 23:15-20). Freewill gifts to God were presented to reflect gratitude for his blessings, and the entire occasion was one of communal rejoicing (Dt 16:10-11). Since Pentecost was essentially a harvest festival (Ex 23:16), the Israelites were called on to recognize that they depended entirely upon God for their material prosperity. In Deuteronomy 26, specific instructions were given for the ritual of presenting firstfruits from the harvest. It comprised a great confession of faith set within the framework of Israel’s history, and it recounted God’s deliverance of the nation from Egyptian oppression and his provision of a land that could amply supply the needs of his people.<\/p>\n<h6>Festival of Tabernacles<\/h6>\nThis festival, known variously as the Feast of Booths, Tabernacles, Shelters (Lv 23:34; Dt 16:13), or Ingathering (Ex 34:22), was the third great occasion that all Hebrew males were required to observe annually. It began on the 15th day of the seventh month (Tishri), shortly after the observance of the Day of Atonement, which fell on the 10th day. The Feast of Booths lasted for one week and involved pilgrimage. It was associated initially with the end of the year (Ex 34:22), when the agricultural work had been completed. The first day was marked by a symbolic cessation from all activity, after which burnt offerings were presented to the Lord. The eighth day was also one on which the congregation of Israel abstained from manual work and again offered burnt sacrifices. Leviticus 23:39-43 furnished details for the rituals that gave the festival its special name of booths or shelters or tabernacles. The fruit of “goodly trees” was to be gathered on the first day of the feast, along with palm fronds, willow branches, and boughs from trees in full leaf. From these, rough shelters or booths were to be constructed in which the people lived for the week of the feast. Every seventh year the observances were marked by a public recital of the covenant provisions to which the Israelites under Moses had committed themselves, a procedure designed to keep fresh in their minds the obligations as well as the blessings of the covenant relationship. A particularly significant observance of the Feast of Tabernacles took place in the time of Ezra, when the Judean community returned from Babylon—a celebration of a kind unknown for centuries (Neh 8:13-18). From the context it appears that observance of the feast had lapsed during the monarchy. The feast at Shiloh where Hannah was mistaken for a drunken woman and the feast referred to in Judges 21:19 were evidently the Feast of Booths. In a prophetic vision in which he saw all nations coming to Jerusalem to observe the Festival of Booths, Zechariah warned that those who did not continue this tradition could expect hardship and shortages of food (Zec 14:16-19).<\/p>\n<h5>Postexilic Festivals<\/h5>\nThere are a few minor festivals that were created in the period after the Jews returned from exile; some of these festivals had their origin in specific historical occasions.<\/p>\n<h6>The Festival of Purim<\/h6>\nThe Festival of Purim, also known as the Festival of Lots, was a joyful occasion occurring on the 14th day of the 12th month (Adar). It celebrated the way in which Esther and Mordecai were used by God to deliver his people in the Persian Empire from extermination by Haman (Est 9:21, 24-28). The feast was observed on the 14th day of Adar by those living in villages, and on the 15th by the inhabitants of walled towns and cities. The explanation of the name of the festival is given in Esther 9:24-26, and its observance reminded the Hebrews of God’s ability to save them during a time of anti-Semitic activity in Persia. The deliverance memorialized in this festival has consoled the Jews on other occasions when they have suffered persecution. Traditionally the scroll of Esther was read aloud in the synagogue on the evening before the feast, and there was a great outcry, especially among the children present, whenever the names of the hated Haman and his sons were mentioned.<\/p>\n<h6>Festival of the Dedication of the Temple<\/h6>\nAnother joyous festival that lasted for eight days was the Feast of the Dedication of the Temple (1 Macc 4:52-59; 2 Macc 10:6-8), familiar to modern readers as Hanukkah, or the Festival of Lights. The specific dedication that prompted the feast occurred in 164 BC<\/span>, when Judas Maccabeus reconsecrated the temple in Jerusalem after it had been defiled by Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The celebrations commenced on the 25th day of the ninth month (Kislev) and were marked at night by blazing lights and lanterns. The stories of brave opposition by the Maccabees to the crushing forces of paganism were recounted, and the feast was one of praise to God for his marvelous deliverance of the Jews during the Maccabean period.<\/p>\nNew Testament Festivals<\/p>\nIn Christ’s time the Sabbath was observed rigorously and was the occasion for synagogue worship (cf. Lk 4:16; Acts 13:14; 18:4). Pharisaic law prohibited all work, and Jesus came into conflict with the authorities periodically for breaches of the Sabbath regulations (cf. Mt 12:1-4; Mk 3:1-5; Lk 13:10-17). In the primitive church, worship occurred on “the first day of the week” (i.e., Sunday) to commemorate Christ’s resurrection. The early Christians initially participated in Jewish ceremonies (cf. Acts 20:16; 1 Cor 16:8). It was during the Feast of Pentecost, after Christ’s resurrection and ascension, that the Spirit was poured out (Acts 2:1-4), fulfilling Joel 2:28-32 and commencing the history of the Christian church as such.<\/p>\nThe Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread were of great significance in the life of Christ (cf. Jn 4:45; 5:1; 6:4; 12:1-26), for the occasion was a very popular one in NT times (cf. 12:20). On the Passover, Pilate had instituted the custom of clemency to a prisoner nominated by the populace (Mt 27:15; Mk 15:6). Jesus participated actively in the Passover rituals (cf. Lk 2:42; Jn 2:13; 6:4). The Last Supper with his disciples occurred just prior to the Passover (Jn 13:1), when Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus to the Pharisees (Lk 22:4-6). The breaking of bread and the drinking of wine at that Passover celebration (Mk 14:22-25) were related directly to Christ’s forthcoming death on the cross in a sacramental manner. Christ’s disciples were instructed to observe this rite as a memorial of his suffering and death for human sin (1 Cor 11:24-26) and as a proclamation of the power of the cross until the Lord returns in glory. Some scholars have suggested that Christ was actually hanging on the cross when the Passover lamb was being slaughtered, and if that chronology is correct, it would represent Jesus graphically as the “Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (Jn 1:29, rsv<\/span>). Jesus was also present once when the Feast of Tabernacles was celebrated (7:10). In his day water was carried in procession from the pool of Siloam as an offering to God, and the ceremony most probably prompted Christ’s discourse on living water and eternal life (vv 37-39). On at least one occasion Jesus was in Jerusalem when the Festival of Lights occurred (Jn 10:22) and narrowly missed death by stoning.<\/p>\nJesus was entertained occasionally at private feasts (cf. Lk 5:29), and once remedied an emergency situation when the wine ran out at a wedding ceremony (Jn 2:8-10). He was critical of the Pharisees for securing the chief seats at feasts (Mt 23:6; Mk 12:39; Lk 20:46) and taught that festivals ought to benefit the poor (Lk 14:13).<\/p>\nSymbolism of Feasts<\/p>\nMany aspects of the ancient Hebrew feasts were interpreted symbolically in the early church. Paul regarded the earliest Hebrew Christians as the firstfruits of the Israel of God (Rom 11:16). In Romans 8:23, the Holy Spirit as possessed by Christians was regarded as only a token of what was to come, and as such was the firstfruit of the Spirit. Christians themselves were described in James 1:18 as the firstfruits of God’s creatures who were brought forth by the Word of Truth. The resurrection of Jesus was considered by Paul to be the firstfruits of those who slept (1 Cor 15:20, 23). In an allusion to OT festivals, Paul spoke of the Sabbaths, new moons, and feasts as merely being a shadow of good things to come (Col 2:16-17). The Passover was used figuratively to emphasize that Christ our Passover Lamb had been sacrificed for us. Believers were urged to keep the feast with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth, and not with the old leaven of malice and evil (1 Cor 5:7-8).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Calendars, Ancient and Modern; Offerings and Sacrifices; Tabernacle; Temple.<\/p>","summary_ro":"FEASTS AND FESTIVALS OF ISRAEL Occasions of public or private rejoicing to commemorate some significant event or personage. The element of celebration has a special meaning in the cycle of religious occasions and the rites and ceremonies associated with these particular days. While the idea of a feast commonly implies a banquet with plenteous food and drink, this element is not indispensable. Sometimes there is only a token amount, as in the celebration of Holy Communion. In contemporary usag...","summary_en":"FEASTS AND FESTIVALS OF ISRAEL Occasions of public or private rejoicing to commemorate some significant event or personage. The element of celebration has a special meaning in the cycle of religious occasions and the rites and ceremonies associated with these particular days. While the idea of a feast commonly implies a banquet with plenteous food and drink, this element is not indispensable. Sometimes there is only a token amount, as in the celebration of Holy Communion. In contemporary usag...","source":"Articles\/F.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":42837,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:3","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:3","content_ro":"2:3<\/strong> The first six days of creation involved separation (light from darkness, day from night, water from dry land). The last act of creation separated what is ordinary from what is holy<\/em>, thus laying the foundation for Israel’s worship. It also anticipated a coming age of rest (Heb 4:1-11; 12:2; 13:14). • The absence of the usual “morning and evening” reflects the Creator’s willingness to enter into unending fellowship with humankind.<\/p>","content_en":"2:3<\/strong> The first six days of creation involved separation (light from darkness, day from night, water from dry land). The last act of creation separated what is ordinary from what is holy<\/em>, thus laying the foundation for Israel’s worship. It also anticipated a coming age of rest (Heb 4:1-11; 12:2; 13:14). • The absence of the usual “morning and evening” reflects the Creator’s willingness to enter into unending fellowship with humankind.<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:3 The first six days of creation involved separation (light from darkness, day from night, water from dry land). The last act of creation separated what is ordinary from what is holy, thus laying the foundation for Israel’s worship. It also anticipated a coming age of rest (Heb 4:1-11; 12:2; 13:14). • The absence of the usual “morning and evening” reflects the Creator’s willingness to enter into unending fellowship with humankind.","summary_en":"2:3 The first six days of creation involved separation (light from darkness, day from night, water from dry land). The last act of creation separated what is ordinary from what is holy, thus laying the foundation for Israel’s worship. It also anticipated a coming age of rest (Heb 4:1-11; 12:2; 13:14). • The absence of the usual “morning and evening” reflects the Creator’s willingness to enter into unending fellowship with humankind.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":70463,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:3","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:3","content_ro":"2:3<\/strong> The first six days of creation involved separation (light from darkness, day from night, water from dry land). The last act of creation separated what is ordinary from what is holy<\/em>, thus laying the foundation for Israel’s worship. It also anticipated a coming age of rest (Heb 4:1-11; 12:2; 13:14). • The absence of the usual “morning and evening” reflects the Creator’s willingness to enter into unending fellowship with humankind.<\/p>","content_en":"2:3<\/strong> The first six days of creation involved separation (light from darkness, day from night, water from dry land). The last act of creation separated what is ordinary from what is holy<\/em>, thus laying the foundation for Israel’s worship. It also anticipated a coming age of rest (Heb 4:1-11; 12:2; 13:14). • The absence of the usual “morning and evening” reflects the Creator’s willingness to enter into unending fellowship with humankind.<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:3 The first six days of creation involved separation (light from darkness, day from night, water from dry land). The last act of creation separated what is ordinary from what is holy, thus laying the foundation for Israel’s worship. It also anticipated a coming age of rest (Heb 4:1-11; 12:2; 13:14). • The absence of the usual “morning and evening” reflects the Creator’s willingness to enter into unending fellowship with humankind.","summary_en":"2:3 The first six days of creation involved separation (light from darkness, day from night, water from dry land). The last act of creation separated what is ordinary from what is holy, thus laying the foundation for Israel’s worship. It also anticipated a coming age of rest (Heb 4:1-11; 12:2; 13:14). • The absence of the usual “morning and evening” reflects the Creator’s willingness to enter into unending fellowship with humankind.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":98089,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:3","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:3","content_ro":"2:3<\/strong> The first six days of creation involved separation (light from darkness, day from night, water from dry land). The last act of creation separated what is ordinary from what is holy<\/em>, thus laying the foundation for Israel’s worship. It also anticipated a coming age of rest (Heb 4:1-11; 12:2; 13:14). • The absence of the usual “morning and evening” reflects the Creator’s willingness to enter into unending fellowship with humankind.<\/p>","content_en":"2:3<\/strong> The first six days of creation involved separation (light from darkness, day from night, water from dry land). The last act of creation separated what is ordinary from what is holy<\/em>, thus laying the foundation for Israel’s worship. It also anticipated a coming age of rest (Heb 4:1-11; 12:2; 13:14). • The absence of the usual “morning and evening” reflects the Creator’s willingness to enter into unending fellowship with humankind.<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:3 The first six days of creation involved separation (light from darkness, day from night, water from dry land). The last act of creation separated what is ordinary from what is holy, thus laying the foundation for Israel’s worship. It also anticipated a coming age of rest (Heb 4:1-11; 12:2; 13:14). • The absence of the usual “morning and evening” reflects the Creator’s willingness to enter into unending fellowship with humankind.","summary_en":"2:3 The first six days of creation involved separation (light from darkness, day from night, water from dry land). The last act of creation separated what is ordinary from what is holy, thus laying the foundation for Israel’s worship. It also anticipated a coming age of rest (Heb 4:1-11; 12:2; 13:14). • The absence of the usual “morning and evening” reflects the Creator’s willingness to enter into unending fellowship with humankind.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":125715,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:3","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:3","content_ro":"2:3<\/strong> The first six days of creation involved separation (light from darkness, day from night, water from dry land). The last act of creation separated what is ordinary from what is holy<\/em>, thus laying the foundation for Israel’s worship. It also anticipated a coming age of rest (Heb 4:1-11; 12:2; 13:14). • The absence of the usual “morning and evening” reflects the Creator’s willingness to enter into unending fellowship with humankind.<\/p>","content_en":"2:3<\/strong> The first six days of creation involved separation (light from darkness, day from night, water from dry land). The last act of creation separated what is ordinary from what is holy<\/em>, thus laying the foundation for Israel’s worship. It also anticipated a coming age of rest (Heb 4:1-11; 12:2; 13:14). • The absence of the usual “morning and evening” reflects the Creator’s willingness to enter into unending fellowship with humankind.<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:3 The first six days of creation involved separation (light from darkness, day from night, water from dry land). The last act of creation separated what is ordinary from what is holy, thus laying the foundation for Israel’s worship. It also anticipated a coming age of rest (Heb 4:1-11; 12:2; 13:14). • The absence of the usual “morning and evening” reflects the Creator’s willingness to enter into unending fellowship with humankind.","summary_en":"2:3 The first six days of creation involved separation (light from darkness, day from night, water from dry land). The last act of creation separated what is ordinary from what is holy, thus laying the foundation for Israel’s worship. It also anticipated a coming age of rest (Heb 4:1-11; 12:2; 13:14). • The absence of the usual “morning and evening” reflects the Creator’s willingness to enter into unending fellowship with humankind.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"4":[{"id":40489,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Adam and Eve","title_en":"Adam and Eve","content_ro":"<h3>Adam and Eve<\/h3>\nAdam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17).<\/p>\nGod created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity that God intended for man and woman in marriage (2:23-25). She is honored as “the mother of all who live” (3:20).<\/p>\nAfter the serpent deceived Eve into rejecting God’s rule, Adam also rebelled (3:1-6). Their willful disobedience disrupted their relationship (3:7) and separated them from God. God looked for Adam after his rebellion; he and Eve were hiding among the trees, already aware of the alienation (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam blamed Eve and, by implication, God (3:12). Their rebellion brought pain, strained relationships, hardship in governing the earth, and death—physical and spiritual (3:16-19, 22-24). Nonetheless, God provided animal skins to cover Adam and Eve (3:21), and promised that Eve’s offspring would defeat Satan (3:15; see Rom 16:20; Rev 12:1-9; 20:1-10).<\/p>\nAdam was a historical individual (Gen 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tim 2:13-14; Jude 1:14) who also represents humanity as a whole. God’s mandates (Gen 1:26-30) and curses (3:16-19) affected not only Adam and Eve, but the entire human race. Adam represents separation from God, which all humanity experiences.<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul contrasted those represented by Adam, the first man, with those who follow Christ, the “last Adam” (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:45-50; see also Rom 8:5-11, 20-22). Those represented by Adam live only after his example—they partake of his sin, his alienation from God and God’s creation, and his spiritual death. By contrast, those who follow Christ live by faith in him. They are recreated in Christ’s image and become “new people” who partake of a new creation (see Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The barriers Adam and Eve raised are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16); Christ restores what they lost.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:26-31; 2:4–3:24; 4:25–5:5; Hos 6:6-7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:22, 45-49; 1 Tim 2:13-14<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Adam and Eve<\/h3>\nAdam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17).<\/p>\nGod created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity that God intended for man and woman in marriage (2:23-25). She is honored as “the mother of all who live” (3:20).<\/p>\nAfter the serpent deceived Eve into rejecting God’s rule, Adam also rebelled (3:1-6). Their willful disobedience disrupted their relationship (3:7) and separated them from God. God looked for Adam after his rebellion; he and Eve were hiding among the trees, already aware of the alienation (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam blamed Eve and, by implication, God (3:12). Their rebellion brought pain, strained relationships, hardship in governing the earth, and death—physical and spiritual (3:16-19, 22-24). Nonetheless, God provided animal skins to cover Adam and Eve (3:21), and promised that Eve’s offspring would defeat Satan (3:15; see Rom 16:20; Rev 12:1-9; 20:1-10).<\/p>\nAdam was a historical individual (Gen 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tim 2:13-14; Jude 1:14) who also represents humanity as a whole. God’s mandates (Gen 1:26-30) and curses (3:16-19) affected not only Adam and Eve, but the entire human race. Adam represents separation from God, which all humanity experiences.<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul contrasted those represented by Adam, the first man, with those who follow Christ, the “last Adam” (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:45-50; see also Rom 8:5-11, 20-22). Those represented by Adam live only after his example—they partake of his sin, his alienation from God and God’s creation, and his spiritual death. By contrast, those who follow Christ live by faith in him. They are recreated in Christ’s image and become “new people” who partake of a new creation (see Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The barriers Adam and Eve raised are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16); Christ restores what they lost.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:26-31; 2:4–3:24; 4:25–5:5; Hos 6:6-7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:22, 45-49; 1 Tim 2:13-14<\/p>","summary_ro":"Adam and Eve Adam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17). God created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity...","summary_en":"Adam and Eve Adam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17). God created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":68115,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Adam and Eve","title_en":"Adam and Eve","content_ro":"<h3>Adam and Eve<\/h3>\nAdam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17).<\/p>\nGod created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity that God intended for man and woman in marriage (2:23-25). She is honored as “the mother of all who live” (3:20).<\/p>\nAfter the serpent deceived Eve into rejecting God’s rule, Adam also rebelled (3:1-6). Their willful disobedience disrupted their relationship (3:7) and separated them from God. God looked for Adam after his rebellion; he and Eve were hiding among the trees, already aware of the alienation (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam blamed Eve and, by implication, God (3:12). Their rebellion brought pain, strained relationships, hardship in governing the earth, and death—physical and spiritual (3:16-19, 22-24). Nonetheless, God provided animal skins to cover Adam and Eve (3:21), and promised that Eve’s offspring would defeat Satan (3:15; see Rom 16:20; Rev 12:1-9; 20:1-10).<\/p>\nAdam was a historical individual (Gen 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tim 2:13-14; Jude 1:14) who also represents humanity as a whole. God’s mandates (Gen 1:26-30) and curses (3:16-19) affected not only Adam and Eve, but the entire human race. Adam represents separation from God, which all humanity experiences.<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul contrasted those represented by Adam, the first man, with those who follow Christ, the “last Adam” (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:45-50; see also Rom 8:5-11, 20-22). Those represented by Adam live only after his example—they partake of his sin, his alienation from God and God’s creation, and his spiritual death. By contrast, those who follow Christ live by faith in him. They are recreated in Christ’s image and become “new people” who partake of a new creation (see Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The barriers Adam and Eve raised are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16); Christ restores what they lost.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:26-31; 2:4–3:24; 4:25–5:5; Hos 6:6-7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:22, 45-49; 1 Tim 2:13-14<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Adam and Eve<\/h3>\nAdam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17).<\/p>\nGod created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity that God intended for man and woman in marriage (2:23-25). She is honored as “the mother of all who live” (3:20).<\/p>\nAfter the serpent deceived Eve into rejecting God’s rule, Adam also rebelled (3:1-6). Their willful disobedience disrupted their relationship (3:7) and separated them from God. God looked for Adam after his rebellion; he and Eve were hiding among the trees, already aware of the alienation (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam blamed Eve and, by implication, God (3:12). Their rebellion brought pain, strained relationships, hardship in governing the earth, and death—physical and spiritual (3:16-19, 22-24). Nonetheless, God provided animal skins to cover Adam and Eve (3:21), and promised that Eve’s offspring would defeat Satan (3:15; see Rom 16:20; Rev 12:1-9; 20:1-10).<\/p>\nAdam was a historical individual (Gen 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tim 2:13-14; Jude 1:14) who also represents humanity as a whole. God’s mandates (Gen 1:26-30) and curses (3:16-19) affected not only Adam and Eve, but the entire human race. Adam represents separation from God, which all humanity experiences.<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul contrasted those represented by Adam, the first man, with those who follow Christ, the “last Adam” (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:45-50; see also Rom 8:5-11, 20-22). Those represented by Adam live only after his example—they partake of his sin, his alienation from God and God’s creation, and his spiritual death. By contrast, those who follow Christ live by faith in him. They are recreated in Christ’s image and become “new people” who partake of a new creation (see Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The barriers Adam and Eve raised are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16); Christ restores what they lost.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:26-31; 2:4–3:24; 4:25–5:5; Hos 6:6-7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:22, 45-49; 1 Tim 2:13-14<\/p>","summary_ro":"Adam and Eve Adam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17). God created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity...","summary_en":"Adam and Eve Adam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17). God created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":95741,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Adam and Eve","title_en":"Adam and Eve","content_ro":"<h3>Adam and Eve<\/h3>\nAdam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17).<\/p>\nGod created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity that God intended for man and woman in marriage (2:23-25). She is honored as “the mother of all who live” (3:20).<\/p>\nAfter the serpent deceived Eve into rejecting God’s rule, Adam also rebelled (3:1-6). Their willful disobedience disrupted their relationship (3:7) and separated them from God. God looked for Adam after his rebellion; he and Eve were hiding among the trees, already aware of the alienation (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam blamed Eve and, by implication, God (3:12). Their rebellion brought pain, strained relationships, hardship in governing the earth, and death—physical and spiritual (3:16-19, 22-24). Nonetheless, God provided animal skins to cover Adam and Eve (3:21), and promised that Eve’s offspring would defeat Satan (3:15; see Rom 16:20; Rev 12:1-9; 20:1-10).<\/p>\nAdam was a historical individual (Gen 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tim 2:13-14; Jude 1:14) who also represents humanity as a whole. God’s mandates (Gen 1:26-30) and curses (3:16-19) affected not only Adam and Eve, but the entire human race. Adam represents separation from God, which all humanity experiences.<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul contrasted those represented by Adam, the first man, with those who follow Christ, the “last Adam” (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:45-50; see also Rom 8:5-11, 20-22). Those represented by Adam live only after his example—they partake of his sin, his alienation from God and God’s creation, and his spiritual death. By contrast, those who follow Christ live by faith in him. They are recreated in Christ’s image and become “new people” who partake of a new creation (see Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The barriers Adam and Eve raised are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16); Christ restores what they lost.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:26-31; 2:4–3:24; 4:25–5:5; Hos 6:6-7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:22, 45-49; 1 Tim 2:13-14<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Adam and Eve<\/h3>\nAdam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17).<\/p>\nGod created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity that God intended for man and woman in marriage (2:23-25). She is honored as “the mother of all who live” (3:20).<\/p>\nAfter the serpent deceived Eve into rejecting God’s rule, Adam also rebelled (3:1-6). Their willful disobedience disrupted their relationship (3:7) and separated them from God. God looked for Adam after his rebellion; he and Eve were hiding among the trees, already aware of the alienation (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam blamed Eve and, by implication, God (3:12). Their rebellion brought pain, strained relationships, hardship in governing the earth, and death—physical and spiritual (3:16-19, 22-24). Nonetheless, God provided animal skins to cover Adam and Eve (3:21), and promised that Eve’s offspring would defeat Satan (3:15; see Rom 16:20; Rev 12:1-9; 20:1-10).<\/p>\nAdam was a historical individual (Gen 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tim 2:13-14; Jude 1:14) who also represents humanity as a whole. God’s mandates (Gen 1:26-30) and curses (3:16-19) affected not only Adam and Eve, but the entire human race. Adam represents separation from God, which all humanity experiences.<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul contrasted those represented by Adam, the first man, with those who follow Christ, the “last Adam” (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:45-50; see also Rom 8:5-11, 20-22). Those represented by Adam live only after his example—they partake of his sin, his alienation from God and God’s creation, and his spiritual death. By contrast, those who follow Christ live by faith in him. They are recreated in Christ’s image and become “new people” who partake of a new creation (see Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The barriers Adam and Eve raised are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16); Christ restores what they lost.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:26-31; 2:4–3:24; 4:25–5:5; Hos 6:6-7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:22, 45-49; 1 Tim 2:13-14<\/p>","summary_ro":"Adam and Eve Adam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17). God created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity...","summary_en":"Adam and Eve Adam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17). God created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":123367,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Adam and Eve","title_en":"Adam and Eve","content_ro":"<h3>Adam and Eve<\/h3>\nAdam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17).<\/p>\nGod created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity that God intended for man and woman in marriage (2:23-25). She is honored as “the mother of all who live” (3:20).<\/p>\nAfter the serpent deceived Eve into rejecting God’s rule, Adam also rebelled (3:1-6). Their willful disobedience disrupted their relationship (3:7) and separated them from God. God looked for Adam after his rebellion; he and Eve were hiding among the trees, already aware of the alienation (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam blamed Eve and, by implication, God (3:12). Their rebellion brought pain, strained relationships, hardship in governing the earth, and death—physical and spiritual (3:16-19, 22-24). Nonetheless, God provided animal skins to cover Adam and Eve (3:21), and promised that Eve’s offspring would defeat Satan (3:15; see Rom 16:20; Rev 12:1-9; 20:1-10).<\/p>\nAdam was a historical individual (Gen 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tim 2:13-14; Jude 1:14) who also represents humanity as a whole. God’s mandates (Gen 1:26-30) and curses (3:16-19) affected not only Adam and Eve, but the entire human race. Adam represents separation from God, which all humanity experiences.<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul contrasted those represented by Adam, the first man, with those who follow Christ, the “last Adam” (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:45-50; see also Rom 8:5-11, 20-22). Those represented by Adam live only after his example—they partake of his sin, his alienation from God and God’s creation, and his spiritual death. By contrast, those who follow Christ live by faith in him. They are recreated in Christ’s image and become “new people” who partake of a new creation (see Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The barriers Adam and Eve raised are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16); Christ restores what they lost.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:26-31; 2:4–3:24; 4:25–5:5; Hos 6:6-7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:22, 45-49; 1 Tim 2:13-14<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Adam and Eve<\/h3>\nAdam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17).<\/p>\nGod created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity that God intended for man and woman in marriage (2:23-25). She is honored as “the mother of all who live” (3:20).<\/p>\nAfter the serpent deceived Eve into rejecting God’s rule, Adam also rebelled (3:1-6). Their willful disobedience disrupted their relationship (3:7) and separated them from God. God looked for Adam after his rebellion; he and Eve were hiding among the trees, already aware of the alienation (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam blamed Eve and, by implication, God (3:12). Their rebellion brought pain, strained relationships, hardship in governing the earth, and death—physical and spiritual (3:16-19, 22-24). Nonetheless, God provided animal skins to cover Adam and Eve (3:21), and promised that Eve’s offspring would defeat Satan (3:15; see Rom 16:20; Rev 12:1-9; 20:1-10).<\/p>\nAdam was a historical individual (Gen 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tim 2:13-14; Jude 1:14) who also represents humanity as a whole. God’s mandates (Gen 1:26-30) and curses (3:16-19) affected not only Adam and Eve, but the entire human race. Adam represents separation from God, which all humanity experiences.<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul contrasted those represented by Adam, the first man, with those who follow Christ, the “last Adam” (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:45-50; see also Rom 8:5-11, 20-22). Those represented by Adam live only after his example—they partake of his sin, his alienation from God and God’s creation, and his spiritual death. By contrast, those who follow Christ live by faith in him. They are recreated in Christ’s image and become “new people” who partake of a new creation (see Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The barriers Adam and Eve raised are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16); Christ restores what they lost.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:26-31; 2:4–3:24; 4:25–5:5; Hos 6:6-7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:22, 45-49; 1 Tim 2:13-14<\/p>","summary_ro":"Adam and Eve Adam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17). God created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity...","summary_en":"Adam and Eve Adam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17). God created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":469,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Adam (Person)","title_en":"Adam (Person)","content_ro":"<h3>ADAM (Person<\/span>)<\/h3>\nFirst man and father of the human race. Adam’s role in biblical history is important not only in OT considerations but also in understanding the meaning of salvation and the person and work of Jesus Christ.<\/p>\nThe creation of Adam and the first woman, Eve, is recited in two accounts in the book of Genesis. The intent of the first account (1:26-31) is to present the first pair in their relationship to God and to the rest of the created order. It teaches that with regard to God the first humans were created male and female in God’s image with his specific mandate to populate and rule over the earth. With regard to the rest of creation the first humans were, on one hand, part of it, being created on the same day as other land animals; on the other hand, they were distinctly above it, being the culmination of the creation process and sole bearers of God’s image.<\/p>\nThe intent of the second account is much more specific (2:4–3:24); it seeks to explain the origin of the present human condition of sin and death and to set the stage for the drama of redemption. The story treats in detail aspects of Adam’s creation omitted from the first story. For example, it tells of the formation of Adam from the dust of the ground and of his receiving the breath of life from God (2:7). It recounts the planting of the Garden and the responsibility given to Adam to cultivate it (2:8-15). God’s instruction to Adam that the fruit of every tree in the Garden was his for food, except one, is carefully recorded, as well as the solemn warning that the fruit of the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” was never to be eaten, under the pain of death (2:16-17). Adam’s loneliness after naming the animals and not finding a suitable companion is also described, thus introducing the creation of the first woman (2:18-22). The creation of Eve from Adam’s rib poignantly portrays the essential unity of spirit and purpose of the sexes intended by God.<\/p>\nThe story does not end on such a positive note, however. It moves on to record the great deception Satan played upon Eve through the serpent. By clever insinuations and distortion of God’s original commandment (cf. 3:1 with 2:16-17), the serpent tricked Eve into eating the forbidden fruit and sharing it with Adam. Eve seems to have eaten because she was deceived (1 Tm 2:14), Adam out of a willful and conscious rebellion. Ironically, the two beings originally created in God’s image and likeness believed that they could become “like” God by disobeying him (Gn 3:5).<\/p>\nThe effects of their disobedience were immediate, though not at all what Adam had expected. For the first time a barrier of shame disrupted the unity of man and woman (3:7). More important, a barrier of real moral guilt was erected between the first couple and God. The story relates that when God came looking for Adam after his rebellion, he was hiding among the trees, already aware of his separation from God (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam threw the blame on Eve and, by implication, back on God: “It was the woman you gave me who brought me the fruit” (3:12, nlt<\/span>). Eve in turn blamed the serpent (3:13).<\/p>\nAccording to the story in Genesis, God held all three responsible and informed each one of the calamitous consequences of their rebellion (3:14-19). The two great mandates, originally signs of pure blessing, became mixed with curse and pain—the earth could now be populated only through the woman’s birth pangs and could be subdued only by the man’s labor and perspiration (3:16-18). Further, the unity of man and woman would be strained by man’s subjugation of her, or possibly by the beginning of a struggle for dominance between them (3:16b can be taken both ways). Finally, God pronounced the ultimate consequence: as he had originally warned, Adam and Eve were to die. Someday the breath of life would be taken from them, and their bodies would return to the dust from which they were made (3:19). That very day they also experienced a “spiritual” death; they were separated from God, the giver of life, and from the tree of life, the symbol of eternal life (3:22). God sent them out of Eden, and there was no way back. The entrance to paradise was blocked by the cherubim and flaming sword (3:23-24). Only God could restore what they had lost.<\/p>\nThe story is not devoid of hope. God was merciful even then. He made them garments of skin to cover their bodies and promised that someday the power of Satan behind the serpent would be crushed by the woman’s “seed” (Gn 3:15; cf. Rom 16:20). Many scholars consider that promise to be the first biblical mention of redemption.<\/p>\nThe Significance of Adam<\/p>\nAdam’s significance is based upon several assumptions, the first being that he was a historical individual. That assumption was made by many OT writers (Gn 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7). The NT writers agreed (Lk 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tm 2:13-14; Jude 1:14). Equally essential to Adam’s significance is a second assumption, that he was more than an individual. To begin with, the Hebrew word adam<\/span> (more correctly ’a–dha–m<\/span>) is not merely a proper name. Even in the Genesis story it is not used as a name until Genesis 4:25. The word is one of several Hebrew words meaning “man” and is the generic term for “human race.” In the vast majority of cases it refers either to a male individual (Lv 1:2; Jos 14:15; Neh 9:29; Is 56:2) or to humanity in general (Ex 4:11; Nm 12:3; 16:29; Dt 4:28; 1 Kgs 4:31; Jb 7:20; 14:1). The generic, collective sense of the word adam<\/span> is also behind the phrase “children (or sons) of men” (2 Sm 7:14; Pss 11:4; 12:1; 14:2; 53:2; 90:3; Eccl 1:13; 2:3). That phrase, literally “sons of adam<\/span>,”<\/em> simply means “men” or “human beings,” and when it is used the entire human race is in view. Indeed, the universalistic human connotation of the word adam<\/span> indicates a concern in the OT going far beyond Israel’s nationalistic hopes and its God—to all the earth’s people and the Lord of all nations (Gn 9:5-7; Dt 5:24; 8:3; 1 Kgs 8:38-39; Pss 8:4; 89:48; 107:8-31; Prv 12:14; Mi 6:8).<\/p>\nIt is no accident, then, that the first man was named “Adam” or “Man.” The name intimates that to speak about Adam is somehow also to speak about the entire human race. Such usage can perhaps best be understood through the ancient concept of corporate personality and representation familiar to the Hebrews and other Near Eastern peoples. Modern thinking emphasizes the individual; existence of the social group and all social relationships has been seen as secondary to, and dependent upon, the existence and desire of the individual. The Hebrew understanding was quite different. Though the separate personality of the individual was appreciated (Jer 31:29-30; Ez 18:4), there was a strong tendency to see the social group (family, tribe, nation) as a single organism with a corporate identity of its own. Likewise the group representative was seen as the embodiment or personification of the corporate personality of the group. Within the representative the essential qualities and characteristics of the social group resided in such a way that the actions and decisions of the representative were binding on the entire group. If the group was a family, the father was usually considered the corporate representative; for good or for ill his family, and sometimes his descendants, received the results of his actions (Gn 17:1-8; cf. Gn 20:1-9, 18; Ex 20:5-6; Jos 7:24-25; Rom 11:28; Heb 7:1-10).<\/p>\nAs the original man and father of humankind, in whose image all succeeding generations would be born (Gn 5:3), Adam was the corporate representative of humanity. The creation accounts themselves give the impression that the mandates of Genesis 1:26-30 (cf. Gn 9:1, 7; Pss 8:5-7; 104:14) as well as the curses of Genesis 3:16-19 (cf. Ps 90:3; Eccl 12:7; Is 13:8; 21:3) were meant not only for Adam (and Eve) but, through him, for the entire race.<\/p>\nIn Romans 5:12-21 the apostle Paul contrasted the death and condemnation brought upon humanity by Adam’s disobedience with the life and justification given to humanity through Christ’s obedience. More explicitly, in 1 Corinthians 15:45-50 (rsv<\/span>), Paul called Christ the “last Adam,” “second man,” and the “man of heaven” in juxtaposition to the “first Adam,” the “first man,” and the “man of dust.”<\/p>\nFor Paul, the human race was divided into two groups in the persons of Adam and Christ. Those who remain “incorporated” in Adam are the “old” humanity, bearing the image of the “man of dust” and partaking of his sin and alienation from God and Creation (Rom 5:12-19; 8:20-22). But those who are incorporated into Christ by faith become Christ’s “body” (Rom 12:4-5; 1 Cor 12:12-13, 27; Eph 1:22-23; Col 1:18); they are recreated in Christ’s image (Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 3:18); they become one “new man” (Eph 2:15; 4:24; Col 3:9-10, kjv<\/span>); and they partake of the new creation (2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The old barriers raised by Adam are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16). For Paul, the functional similarity of Adam and Christ as representatives meant that Christ had restored what Adam had lost.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Eve; Man, Old and New; New Creation, New Creature.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>ADAM (Person<\/span>)<\/h3>\nFirst man and father of the human race. Adam’s role in biblical history is important not only in OT considerations but also in understanding the meaning of salvation and the person and work of Jesus Christ.<\/p>\nThe creation of Adam and the first woman, Eve, is recited in two accounts in the book of Genesis. The intent of the first account (1:26-31) is to present the first pair in their relationship to God and to the rest of the created order. It teaches that with regard to God the first humans were created male and female in God’s image with his specific mandate to populate and rule over the earth. With regard to the rest of creation the first humans were, on one hand, part of it, being created on the same day as other land animals; on the other hand, they were distinctly above it, being the culmination of the creation process and sole bearers of God’s image.<\/p>\nThe intent of the second account is much more specific (2:4–3:24); it seeks to explain the origin of the present human condition of sin and death and to set the stage for the drama of redemption. The story treats in detail aspects of Adam’s creation omitted from the first story. For example, it tells of the formation of Adam from the dust of the ground and of his receiving the breath of life from God (2:7). It recounts the planting of the Garden and the responsibility given to Adam to cultivate it (2:8-15). God’s instruction to Adam that the fruit of every tree in the Garden was his for food, except one, is carefully recorded, as well as the solemn warning that the fruit of the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” was never to be eaten, under the pain of death (2:16-17). Adam’s loneliness after naming the animals and not finding a suitable companion is also described, thus introducing the creation of the first woman (2:18-22). The creation of Eve from Adam’s rib poignantly portrays the essential unity of spirit and purpose of the sexes intended by God.<\/p>\nThe story does not end on such a positive note, however. It moves on to record the great deception Satan played upon Eve through the serpent. By clever insinuations and distortion of God’s original commandment (cf. 3:1 with 2:16-17), the serpent tricked Eve into eating the forbidden fruit and sharing it with Adam. Eve seems to have eaten because she was deceived (1 Tm 2:14), Adam out of a willful and conscious rebellion. Ironically, the two beings originally created in God’s image and likeness believed that they could become “like” God by disobeying him (Gn 3:5).<\/p>\nThe effects of their disobedience were immediate, though not at all what Adam had expected. For the first time a barrier of shame disrupted the unity of man and woman (3:7). More important, a barrier of real moral guilt was erected between the first couple and God. The story relates that when God came looking for Adam after his rebellion, he was hiding among the trees, already aware of his separation from God (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam threw the blame on Eve and, by implication, back on God: “It was the woman you gave me who brought me the fruit” (3:12, nlt<\/span>). Eve in turn blamed the serpent (3:13).<\/p>\nAccording to the story in Genesis, God held all three responsible and informed each one of the calamitous consequences of their rebellion (3:14-19). The two great mandates, originally signs of pure blessing, became mixed with curse and pain—the earth could now be populated only through the woman’s birth pangs and could be subdued only by the man’s labor and perspiration (3:16-18). Further, the unity of man and woman would be strained by man’s subjugation of her, or possibly by the beginning of a struggle for dominance between them (3:16b can be taken both ways). Finally, God pronounced the ultimate consequence: as he had originally warned, Adam and Eve were to die. Someday the breath of life would be taken from them, and their bodies would return to the dust from which they were made (3:19). That very day they also experienced a “spiritual” death; they were separated from God, the giver of life, and from the tree of life, the symbol of eternal life (3:22). God sent them out of Eden, and there was no way back. The entrance to paradise was blocked by the cherubim and flaming sword (3:23-24). Only God could restore what they had lost.<\/p>\nThe story is not devoid of hope. God was merciful even then. He made them garments of skin to cover their bodies and promised that someday the power of Satan behind the serpent would be crushed by the woman’s “seed” (Gn 3:15; cf. Rom 16:20). Many scholars consider that promise to be the first biblical mention of redemption.<\/p>\nThe Significance of Adam<\/p>\nAdam’s significance is based upon several assumptions, the first being that he was a historical individual. That assumption was made by many OT writers (Gn 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7). The NT writers agreed (Lk 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tm 2:13-14; Jude 1:14). Equally essential to Adam’s significance is a second assumption, that he was more than an individual. To begin with, the Hebrew word adam<\/span> (more correctly ’a–dha–m<\/span>) is not merely a proper name. Even in the Genesis story it is not used as a name until Genesis 4:25. The word is one of several Hebrew words meaning “man” and is the generic term for “human race.” In the vast majority of cases it refers either to a male individual (Lv 1:2; Jos 14:15; Neh 9:29; Is 56:2) or to humanity in general (Ex 4:11; Nm 12:3; 16:29; Dt 4:28; 1 Kgs 4:31; Jb 7:20; 14:1). The generic, collective sense of the word adam<\/span> is also behind the phrase “children (or sons) of men” (2 Sm 7:14; Pss 11:4; 12:1; 14:2; 53:2; 90:3; Eccl 1:13; 2:3). That phrase, literally “sons of adam<\/span>,”<\/em> simply means “men” or “human beings,” and when it is used the entire human race is in view. Indeed, the universalistic human connotation of the word adam<\/span> indicates a concern in the OT going far beyond Israel’s nationalistic hopes and its God—to all the earth’s people and the Lord of all nations (Gn 9:5-7; Dt 5:24; 8:3; 1 Kgs 8:38-39; Pss 8:4; 89:48; 107:8-31; Prv 12:14; Mi 6:8).<\/p>\nIt is no accident, then, that the first man was named “Adam” or “Man.” The name intimates that to speak about Adam is somehow also to speak about the entire human race. Such usage can perhaps best be understood through the ancient concept of corporate personality and representation familiar to the Hebrews and other Near Eastern peoples. Modern thinking emphasizes the individual; existence of the social group and all social relationships has been seen as secondary to, and dependent upon, the existence and desire of the individual. The Hebrew understanding was quite different. Though the separate personality of the individual was appreciated (Jer 31:29-30; Ez 18:4), there was a strong tendency to see the social group (family, tribe, nation) as a single organism with a corporate identity of its own. Likewise the group representative was seen as the embodiment or personification of the corporate personality of the group. Within the representative the essential qualities and characteristics of the social group resided in such a way that the actions and decisions of the representative were binding on the entire group. If the group was a family, the father was usually considered the corporate representative; for good or for ill his family, and sometimes his descendants, received the results of his actions (Gn 17:1-8; cf. Gn 20:1-9, 18; Ex 20:5-6; Jos 7:24-25; Rom 11:28; Heb 7:1-10).<\/p>\nAs the original man and father of humankind, in whose image all succeeding generations would be born (Gn 5:3), Adam was the corporate representative of humanity. The creation accounts themselves give the impression that the mandates of Genesis 1:26-30 (cf. Gn 9:1, 7; Pss 8:5-7; 104:14) as well as the curses of Genesis 3:16-19 (cf. Ps 90:3; Eccl 12:7; Is 13:8; 21:3) were meant not only for Adam (and Eve) but, through him, for the entire race.<\/p>\nIn Romans 5:12-21 the apostle Paul contrasted the death and condemnation brought upon humanity by Adam’s disobedience with the life and justification given to humanity through Christ’s obedience. More explicitly, in 1 Corinthians 15:45-50 (rsv<\/span>), Paul called Christ the “last Adam,” “second man,” and the “man of heaven” in juxtaposition to the “first Adam,” the “first man,” and the “man of dust.”<\/p>\nFor Paul, the human race was divided into two groups in the persons of Adam and Christ. Those who remain “incorporated” in Adam are the “old” humanity, bearing the image of the “man of dust” and partaking of his sin and alienation from God and Creation (Rom 5:12-19; 8:20-22). But those who are incorporated into Christ by faith become Christ’s “body” (Rom 12:4-5; 1 Cor 12:12-13, 27; Eph 1:22-23; Col 1:18); they are recreated in Christ’s image (Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 3:18); they become one “new man” (Eph 2:15; 4:24; Col 3:9-10, kjv<\/span>); and they partake of the new creation (2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The old barriers raised by Adam are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16). For Paul, the functional similarity of Adam and Christ as representatives meant that Christ had restored what Adam had lost.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Eve; Man, Old and New; New Creation, New Creature.<\/p>","summary_ro":"ADAM (Person) First man and father of the human race. Adam’s role in biblical history is important not only in OT considerations but also in understanding the meaning of salvation and the person and work of Jesus Christ. The creation of Adam and the first woman, Eve, is recited in two accounts in the book of Genesis. The intent of the first account (1:26-31) is to present the first pair in their relationship to God and to the rest of the created order. It teaches that with regard to God the f...","summary_en":"ADAM (Person) First man and father of the human race. Adam’s role in biblical history is important not only in OT considerations but also in understanding the meaning of salvation and the person and work of Jesus Christ. The creation of Adam and the first woman, Eve, is recited in two accounts in the book of Genesis. The intent of the first account (1:26-31) is to present the first pair in their relationship to God and to the rest of the created order. It teaches that with regard to God the f...","source":"Articles\/A.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":13507,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Book of Genesis","title_en":"Book of Genesis","content_ro":"<h3>GENESIS, Book of<\/h3>\nFirst book of the Bible.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Name<\/p>\n• Author<\/p>\n• Date<\/p>\n• Purpose<\/p>\n• Structure<\/p>\n• Content<\/p>\nName<\/p>\nThe name Genesis comes into English as a transliteration of the Greek word meaning “origin” or “beginning.” This name was given to the book in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, known as the Septuagint. Genesis reflects both the content of the book and the Hebrew name for it, which is taken from its first word, bere’shith<\/span>,<\/em> “in the beginning.”<\/p>\nAuthor<\/p>\nThe authorship of Genesis is closely related to the authorship of the entire Pentateuch (lit. “five-volumed,” the first five books of the Bible, which in Hebrew are called the Torah). It is clear that the Bible regards the human author of these books as Moses. On several occasions the Lord commanded Moses to write down various things: “in a book” (Ex 17:14) “write these words” (34:27). The Pentateuch reports that “Moses wrote all the words of the Lord<\/span>” (24:4); he wrote the itinerary of the exodus wanderings (Nm 33:2); “Moses wrote this law” (Dt 31:9). (Here it is not certain that all five books are meant, but it must refer to at least the greater part of Deuteronomy.) In Exodus 24:7 it is said that Moses read the Book of the Covenant, which he must have just completed.<\/p>\nThe rest of the OT bears witness to the writing of the Pentateuch by Moses. David referred to “the law of Moses” (1 Kgs 2:3). In the time of Josiah, there was found in the temple the “Book of the Law of the Lord<\/span> . . . given through Moses” (2 Chr 34:14, nlt<\/span>). Day by day Ezra read from “the Book of the Law of God” (Neh 8:18, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nIn the NT, Jesus refers to “the book of Moses” (Mk 12:26; Lk 20:37) and otherwise mentions the commands or statements of Moses (Mt 8:4; 19:8; Mk 7:10; cf. Lk 16:31; 24:44). The Jews also quoted from the Torah as coming from Moses, and Jesus did not contradict them.<\/p>\nOf Genesis in particular, it may be said that Moses had the opportunity and ability to write the book. He could have written it during his years in Egypt or while exiled with the Kenites. As the recognized leader of the Israelites, he would have had access to, or perhaps even custody of, the records that Jacob brought from Canaan. He was “instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians” (Acts 7:22) and probably could have written in several languages and in several scripts (hieroglyphic, cuneiform, Old Hebrew). Although Moses was admirably fitted for the task of writing, one must remember that he was not putting together a human composition but was writing under the inspiration of God (2 Pt 1:21). We may with confidence conclude that Moses was the human author of Genesis.<\/p>\nThe liberal view of the authorship of Genesis is that the book is an editorial composite—a view first put forward by a French physician, Jean Astruc, who suggested that the different names for God indicated different documents or sources for the writing of the book. The German higher critics expanded the view of the use of documents in the writing of Genesis and developed it into the Graf-Wellhausen-Kuenen, or Documentary, Hypothesis, which may also be called the JEDP theory of the authorship of the book. This view holds that there were four basic documents: (1) J, which uses the name YHWH (Jehovah or Yahweh) for God, dates from about the ninth century BC<\/span> and comes from Judah; (2) E uses the name Elohim, dates from the eighth century, and comes from the northern kingdom; (3) D is Deuteronomy and is supposed to come from the time of Josiah, about 621 BC<\/span>; and (4) P is the priestly element, which deals with matters of the priesthood and ritual, dating to the fifth century BC<\/span> or later. Some may date portions of Genesis as late as the Hellenistic period. According to this theory, the various documents were blended together by editors, so that there was a JE, JED, and so on.<\/p>\nThe science of archaeology discredited many of the extreme postulations of these critics, and the work of W. F. Albright and his followers did much to restore confidence in the historicity of Genesis. Within the last several decades, the patriarchal narratives and the account of Joseph have again come under strong attack, but these views are extreme, and much of the evidence adduced by Albright and earlier scholars like R. D. Wilson, W. H. Green, and others still has validity.<\/p>\nDate<\/p>\nThe date of the book is also a matter of debate. Even among those who accept Mosaic authorship there is debate as to when Moses lived. Based on the biblical data, Moses should have lived in the 15th century BC<\/span> (cf. Jgs 11:26; 1 Kgs 6:1), but many scholars incline toward a 13th-century date. As outlined above, the liberal view of the date of Genesis would be from the ninth to the fifth centuries BC<\/span>, with the final editing coming around the fifth century or perhaps even later.<\/p>\nPurpose<\/p>\nGenesis sketches the origin of many things: the universe, the earth, plants, animals, and mankind. It gives the beginnings of human institutions, professions, and crafts. It describes the origin of sin and death, and illustrates the insidious working of Satan in human life. Above all, Genesis relates the beginning of the history of redemption with the announcement of a Redeemer who was to come (Gn 3:15). It names the early progenitors in the lineage of the Messiah and the beginning of the Hebrew people through whom the Bible and the Savior came. Genesis also gives a selective history of people and events as viewed from the perspective of the purposes of God.<\/p>\nStructure<\/p>\nThe book is divided into 11 parts of uneven length, each set off by the expression “these are the generations [descendants, history] of” (2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1; 37:2). Only three times does the formula coincide with the first verse of a chapter. Usually called a heading or superscription, the expression serves as a kind of link between what precedes and what follows.<\/p>\n\nContent<\/p>\n<h5>The Creation (1:1–2:25)<\/h5>\nThese two chapters have been a scientific-theological battleground for many years, as researchers and students have tried to probe the origins of the universe and of life. Much of the evidence is not subject to scientific scrutiny, for science by definition requires that the evidence must be reproducible by experiment.<\/p>\nThe statement of Genesis 1:1 remains the grandest, most precise, and most accurate statement of origins: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” He did this ex nihilo<\/em> (“out of nothing”) by his word (Heb 11:3); he spoke the word of command and it was done (Gn 1:3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20; Ps 33:6, 9).<\/p>\nThe date of the beginning is unknown. Uniformitarian cosmogonists (students of the origins of the universe who believe that natural events have always followed a uniform pattern; cf. 2 Pt 3:3-7) have speculated that the beginning of the universe was billions of years ago. But some creationists posit a world thousands of years old.<\/p>\nTo accommodate geological ages and the existence of extinct animals, some interpreters have proposed a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, with Genesis 1:2–2:3 representing a second or new creation. But this is conjecture. So is the idea that each day represents a geological age.<\/p>\nAs the text stands, there is a correlation between the first three days and the second three days. Day one saw the creation of light; day four, the light bearers. Day two was the time of the creation of the firmament (better, “expanse”), which divided the waters; day five, birds and swarming water creatures. On day three, God made the dry land and plants; on day six he created the land animals and man. He made man in the image of God (Gn 1:26), “a little less than God” (Ps 8:5), and gave him dominion over the earth. He made everything “according to their kinds,” so that each kind is distinct and unique. The perfection of his work is affirmed in that “God saw that it was good” (Gn 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21; “very good,” v 31). The seventh day was a time of cessation from the activity of creating and served as a type for mankind’s day of rest (2:1-3).<\/p>\nCritical scholarship eyes 2:4-25 as a doublet in conflict with Genesis 1:1–2:3. To conservative scholars, the second chapter is the same account from a different perspective. Chapter 1 gives the Creation from the standpoint of sequence; chapter 2 shows it in view of the centrality of mankind in God’s creative work.<\/p>\nChapter 2 gives details of the creation of man of “dust from the ground” (v 7) and woman from a rib of the man (vv 21-22). She was created to be “a companion who will help him” (vv 18-20). They were created as mature adults, with the gift of speech and with great intelligence. Adam had imagination and vocabulary sufficient for naming all of the animal species (v 19).<\/p>\nThe location of the Garden of Eden is given (vv 10-14). Two of the four rivers, the Tigris and the Euphrates, can be identified with certainty. So man lived in this beautiful garden in the bliss of innocence.<\/p>\n<h5>The History of Humankind from Eden to Babel (3:1–11:26)<\/h5>\n<h6>The Fall<\/h6>\nThe loss of Eden and the break in fellowship with God is the saddest chapter in human history. The serpent, the devil, approached Eve with the same philosophy he always uses: doubt of God’s word (Gn 3:1), denial of death (v 4), and the suggestion of equality with God (v 5). He gained access to her will by deceiving her with the promise that the fruit would make her as wise as God is (Gn 3:5; cf. 1 Jn 2:16). Eve was deceived, but when she offered the fruit to Adam, he took it willingly, knowing what he was doing (Gn 3:6; cf. 1 Tm 2:14). Later, he tried to blame God for giving him the wife who gave him the fruit (Gn 3:12). Fellowship with God was broken (v 8), yet God came seeking Adam and found him.<\/p>\nWith sin came judgment, and the Lord pronounced righteous judgment on the serpent, the woman, and the man. The earth was also “subjected to frustration” and now groans as it awaits renewal (Rom 8:21-22). God gave hope to man and a promise of a Redeemer (Gn 3:15), who was to bruise the serpent’s head. Adam and Eve were forced out of the Garden, and it was made inaccessible to them.<\/p>\nThe impatience of humankind is shown in Eve’s expectation that her son Cain was the promised Deliverer. Instead, he developed a wrong-hearted attitude toward God and became so jealous of his younger brother that he murdered him. Apprehended by God and confronted with his crime, Cain showed only self-pity and went east from Eden, where he built a city (4:1-16). Chapter 4 closes with another contrast: the brazen Lamech, who called for vengeance, while others began to call upon the name of the Lord.<\/p>\n<h6>The Generations of Adam<\/h6>\nThis genealogical table (5:1-32) brings humankind to the time of Noah and the Flood. The longevity of the antediluvian patriarchs seems very striking to us, but one must remember that the earth had not yet been subjected to pollution and that the effects of sin on the human race were still nominal. The refrain “and he died” reminds us of man’s mortality. For Enoch, however, there was something better: “He enjoyed a close relationship with God throughout his life. Then, suddenly, he disappeared because God took him” (5:24, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h6>The Flood<\/h6>\nWith increased population came an eruption of sin (6:1-5). As men multiplied, so did their corruption. The universal condemnation of verse 5 shows a world ripe for judgment. Noah, however, “found favor with the Lord<\/span>,” for he was a righteous and blameless man who walked with God (6:8-9).<\/p>\nThe Lord planned to annihilate the human race, but he determined to save Noah and his family. Intending to flood the earth, God instructed Noah to build an ark. Noah was directed to take animals aboard the ark, two by two, male and female, for the preservation of each species. When all was in readiness, the Flood came: “the underground waters burst forth on the earth, and the rain fell in mighty torrents from the sky” (7:11, nlt<\/span>). It rained for 40 days and 40 nights. The highest mountains were covered, and life outside the ark perished. “But God remembered Noah” and sent a wind to evaporate the waters (8:1). Eventually the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat (v 4). Noah made a sacrifice to the Lord, and the Lord determined that he would never again bring such destruction upon the earth.<\/p>\nThe Flood is another of God’s acts that has been much debated. Many have argued for a local flood, which affected only part of Mesopotamia. Archaeologists have pointed to various flood strata in the excavation of Mesopotamian city-mounds as evidence for the account of the flood and have cited the various flood stories from that area as the source of the Genesis record. The epic of Gilgamesh gives an interesting tale of this hero, who went on a mission to visit Utnapishtim, the cuneiform Noah, in quest of eternal life. The flood story told by Utnapishtim has many parallels to Genesis, but there are greater contrasts, which demonstrate that the Bible preserves the true account.<\/p>\nBoth the Genesis account and the references to it in the NT (cf. 2 Pt 3:6) favor the view that the deluge was not a minor episode in the Tigris-Euphrates area but was an unprecedented worldwide catastrophe. Christian geologists affirm that the Flood had far-reaching effects on the earth itself. Flood stories are almost universally known, lending support to the conclusion that the Flood covered the whole earth. Following the Flood, God blessed Noah and his sons, Ham, Shem, and Japheth. God made a covenant with Noah, promising that he would never again send a worldwide flood. As a sign of this, he established the rainbow.<\/p>\nNoah was the first tiller of the soil, and he planted a vineyard (9:20). Noah became drunk from wine he made and lay uncovered in his tent. Ham saw him and reported this to his brothers, who discreetly covered him. Ham and his son Canaan were cursed; Shem and Japheth were blessed.<\/p>\n<h6>The History of the Nations<\/h6>\n“This is the history of the families of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, the three sons of Noah. Many children were born to them after the Flood” (10:1, nlt<\/span>). This chapter lists the descendants of Noah’s three sons, in the order of Japheth (vv 2-5), Ham (vv 6-20), and Shem (vv 21-31). Many of the names of their descendants are preserved in tribes and nations of the world.<\/p>\n<h6>The Tower of Babel<\/h6>\nThe building of the Tower of Babel (“Gate of God”) illustrates man’s perversity and his tendency to want independence from God. The desire of man to displace God follows the fateful example of Lucifer and is a basic tenet of many cults. God thwarted the designs of the builders of Babel by confusing their languages, so that the project came to a halt (11:1-9). The site of this tower is not known with certainty. Some associate it with Birs Nimrud, not far from the ruins of the city of Babylon. Genesis 11:10-25 picks up the line of Shem and carries it down to Terah, the father of Abram.<\/p>\n<h5>The History of Abraham (11:27–25:10) and Isaac (21:1–28:5)<\/h5>\nAbram came from Ur of the Chaldees, a prosperous city. The city had an imposing ziggurat (temple-tower), with many temples, storehouses, and residences. Abram and Sarai, his half sister and wife, went with his father to Haran in Syria, which like Ur was a center of the worship of the moon god, Sin (or Annar).<\/p>\n<h6>Abram’s Call<\/h6>\nThe call of God came to Abram directing him to leave his relatives and move to a land that the Lord would show him (12:1; cf. Acts 7:2-3). Abram obeyed. At the age of 75, he, Sarai, and his nephew Lot left Haran and went to Shechem, where the Lord appeared to him and promised that land to his descendants.<\/p>\nFamine drove Abram down to Egypt (Gn 12:10-20). Because of Sarai’s beauty, he feared that someone might kill him to get her, so he passed her off as his sister. She was taken into the pharaoh’s harem. When the Lord plagued Pharaoh because of this, Abram’s lie was discovered and Sarai was returned to him.<\/p>\n<h6>Abram and Lot<\/h6>\nAbram and Lot returned to Canaan, where strife broke out between Abram’s herdsmen and those of Lot. Abram suggested that they should separate, and he gave Lot the choice of territory. Lot chose the well-watered Jordan Valley and the cities of the plain, Sodom and Gomorrah (ch 13).<\/p>\n<h6>The Invasion of the Four Kings from the East<\/h6>\nThe four kings who invaded along the King’s Highway in Transjordan cannot be identified with certainty. Those kings were successful in their attack against the five cities of the plain, and they moved off with much booty and many captives, including Lot. Abram took 318 retainers, born in his household, and set off after them. By surprise attack, Abram recovered both Lot and the loot. On his return he was met by Melchizedek, king of Jerusalem, to whom Abram paid tithes (ch 14).<\/p>\n<h6>The Covenant<\/h6>\nThe Lord promised Abram a son as heir, and in an impressive nighttime ceremony, God made a covenant with Abram and promised him the land from the River of Egypt (Wadi el Arish) to the Euphrates (ch 15). Because of her own barrenness, Sarai gave her Egyptian maid, Hagar, to Abram. Hagar gave birth to Ishmael, the progenitor of the Arab peoples. When trouble arose between the women, Sarai sent Hagar away, which was her right according to Near Eastern customs (as illustrated by the Nuzi tablets). God showed mercy to Hagar and promised that she would have a great posterity (ch 16).<\/p>\nGod repeated his promise to Abram concerning his descendants and changed the names of Abram (“exalted father”) and Sarai to Abraham (“father of many”) and Sarah (“princess”). A covenant sign of circumcision was given to Abraham (ch 17). This operation had already been practiced among the Egyptians for several centuries.<\/p>\n<h6>The Destruction of the Cities of the Plain<\/h6>\nThe Lord and two angels appeared to Abraham and announced the birth of the promised heir within a year, as well as proclaimed the impending destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, concerning which Abraham bargained with God (18:22-33). Lot and his immediate family were rescued from Sodom, and the cities were destroyed by God with brimstone and fire (19:24-25). Lot’s two daughters, wishing to preserve their family line, got their father drunk and had sexual relations with him. Moab and Ammon, enemies of Israel in later times, were the result.<\/p>\nIn Genesis 20:1-18, Abraham again represented Sarah as his sister and got into trouble with Abimelech, king of Gerar.<\/p>\n<h6>Isaac<\/h6>\nWhen Isaac was born (21:1-3), trouble again broke out between Sarah and Hagar. Hagar was driven out a second time, and once more was befriended by the Lord.<\/p>\nA disagreement arose between Abraham and Abimelech concerning a well, but they made a covenant of peace at Beersheba (21:25-34).<\/p>\nGod tested Abraham’s faith by asking him to sacrifice Isaac on Mt Moriah, which probably is the same site David later bought from Araunah the Jebusite (2 Sm 24:16-25), the place where the temple was to stand. As Abraham was about to use the knife, God called to him and showed him a ram caught in a thicket. Isaac was freed and the animal was sacrificed in his stead.<\/p>\nSarah died at Hebron, and Abraham purchased the cave of Machpelah as a burial place from Ephron the Hittite (ch 23), in a transaction typical of Near Eastern business dealings. To find a wife for Isaac, Abraham sent his servant Eliezer back to the area of Haran, and the Lord directed Eliezer to Rebekah (ch 24).<\/p>\nChapter 25 records the marriage of Abraham to Keturah, who bore him a number of children. Abraham died at the age of 175 years and was buried in the cave of Machpelah by his two sons, Isaac and Ishmael.<\/p>\n<h5>The History of Jacob and Esau (25:19–37:1)<\/h5>\nRebekah gave birth to twin sons, Esau and Jacob. When the boys were grown, Esau sold his birthright to Jacob for a meal of red pottage (25:27-34).<\/p>\nWhen famine came to the land, Isaac went to Gerar, as his father had done (ch 20), and repeated his father’s lie by calling his wife his sister (26:1-11). Trouble arose with the Philistines over wells, but Isaac was a peaceable man and preferred digging new wells rather than fighting over old ones (vv 17-33).<\/p>\nIn Isaac’s old age, when his sight had failed, Rebekah connived with Jacob to trick Isaac into giving to Jacob the blessing of the firstborn, which was rightfully Esau’s. This oral blessing had legal validity and was irrevocable, according to the ancient Nuzi tablets. Fearing for Jacob’s life at the hands of Esau, Rebekah arranged to send Jacob to Haran to find a wife from among her own people. At Bethel, God appeared to Jacob in a dream of a ladder leading up to heaven; God renewed with Jacob the promise made to Abraham and Isaac (28:10-22).<\/p>\nJacob reached Haran, found his uncle Laban, and was employed by him (ch 29). His wages for seven years of labor were to be Laban’s younger daughter, Rachel, as his wife. But Laban substituted Leah, so that Jacob had to work another seven years for Rachel. The Lord prospered Jacob, but he continually had difficulties with Laban. The Lord directed Jacob back to Canaan (31:3), so he left secretly with his wives, children, and property. Laban pursued them because his household gods were missing (possession of these “gods” made the holder heir to the owner’s estate, according to Nuzi custom). Rachel had taken them but successfully concealed them from her father, and Laban went back to Haran.<\/p>\nFearing a meeting with Esau as they passed through Edom, Jacob sent gifts to his brother and divided his own party into two camps for security. On this return journey, Jacob had an unexpected wrestling bout with the Angel of the Lord, and he was left with a limp and a new name, Israel (ch 32).<\/p>\nThe meeting with Esau was friendly, and Jacob went on to Shechem (ch 33), where his sons killed the male Shechemites because of the rape of their sister Dinah (ch 34). God told Jacob to go to Bethel and build an altar to the Lord. All idols of foreign gods were buried (35:1-4). At Bethel, God reaffirmed his promise of a posterity and the land (vv 9-15). Rachel died on the way to Bethlehem, while giving birth to Benjamin, Jacob’s 12th and last son. Isaac died at Hebron at age 180 and was buried in the cave of Machpelah by Esau and Jacob.<\/p>\nGenesis 36 records “the generations of Esau” (v 1). Here Esau is also named Edom (“Red”; cf. 25:30).<\/p>\n<h5>The History of Joseph (37:2–50:26)<\/h5>\nJoseph was Jacob’s favorite son and thus incurred the jealousy of his brothers. This was heightened by Joseph’s dreams of lordship over them. Their resentment of Joseph came to a climax when Jacob gave Joseph a beautiful coat. The brothers determined to kill Joseph, but they compromised by selling him to a caravan of merchants, who took him to Egypt and sold him as a slave to Potiphar, an Egyptian captain of the guard (37:36; 39:1).<\/p>\nChapter 38 relates a historic case of levirate marriage. Judah failed to give his widowed daughter-in-law to his third son. She deceived him into fathering twin sons and forced him to acknowledge his faults. The elder son, Perez, is named in Luke’s genealogy of Jesus (Lk 3:33).<\/p>\nThe Lord blessed Joseph, who soon was put in charge of Potiphar’s household (Gn 39). The young man attracted the attention of Potiphar’s wife, who, after many attempts to seduce him, at last accused him of attempted rape. Sentenced on this charge, Joseph met with favor in prison, where he had opportunity to interpret dreams for two of the pharaoh’s servants (ch 40). When the king had dreams that his magicians and wise men could not interpret, Joseph was summoned from jail. Joseph told Pharaoh that the dreams meant seven years of plenty, followed by seven years of famine. Joseph was then exalted to the office of vizier, or prime minister, second only to the king, and put in charge of the administration of the land (41:37-44).<\/p>\nWhen the famine came to Palestine, Jacob sent his sons to Egypt to purchase grain. Joseph recognized his brothers but did not reveal his identity to them. Joseph put them to the test by accusing them of being spies (42:9), by keeping one of the brothers (Simeon) hostage (v 19), and by demanding that if they came to Egypt again, they must bring their youngest brother with them (42:20; 43:3). The famine became so severe in Canaan (43:1) that Jacob at last allowed Benjamin to go with his brothers to Egypt. The brothers were again set up by Joseph, who had his silver cup put into Benjamin’s grain sack and then had him apprehended as a thief (ch 44).<\/p>\nAt this point Joseph revealed his identity to his brothers (45:4-15) and there was much rejoicing. Joseph pointed out that it was God who had sent him to Egypt (vv 7-8), in order to preserve the lives of all the family. Jacob was then sent for (46:1), and Joseph met him in the land of Goshen (46:28-29). The Israelites were assigned land in the region of Goshen, where they prospered (47:27).<\/p>\nIn Jacob’s final illness, Joseph brought his two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, to his father for his blessing. Jacob gave the primary blessing to the second-born, Ephraim (48:13-20). Jacob blessed each of his own sons and then died at the age of at least 130 years. Joseph arranged for Jacob’s body to be prepared for burial according to Egyptian custom (50:2-3). After the burial of their father in the cave of Machpelah at Hebron, Joseph’s brothers worried about vengeance, but Joseph declared, “As far as I am concerned, God turned into good what you meant for evil. He brought me to the high position I have today so I could save the lives of many people” (v 20, nlt<\/span>). Joseph died at age 110 with the prophetic request that when the Israelites went up from Egypt they would take his bones with them (50:25; cf. Ex 13:19; Jos 24:32).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Abraham; Adam (Person); Covenant; Creation; Eve; Fall of Man; Flood, The; Isaac; Jacob #1; Joseph #1; Nations; Noah #1; Patriarchs, Period of the.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>GENESIS, Book of<\/h3>\nFirst book of the Bible.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Name<\/p>\n• Author<\/p>\n• Date<\/p>\n• Purpose<\/p>\n• Structure<\/p>\n• Content<\/p>\nName<\/p>\nThe name Genesis comes into English as a transliteration of the Greek word meaning “origin” or “beginning.” This name was given to the book in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, known as the Septuagint. Genesis reflects both the content of the book and the Hebrew name for it, which is taken from its first word, bere’shith<\/span>,<\/em> “in the beginning.”<\/p>\nAuthor<\/p>\nThe authorship of Genesis is closely related to the authorship of the entire Pentateuch (lit. “five-volumed,” the first five books of the Bible, which in Hebrew are called the Torah). It is clear that the Bible regards the human author of these books as Moses. On several occasions the Lord commanded Moses to write down various things: “in a book” (Ex 17:14) “write these words” (34:27). The Pentateuch reports that “Moses wrote all the words of the Lord<\/span>” (24:4); he wrote the itinerary of the exodus wanderings (Nm 33:2); “Moses wrote this law” (Dt 31:9). (Here it is not certain that all five books are meant, but it must refer to at least the greater part of Deuteronomy.) In Exodus 24:7 it is said that Moses read the Book of the Covenant, which he must have just completed.<\/p>\nThe rest of the OT bears witness to the writing of the Pentateuch by Moses. David referred to “the law of Moses” (1 Kgs 2:3). In the time of Josiah, there was found in the temple the “Book of the Law of the Lord<\/span> . . . given through Moses” (2 Chr 34:14, nlt<\/span>). Day by day Ezra read from “the Book of the Law of God” (Neh 8:18, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nIn the NT, Jesus refers to “the book of Moses” (Mk 12:26; Lk 20:37) and otherwise mentions the commands or statements of Moses (Mt 8:4; 19:8; Mk 7:10; cf. Lk 16:31; 24:44). The Jews also quoted from the Torah as coming from Moses, and Jesus did not contradict them.<\/p>\nOf Genesis in particular, it may be said that Moses had the opportunity and ability to write the book. He could have written it during his years in Egypt or while exiled with the Kenites. As the recognized leader of the Israelites, he would have had access to, or perhaps even custody of, the records that Jacob brought from Canaan. He was “instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians” (Acts 7:22) and probably could have written in several languages and in several scripts (hieroglyphic, cuneiform, Old Hebrew). Although Moses was admirably fitted for the task of writing, one must remember that he was not putting together a human composition but was writing under the inspiration of God (2 Pt 1:21). We may with confidence conclude that Moses was the human author of Genesis.<\/p>\nThe liberal view of the authorship of Genesis is that the book is an editorial composite—a view first put forward by a French physician, Jean Astruc, who suggested that the different names for God indicated different documents or sources for the writing of the book. The German higher critics expanded the view of the use of documents in the writing of Genesis and developed it into the Graf-Wellhausen-Kuenen, or Documentary, Hypothesis, which may also be called the JEDP theory of the authorship of the book. This view holds that there were four basic documents: (1) J, which uses the name YHWH (Jehovah or Yahweh) for God, dates from about the ninth century BC<\/span> and comes from Judah; (2) E uses the name Elohim, dates from the eighth century, and comes from the northern kingdom; (3) D is Deuteronomy and is supposed to come from the time of Josiah, about 621 BC<\/span>; and (4) P is the priestly element, which deals with matters of the priesthood and ritual, dating to the fifth century BC<\/span> or later. Some may date portions of Genesis as late as the Hellenistic period. According to this theory, the various documents were blended together by editors, so that there was a JE, JED, and so on.<\/p>\nThe science of archaeology discredited many of the extreme postulations of these critics, and the work of W. F. Albright and his followers did much to restore confidence in the historicity of Genesis. Within the last several decades, the patriarchal narratives and the account of Joseph have again come under strong attack, but these views are extreme, and much of the evidence adduced by Albright and earlier scholars like R. D. Wilson, W. H. Green, and others still has validity.<\/p>\nDate<\/p>\nThe date of the book is also a matter of debate. Even among those who accept Mosaic authorship there is debate as to when Moses lived. Based on the biblical data, Moses should have lived in the 15th century BC<\/span> (cf. Jgs 11:26; 1 Kgs 6:1), but many scholars incline toward a 13th-century date. As outlined above, the liberal view of the date of Genesis would be from the ninth to the fifth centuries BC<\/span>, with the final editing coming around the fifth century or perhaps even later.<\/p>\nPurpose<\/p>\nGenesis sketches the origin of many things: the universe, the earth, plants, animals, and mankind. It gives the beginnings of human institutions, professions, and crafts. It describes the origin of sin and death, and illustrates the insidious working of Satan in human life. Above all, Genesis relates the beginning of the history of redemption with the announcement of a Redeemer who was to come (Gn 3:15). It names the early progenitors in the lineage of the Messiah and the beginning of the Hebrew people through whom the Bible and the Savior came. Genesis also gives a selective history of people and events as viewed from the perspective of the purposes of God.<\/p>\nStructure<\/p>\nThe book is divided into 11 parts of uneven length, each set off by the expression “these are the generations [descendants, history] of” (2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1; 37:2). Only three times does the formula coincide with the first verse of a chapter. Usually called a heading or superscription, the expression serves as a kind of link between what precedes and what follows.<\/p>\n\nContent<\/p>\n<h5>The Creation (1:1–2:25)<\/h5>\nThese two chapters have been a scientific-theological battleground for many years, as researchers and students have tried to probe the origins of the universe and of life. Much of the evidence is not subject to scientific scrutiny, for science by definition requires that the evidence must be reproducible by experiment.<\/p>\nThe statement of Genesis 1:1 remains the grandest, most precise, and most accurate statement of origins: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” He did this ex nihilo<\/em> (“out of nothing”) by his word (Heb 11:3); he spoke the word of command and it was done (Gn 1:3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20; Ps 33:6, 9).<\/p>\nThe date of the beginning is unknown. Uniformitarian cosmogonists (students of the origins of the universe who believe that natural events have always followed a uniform pattern; cf. 2 Pt 3:3-7) have speculated that the beginning of the universe was billions of years ago. But some creationists posit a world thousands of years old.<\/p>\nTo accommodate geological ages and the existence of extinct animals, some interpreters have proposed a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, with Genesis 1:2–2:3 representing a second or new creation. But this is conjecture. So is the idea that each day represents a geological age.<\/p>\nAs the text stands, there is a correlation between the first three days and the second three days. Day one saw the creation of light; day four, the light bearers. Day two was the time of the creation of the firmament (better, “expanse”), which divided the waters; day five, birds and swarming water creatures. On day three, God made the dry land and plants; on day six he created the land animals and man. He made man in the image of God (Gn 1:26), “a little less than God” (Ps 8:5), and gave him dominion over the earth. He made everything “according to their kinds,” so that each kind is distinct and unique. The perfection of his work is affirmed in that “God saw that it was good” (Gn 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21; “very good,” v 31). The seventh day was a time of cessation from the activity of creating and served as a type for mankind’s day of rest (2:1-3).<\/p>\nCritical scholarship eyes 2:4-25 as a doublet in conflict with Genesis 1:1–2:3. To conservative scholars, the second chapter is the same account from a different perspective. Chapter 1 gives the Creation from the standpoint of sequence; chapter 2 shows it in view of the centrality of mankind in God’s creative work.<\/p>\nChapter 2 gives details of the creation of man of “dust from the ground” (v 7) and woman from a rib of the man (vv 21-22). She was created to be “a companion who will help him” (vv 18-20). They were created as mature adults, with the gift of speech and with great intelligence. Adam had imagination and vocabulary sufficient for naming all of the animal species (v 19).<\/p>\nThe location of the Garden of Eden is given (vv 10-14). Two of the four rivers, the Tigris and the Euphrates, can be identified with certainty. So man lived in this beautiful garden in the bliss of innocence.<\/p>\n<h5>The History of Humankind from Eden to Babel (3:1–11:26)<\/h5>\n<h6>The Fall<\/h6>\nThe loss of Eden and the break in fellowship with God is the saddest chapter in human history. The serpent, the devil, approached Eve with the same philosophy he always uses: doubt of God’s word (Gn 3:1), denial of death (v 4), and the suggestion of equality with God (v 5). He gained access to her will by deceiving her with the promise that the fruit would make her as wise as God is (Gn 3:5; cf. 1 Jn 2:16). Eve was deceived, but when she offered the fruit to Adam, he took it willingly, knowing what he was doing (Gn 3:6; cf. 1 Tm 2:14). Later, he tried to blame God for giving him the wife who gave him the fruit (Gn 3:12). Fellowship with God was broken (v 8), yet God came seeking Adam and found him.<\/p>\nWith sin came judgment, and the Lord pronounced righteous judgment on the serpent, the woman, and the man. The earth was also “subjected to frustration” and now groans as it awaits renewal (Rom 8:21-22). God gave hope to man and a promise of a Redeemer (Gn 3:15), who was to bruise the serpent’s head. Adam and Eve were forced out of the Garden, and it was made inaccessible to them.<\/p>\nThe impatience of humankind is shown in Eve’s expectation that her son Cain was the promised Deliverer. Instead, he developed a wrong-hearted attitude toward God and became so jealous of his younger brother that he murdered him. Apprehended by God and confronted with his crime, Cain showed only self-pity and went east from Eden, where he built a city (4:1-16). Chapter 4 closes with another contrast: the brazen Lamech, who called for vengeance, while others began to call upon the name of the Lord.<\/p>\n<h6>The Generations of Adam<\/h6>\nThis genealogical table (5:1-32) brings humankind to the time of Noah and the Flood. The longevity of the antediluvian patriarchs seems very striking to us, but one must remember that the earth had not yet been subjected to pollution and that the effects of sin on the human race were still nominal. The refrain “and he died” reminds us of man’s mortality. For Enoch, however, there was something better: “He enjoyed a close relationship with God throughout his life. Then, suddenly, he disappeared because God took him” (5:24, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h6>The Flood<\/h6>\nWith increased population came an eruption of sin (6:1-5). As men multiplied, so did their corruption. The universal condemnation of verse 5 shows a world ripe for judgment. Noah, however, “found favor with the Lord<\/span>,” for he was a righteous and blameless man who walked with God (6:8-9).<\/p>\nThe Lord planned to annihilate the human race, but he determined to save Noah and his family. Intending to flood the earth, God instructed Noah to build an ark. Noah was directed to take animals aboard the ark, two by two, male and female, for the preservation of each species. When all was in readiness, the Flood came: “the underground waters burst forth on the earth, and the rain fell in mighty torrents from the sky” (7:11, nlt<\/span>). It rained for 40 days and 40 nights. The highest mountains were covered, and life outside the ark perished. “But God remembered Noah” and sent a wind to evaporate the waters (8:1). Eventually the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat (v 4). Noah made a sacrifice to the Lord, and the Lord determined that he would never again bring such destruction upon the earth.<\/p>\nThe Flood is another of God’s acts that has been much debated. Many have argued for a local flood, which affected only part of Mesopotamia. Archaeologists have pointed to various flood strata in the excavation of Mesopotamian city-mounds as evidence for the account of the flood and have cited the various flood stories from that area as the source of the Genesis record. The epic of Gilgamesh gives an interesting tale of this hero, who went on a mission to visit Utnapishtim, the cuneiform Noah, in quest of eternal life. The flood story told by Utnapishtim has many parallels to Genesis, but there are greater contrasts, which demonstrate that the Bible preserves the true account.<\/p>\nBoth the Genesis account and the references to it in the NT (cf. 2 Pt 3:6) favor the view that the deluge was not a minor episode in the Tigris-Euphrates area but was an unprecedented worldwide catastrophe. Christian geologists affirm that the Flood had far-reaching effects on the earth itself. Flood stories are almost universally known, lending support to the conclusion that the Flood covered the whole earth. Following the Flood, God blessed Noah and his sons, Ham, Shem, and Japheth. God made a covenant with Noah, promising that he would never again send a worldwide flood. As a sign of this, he established the rainbow.<\/p>\nNoah was the first tiller of the soil, and he planted a vineyard (9:20). Noah became drunk from wine he made and lay uncovered in his tent. Ham saw him and reported this to his brothers, who discreetly covered him. Ham and his son Canaan were cursed; Shem and Japheth were blessed.<\/p>\n<h6>The History of the Nations<\/h6>\n“This is the history of the families of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, the three sons of Noah. Many children were born to them after the Flood” (10:1, nlt<\/span>). This chapter lists the descendants of Noah’s three sons, in the order of Japheth (vv 2-5), Ham (vv 6-20), and Shem (vv 21-31). Many of the names of their descendants are preserved in tribes and nations of the world.<\/p>\n<h6>The Tower of Babel<\/h6>\nThe building of the Tower of Babel (“Gate of God”) illustrates man’s perversity and his tendency to want independence from God. The desire of man to displace God follows the fateful example of Lucifer and is a basic tenet of many cults. God thwarted the designs of the builders of Babel by confusing their languages, so that the project came to a halt (11:1-9). The site of this tower is not known with certainty. Some associate it with Birs Nimrud, not far from the ruins of the city of Babylon. Genesis 11:10-25 picks up the line of Shem and carries it down to Terah, the father of Abram.<\/p>\n<h5>The History of Abraham (11:27–25:10) and Isaac (21:1–28:5)<\/h5>\nAbram came from Ur of the Chaldees, a prosperous city. The city had an imposing ziggurat (temple-tower), with many temples, storehouses, and residences. Abram and Sarai, his half sister and wife, went with his father to Haran in Syria, which like Ur was a center of the worship of the moon god, Sin (or Annar).<\/p>\n<h6>Abram’s Call<\/h6>\nThe call of God came to Abram directing him to leave his relatives and move to a land that the Lord would show him (12:1; cf. Acts 7:2-3). Abram obeyed. At the age of 75, he, Sarai, and his nephew Lot left Haran and went to Shechem, where the Lord appeared to him and promised that land to his descendants.<\/p>\nFamine drove Abram down to Egypt (Gn 12:10-20). Because of Sarai’s beauty, he feared that someone might kill him to get her, so he passed her off as his sister. She was taken into the pharaoh’s harem. When the Lord plagued Pharaoh because of this, Abram’s lie was discovered and Sarai was returned to him.<\/p>\n<h6>Abram and Lot<\/h6>\nAbram and Lot returned to Canaan, where strife broke out between Abram’s herdsmen and those of Lot. Abram suggested that they should separate, and he gave Lot the choice of territory. Lot chose the well-watered Jordan Valley and the cities of the plain, Sodom and Gomorrah (ch 13).<\/p>\n<h6>The Invasion of the Four Kings from the East<\/h6>\nThe four kings who invaded along the King’s Highway in Transjordan cannot be identified with certainty. Those kings were successful in their attack against the five cities of the plain, and they moved off with much booty and many captives, including Lot. Abram took 318 retainers, born in his household, and set off after them. By surprise attack, Abram recovered both Lot and the loot. On his return he was met by Melchizedek, king of Jerusalem, to whom Abram paid tithes (ch 14).<\/p>\n<h6>The Covenant<\/h6>\nThe Lord promised Abram a son as heir, and in an impressive nighttime ceremony, God made a covenant with Abram and promised him the land from the River of Egypt (Wadi el Arish) to the Euphrates (ch 15). Because of her own barrenness, Sarai gave her Egyptian maid, Hagar, to Abram. Hagar gave birth to Ishmael, the progenitor of the Arab peoples. When trouble arose between the women, Sarai sent Hagar away, which was her right according to Near Eastern customs (as illustrated by the Nuzi tablets). God showed mercy to Hagar and promised that she would have a great posterity (ch 16).<\/p>\nGod repeated his promise to Abram concerning his descendants and changed the names of Abram (“exalted father”) and Sarai to Abraham (“father of many”) and Sarah (“princess”). A covenant sign of circumcision was given to Abraham (ch 17). This operation had already been practiced among the Egyptians for several centuries.<\/p>\n<h6>The Destruction of the Cities of the Plain<\/h6>\nThe Lord and two angels appeared to Abraham and announced the birth of the promised heir within a year, as well as proclaimed the impending destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, concerning which Abraham bargained with God (18:22-33). Lot and his immediate family were rescued from Sodom, and the cities were destroyed by God with brimstone and fire (19:24-25). Lot’s two daughters, wishing to preserve their family line, got their father drunk and had sexual relations with him. Moab and Ammon, enemies of Israel in later times, were the result.<\/p>\nIn Genesis 20:1-18, Abraham again represented Sarah as his sister and got into trouble with Abimelech, king of Gerar.<\/p>\n<h6>Isaac<\/h6>\nWhen Isaac was born (21:1-3), trouble again broke out between Sarah and Hagar. Hagar was driven out a second time, and once more was befriended by the Lord.<\/p>\nA disagreement arose between Abraham and Abimelech concerning a well, but they made a covenant of peace at Beersheba (21:25-34).<\/p>\nGod tested Abraham’s faith by asking him to sacrifice Isaac on Mt Moriah, which probably is the same site David later bought from Araunah the Jebusite (2 Sm 24:16-25), the place where the temple was to stand. As Abraham was about to use the knife, God called to him and showed him a ram caught in a thicket. Isaac was freed and the animal was sacrificed in his stead.<\/p>\nSarah died at Hebron, and Abraham purchased the cave of Machpelah as a burial place from Ephron the Hittite (ch 23), in a transaction typical of Near Eastern business dealings. To find a wife for Isaac, Abraham sent his servant Eliezer back to the area of Haran, and the Lord directed Eliezer to Rebekah (ch 24).<\/p>\nChapter 25 records the marriage of Abraham to Keturah, who bore him a number of children. Abraham died at the age of 175 years and was buried in the cave of Machpelah by his two sons, Isaac and Ishmael.<\/p>\n<h5>The History of Jacob and Esau (25:19–37:1)<\/h5>\nRebekah gave birth to twin sons, Esau and Jacob. When the boys were grown, Esau sold his birthright to Jacob for a meal of red pottage (25:27-34).<\/p>\nWhen famine came to the land, Isaac went to Gerar, as his father had done (ch 20), and repeated his father’s lie by calling his wife his sister (26:1-11). Trouble arose with the Philistines over wells, but Isaac was a peaceable man and preferred digging new wells rather than fighting over old ones (vv 17-33).<\/p>\nIn Isaac’s old age, when his sight had failed, Rebekah connived with Jacob to trick Isaac into giving to Jacob the blessing of the firstborn, which was rightfully Esau’s. This oral blessing had legal validity and was irrevocable, according to the ancient Nuzi tablets. Fearing for Jacob’s life at the hands of Esau, Rebekah arranged to send Jacob to Haran to find a wife from among her own people. At Bethel, God appeared to Jacob in a dream of a ladder leading up to heaven; God renewed with Jacob the promise made to Abraham and Isaac (28:10-22).<\/p>\nJacob reached Haran, found his uncle Laban, and was employed by him (ch 29). His wages for seven years of labor were to be Laban’s younger daughter, Rachel, as his wife. But Laban substituted Leah, so that Jacob had to work another seven years for Rachel. The Lord prospered Jacob, but he continually had difficulties with Laban. The Lord directed Jacob back to Canaan (31:3), so he left secretly with his wives, children, and property. Laban pursued them because his household gods were missing (possession of these “gods” made the holder heir to the owner’s estate, according to Nuzi custom). Rachel had taken them but successfully concealed them from her father, and Laban went back to Haran.<\/p>\nFearing a meeting with Esau as they passed through Edom, Jacob sent gifts to his brother and divided his own party into two camps for security. On this return journey, Jacob had an unexpected wrestling bout with the Angel of the Lord, and he was left with a limp and a new name, Israel (ch 32).<\/p>\nThe meeting with Esau was friendly, and Jacob went on to Shechem (ch 33), where his sons killed the male Shechemites because of the rape of their sister Dinah (ch 34). God told Jacob to go to Bethel and build an altar to the Lord. All idols of foreign gods were buried (35:1-4). At Bethel, God reaffirmed his promise of a posterity and the land (vv 9-15). Rachel died on the way to Bethlehem, while giving birth to Benjamin, Jacob’s 12th and last son. Isaac died at Hebron at age 180 and was buried in the cave of Machpelah by Esau and Jacob.<\/p>\nGenesis 36 records “the generations of Esau” (v 1). Here Esau is also named Edom (“Red”; cf. 25:30).<\/p>\n<h5>The History of Joseph (37:2–50:26)<\/h5>\nJoseph was Jacob’s favorite son and thus incurred the jealousy of his brothers. This was heightened by Joseph’s dreams of lordship over them. Their resentment of Joseph came to a climax when Jacob gave Joseph a beautiful coat. The brothers determined to kill Joseph, but they compromised by selling him to a caravan of merchants, who took him to Egypt and sold him as a slave to Potiphar, an Egyptian captain of the guard (37:36; 39:1).<\/p>\nChapter 38 relates a historic case of levirate marriage. Judah failed to give his widowed daughter-in-law to his third son. She deceived him into fathering twin sons and forced him to acknowledge his faults. The elder son, Perez, is named in Luke’s genealogy of Jesus (Lk 3:33).<\/p>\nThe Lord blessed Joseph, who soon was put in charge of Potiphar’s household (Gn 39). The young man attracted the attention of Potiphar’s wife, who, after many attempts to seduce him, at last accused him of attempted rape. Sentenced on this charge, Joseph met with favor in prison, where he had opportunity to interpret dreams for two of the pharaoh’s servants (ch 40). When the king had dreams that his magicians and wise men could not interpret, Joseph was summoned from jail. Joseph told Pharaoh that the dreams meant seven years of plenty, followed by seven years of famine. Joseph was then exalted to the office of vizier, or prime minister, second only to the king, and put in charge of the administration of the land (41:37-44).<\/p>\nWhen the famine came to Palestine, Jacob sent his sons to Egypt to purchase grain. Joseph recognized his brothers but did not reveal his identity to them. Joseph put them to the test by accusing them of being spies (42:9), by keeping one of the brothers (Simeon) hostage (v 19), and by demanding that if they came to Egypt again, they must bring their youngest brother with them (42:20; 43:3). The famine became so severe in Canaan (43:1) that Jacob at last allowed Benjamin to go with his brothers to Egypt. The brothers were again set up by Joseph, who had his silver cup put into Benjamin’s grain sack and then had him apprehended as a thief (ch 44).<\/p>\nAt this point Joseph revealed his identity to his brothers (45:4-15) and there was much rejoicing. Joseph pointed out that it was God who had sent him to Egypt (vv 7-8), in order to preserve the lives of all the family. Jacob was then sent for (46:1), and Joseph met him in the land of Goshen (46:28-29). The Israelites were assigned land in the region of Goshen, where they prospered (47:27).<\/p>\nIn Jacob’s final illness, Joseph brought his two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, to his father for his blessing. Jacob gave the primary blessing to the second-born, Ephraim (48:13-20). Jacob blessed each of his own sons and then died at the age of at least 130 years. Joseph arranged for Jacob’s body to be prepared for burial according to Egyptian custom (50:2-3). After the burial of their father in the cave of Machpelah at Hebron, Joseph’s brothers worried about vengeance, but Joseph declared, “As far as I am concerned, God turned into good what you meant for evil. He brought me to the high position I have today so I could save the lives of many people” (v 20, nlt<\/span>). Joseph died at age 110 with the prophetic request that when the Israelites went up from Egypt they would take his bones with them (50:25; cf. Ex 13:19; Jos 24:32).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Abraham; Adam (Person); Covenant; Creation; Eve; Fall of Man; Flood, The; Isaac; Jacob #1; Joseph #1; Nations; Noah #1; Patriarchs, Period of the.<\/p>","summary_ro":"GENESIS, Book of First book of the Bible. Preview • Name • Author • Date • Purpose • Structure • Content Name The name Genesis comes into English as a transliteration of the Greek word meaning “origin” or “beginning.” This name was given to the book in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, known as the Septuagint. Genesis reflects both the content of the book and the Hebrew name for it, which is taken from its first word, bere’shith, “in the beginning.” Author The authorship of Gene...","summary_en":"GENESIS, Book of First book of the Bible. Preview • Name • Author • Date • Purpose • Structure • Content Name The name Genesis comes into English as a transliteration of the Greek word meaning “origin” or “beginning.” This name was given to the book in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, known as the Septuagint. Genesis reflects both the content of the book and the Hebrew name for it, which is taken from its first word, bere’shith, “in the beginning.” Author The authorship of Gene...","source":"Articles\/G.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":14084,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Being and Attributes of God","title_en":"Being and Attributes of God","content_ro":"<h3>GOD, Being and Attributes of<\/h3>\nInherent characteristics of God revealed in Scripture and displayed in God’s actions in biblical history. They are characteristics equally of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. God’s attributes are revealed in progressively richer and fuller ways within the history of redemption.<\/p>\nAccording to the Bible, the entire creation shows God’s deity and eternal power (Ps 19:1-6; Rom 1:20). God’s providence also reveals certain of his attributes (Mt 5:45; Lk 6:35; Acts 14:16-17; 17:22-31). The fullest revelation of God’s attributes is seen in his work of redemption through Jesus Christ.<\/p>\nHow does Scripture express the characteristics of God? First, in the divine names by which God revealed himself (Gn 1:1; 2:4; 17:1; Ex 3:6, 14-15; 6:2-5). Some of God’s attributes are revealed implicitly in the biblical accounts of Creation, fall, Flood, Babel, and the exodus, and more fully in the various covenants God made with his people. To Israel, he identified himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Ex 3:15). To the pharaoh, he identified himself as the “God of Israel” or the “God of the Hebrews” (5:1-3).<\/p>\nBy the time the people of Israel had reached Mt Sinai, the revelation of God’s attributes in the biblical narrative had become more explicit: “The Lord<\/span>, the Lord<\/span>, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation” (Ex 34:6-7, rsv<\/span>). This summary is repeated elsewhere with slight variations (Nm 14:18; Neh 9:17; Ps 103:8; Jer 32:18; Jon 4:2).<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• The Attributes of God<\/p>\n• Incommunicable Attributes<\/p>\n• Communicable Attributes<\/p>\nThe Attributes of God<\/p>\nThe historic Christian confessions refer to various characteristics of God without calling them attributes or classifying them. The Westminster Shorter Catechism (1647) shows a tendency toward classification, describing God as “a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth.” The first four attributes qualify the others.<\/p>\nSeveral ways of classifying the attributes have been suggested. Generally such schemes divide the divine attributes into pairs: negative and positive, natural and moral, absolute and relative, immanent and eminent, intransitive and transitive, quiescent and operative, antithetical and synthetical, or incommunicable and communicable. Roman Catholics prefer the distinction of negative and positive, or natural and moral. Lutherans generally favor the distinction between quiescent and operative attributes. Reformed and evangelical scholars usually distinguish incommunicable and communicable attributes. Karl Barth grouped the attributes under freedom and love, and then proposed pairs of attributes that reflect freedom-love or love-freedom. In spite of the diversity of labels given the groups of attributes, surprising agreement exists in the attributes listed under each group.<\/p>\nThis article will make a distinction between incommunicable and communicable attributes without considering the classification itself as significant. No classification of God’s attributes is fully satisfactory. The incommunicable<\/em> attributes emphasize the absolute distinctness of God, his transcendent greatness and exalted nature. Such attributes have little or no analogy in God’s creatures. The communicable<\/em> attributes find some reflection or analogy in human beings created in God’s image. They indicate the immanence of God in relation to creatures. Yet all the attributes are God’s attributes; the distinction between God and man, between Creator and creature, is always basic.<\/p>\nIncommunicable Attributes<\/p>\nAcknowledging some diversity of theological opinion, the following attributes will be considered incommunicable: unity, spirituality, independence, immutability, eternity, and immensity. In addition, the incomprehensibility of God must be mentioned.<\/p>\nGod’s incomprehensibility<\/em> is sometimes included in lists of his attributes. It seems preferable to regard it as a description of human inability to understand God fully. Incomprehensibility is therefore not an attribute, although it is a given in every discussion of God. Through his revelation God is truly known by faith, yet no creature will ever comprehend God the Creator. Likewise, no one will ever fully understand any one of God’s attributes. Acknowledgment of God’s incomprehensibility should contribute to a spirit of humility in every consideration of God and his attributes (Pss 139:6; 145:3; Is 40:28; 55:8-9; Mt 11:25-27; Rom 11:33-36; 1 Cor 2:6-16; 13:8-13).<\/p>\nGod’s unity<\/em> is an expression of monotheism—the fact that the God of Scripture is the only, living, true God (Dt 6:4; Mk 12:29; Jn 17:3). All other gods are idols and figments of human imagination. This attribute is reflected in the first commandment: “You shall have no other gods before me” (Ex 20:3).<\/p>\nGod’s spirituality<\/em> indicates that God is not physical and is invisible. Positively it means that God is personal, living, self-conscious, and self-determining. The invisible God cannot be seen by human eyes (Ex 33:20), so the second commandment forbids every visible representation of God (20:4). Because God is Spirit, he must be worshiped in spirit and in truth (Jn 4:24).<\/p>\nGod’s independence<\/em> or self-existence indicates that he is not dependent upon anything outside himself. He is self-sufficient in his existence, in his decrees, and in all his works. God has “life in himself” (Jn 5:26) and “he himself gives life and breath and everything” (Acts 17:25). To Israel, he revealed himself as the “I Am<\/span>” (Ex 3:14), and he made Israel a covenant people for his own possession. God continues to work out his will in the world, and even though he uses various means, his independence remains intact. Thus, he enters into fellowship with his covenant people, and he publishes the gospel through human agents.<\/p>\nGod’s immutability<\/em> or constancy expresses his changelessness and his faithfulness to himself, to his decrees, promises, and works. He remains forever the same true God who undergoes no change from within or from anything outside himself. And so in James 1:17 we read: “Every good endowment and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change” (rsv<\/span>). God’s oath to Abraham expressed his immutability so that his covenant people could be sure of the “unchangeable character of his purpose” (Heb 6:17). Samuel told King Saul that the Lord would not “change his mind; for he is not a man” (1 Sm 15:29, niv<\/span>; cf. Nm 23:19). “For I the Lord<\/span> do not change” (Mal 3:6). That was God’s explanation for not destroying sinful Judah; he shows mercy and keeps his covenant. Because “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever,” Christians are warned not to be “led by diverse and strange teachings” (Heb 13:8-9).<\/p>\nGod’s immutability or constancy does not imply that he is static or immobile. He is a dynamic, living God who is constantly working (Jn 5:17). Sometimes God is described as being sorry, repenting, or changing his mind (Gn 6:6-7; 1 Sm 15:11; Jon 3:10). In their contexts, such figurative expressions show the constancy of a God who, in holiness and righteousness, always abhors sin and reacts against it. In his grace and mercy, he forgives the penitent, and he carries out his promises without fail (Ps 110:4; Is 46:10; Jer 18:7-10; Eph 1:11). Thus, the constancy of God is significant in all human relationships with him, including petitions offered in prayer.<\/p>\nGod’s eternity<\/em> indicates his transcendence over time. He is timeless and everlasting. He has no beginning or end; he does not undergo growth, development, or maturation. He existed before the creation of the world; he dwells now in eternity; he will continue as the eternal God even when history ends. Scripture speaks of God as “eternal” (Dt 33:27), “the King” (1 Tm 1:17), “the beginning and the end” (Rv 22:13). He “inhabits eternity” (Is 57:15) and his “years have no end” (Ps 102:27; cf. 2 Pt 3:8). Although God is above time and is timeless, time is his creation and history is the arena of his work. “When the time had fully come God sent forth his Son” (Gal 4:4); Jesus Christ died on a Friday and rose on the third day.<\/p>\nGod’s immensity<\/em> and omnipresence<\/em> express his transcendence over space. God fills heaven and earth (Jer 23:23-24). Heaven is his throne, and the earth his footstool, so he is not restricted to a temple building (Is 66:1; Acts 17:24). Yet God is immanent in this world and is actively at work in it to establish his kingdom. No one can hide from the omnipresent God (Ps 139:6-12). Jesus promised, “I am with you always, to the close of the age” (Mt 28:20). Since Pentecost (Acts 2), the Holy Spirit is said actually to dwell within the bodies of believers (1 Cor 6:19).<\/p>\nCommunicable Attributes<\/p>\nMany attributes of God can be classified under this heading, although it is sometimes difficult to say which biblical references to God should be regarded as attributes. A rich diversity of terminology is found in Scripture, with many synonyms. For convenience, the communicable attributes are often classified as intellectual, moral, and volitional.<\/p>\n<h5>Intellectual Attributes<\/h5>\nGod’s knowledge<\/em> indicates that in a unique way God knows himself and all things possible and actual. Omniscience<\/em> means that “he knows everything” (1 Jn 3:20). “Even before a word is on my tongue, lo, O Lord<\/span>, thou knowest it altogether” (Ps 139:4), including the secret thoughts of a person’s heart. God’s righteous judgment is rooted in the fact that he “knows the thoughts of man” (Ps 94:11). Acknowledging that God’s omniscience is incomprehensible, the psalmist finds it a source of comfort (139:1-5). All the “treasures of wisdom and knowledge” are hidden in Christ (Col 2:3); therefore, the Christian is told to bring every thought captive to obey Christ (2 Cor 10:5). Christian sanctification includes renewal in knowledge to become more like Christ (Col 3:10).<\/p>\nGod’s wisdom<\/em> indicates that he uses his knowledge in the best possible manner to achieve his goals. God’s works are varied, but they are all done in wisdom (Ps 104:24). “The Lord<\/span> by wisdom founded the earth” (Prv 3:19); his providence also displays his wisdom (Gn 50:20). Redemption through Jesus Christ reveals God’s wisdom (1 Cor 1:24) and awakens awe and praise (Rom 11:33-36). Human beings should seek wisdom (Prv 3:21)—wisdom rooted in the fear of God (Jb 28:28; Ps 111:10; Prv 9:10). Christians are said to be “wise in Christ” (1 Cor 4:10), and Christ charges them to act wisely (Mt 10:16), thus emulating the wisdom of God.<\/p>\nGod’s veracity<\/em> expresses his truthfulness and faithfulness. He is the truth and he is faithful to himself, to his Word, and to his promises (2 Tm 2:13). “God is light and in him is no darkness at all” (1 Jn 1:5); therefore, his followers are to walk in the light (vv 6-7). Jesus is “the way, and the truth, and the life” (Jn 14:6); hence, Christians are to walk in the truth and show faithfulness in their lives.<\/p>\n<h5>Moral Attributes<\/h5>\nThe most comprehensive description of God’s moral character is his goodness.<\/em> God deals bountifully and kindly with all his creatures. He is “good to all” (Ps 145:9). Jesus insisted that “no one is good but God alone” (Mk 10:18; Lk 18:19). The redeemed praise God for his goodness (1 Chr 16:34; 2 Chr 5:13; Pss 106:1; 107:1; 118:1; 136:1; Jer 33:11) and are called upon to emulate this divine characteristic (Mt 5:45; Lk 6:27-36).<\/p>\nGod’s love<\/em> is the heartbeat of the gospel. Perfect love flows among the Persons of the Trinity (Jn 3:35; 17:24). At Sinai God revealed himself as abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness (Ex 34:6-7), and all his covenantal relations with Abraham’s descendants showed his steadfast love. The chief manifestation of God’s love was the sending of his Son, Jesus Christ (Jn 3:16). The apostle John, who declared that “God is love,” pointed to the cross to indicate what that love really meant: “he loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins” (1 Jn 4:8, 10).<\/p>\nGod’s love shown to undeserving sinners is called grace<\/em> (Eph 1:6-8; 2:7-9; Ti 3:4). Mercy<\/em> is God’s love (sometimes his goodness) shown to those in misery and distress. God is longsuffering<\/em> or patient in his love; he gives time for repentance.<\/p>\nGod’s holiness<\/em> depicts the moral purity and excellence of God. The description of Jesus’ holiness is applicable to each of the Persons of the Trinity: “holy, blameless, unstained, separated from sinners, exalted above the heavens” (Heb 7:26). The root idea of holiness is to be separate or set apart. Because of his inherent holiness, God is distinct from everything impure or unholy. God alone is holy; his name is holy, and he bears the name the “Holy One” (Pss 78:41; 89:18; 99:3, 9; 111:9; Is 12:6; Jer 51:5; Rv 15:4). Angels praise God’s holiness (Is 6:3; Rv 4:8). Objects, places, and people are called holy when set apart for the worship of God. Because God is holy, his people are called to holiness (Lv 11:44-45; 19:2; 1 Pt 1:14-15). God’s discipline of his people is aimed at making them share his holiness (Heb 12:10). The holiness of God is so prominent in Scripture that some have (mistakenly) regarded it as God’s chief attribute.<\/p>\n<h5>Volitional Attributes<\/h5>\nGod’s sovereignty<\/em> indicates the divine authority with which he rules the entire creation and in his sovereign good pleasure does whatever he wills. God is King over the entire creation, and he rules the destiny of human beings and nations. He restores his kingdom through Jesus Christ; the risen Lord revealed that all authority in heaven and on earth was given to him (Mt 28:18). Election to salvation in Christ is “according to the purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to the counsel of his will” (Eph 1:11, rsv<\/span>). God’s sovereign will, though free, is not arbitrary; it is righteous and holy. He created the world and gave his law as the rule for his people’s lives; he covenants, blesses, and judges. God is the “King of kings and Lord of lords” (1 Tm 6:15); he calls all his subjects to obedient love (Dt 6:4-5; Mt 22:37-40; 1 Jn 5:3).<\/p>\nGod’s sovereign power<\/em> means that he is without bounds or limit in ability; he is omnipotent<\/em> or almighty (Rv 4:8). By his powerful word, he created all things, and upholds “the universe by his word of power” (Heb 1:3). There is nothing too hard for the Lord God Almighty (Gn 18:14; Jer 32:27; Mt 19:26); he keeps his gracious covenant and fulfills all his promises (Lk 1:37; 2 Tm 2:13; Heb 6:18). The gospel is “the power of God for salvation” (Rom 1:16), for Christ is “the power of God” to save (1 Cor 1:24). Hence, believers must come to know “the immeasurable greatness of his power in us who believe, according to the working of his great might which he accomplished in Christ when he raised him from the dead and made him sit at his right hand in the heavenly places” (Eph 1:19-20, rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h5>God’s Glory<\/h5>\nAll the attributes of God are summarized in Scripture’s references to the glory<\/em> of God. The majesty, splendor, beauty, and brilliance of God who dwells in unapproachable light are expressed by this indefinable term. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham (Acts 7:2); God showed his glory to Moses (Ex 33:18-19; 34:6-7). The God of the Lord Jesus Christ is the Father of glory (Eph 1:17). The heavens declare the glory of God (Ps 19:1); the majesty and glory of God fill heaven and earth (8:1). When finally every tongue shall confess Jesus as Lord, it will be for the glory of God the Father (Phil 2:11). Human beings were created for God’s glory, and Christian believers are instructed to do everything for the glory of God (1 Cor 10:31), thus reflecting in themselves his inherent glory.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>GOD, Being and Attributes of<\/h3>\nInherent characteristics of God revealed in Scripture and displayed in God’s actions in biblical history. They are characteristics equally of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. God’s attributes are revealed in progressively richer and fuller ways within the history of redemption.<\/p>\nAccording to the Bible, the entire creation shows God’s deity and eternal power (Ps 19:1-6; Rom 1:20). God’s providence also reveals certain of his attributes (Mt 5:45; Lk 6:35; Acts 14:16-17; 17:22-31). The fullest revelation of God’s attributes is seen in his work of redemption through Jesus Christ.<\/p>\nHow does Scripture express the characteristics of God? First, in the divine names by which God revealed himself (Gn 1:1; 2:4; 17:1; Ex 3:6, 14-15; 6:2-5). Some of God’s attributes are revealed implicitly in the biblical accounts of Creation, fall, Flood, Babel, and the exodus, and more fully in the various covenants God made with his people. To Israel, he identified himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Ex 3:15). To the pharaoh, he identified himself as the “God of Israel” or the “God of the Hebrews” (5:1-3).<\/p>\nBy the time the people of Israel had reached Mt Sinai, the revelation of God’s attributes in the biblical narrative had become more explicit: “The Lord<\/span>, the Lord<\/span>, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation” (Ex 34:6-7, rsv<\/span>). This summary is repeated elsewhere with slight variations (Nm 14:18; Neh 9:17; Ps 103:8; Jer 32:18; Jon 4:2).<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• The Attributes of God<\/p>\n• Incommunicable Attributes<\/p>\n• Communicable Attributes<\/p>\nThe Attributes of God<\/p>\nThe historic Christian confessions refer to various characteristics of God without calling them attributes or classifying them. The Westminster Shorter Catechism (1647) shows a tendency toward classification, describing God as “a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth.” The first four attributes qualify the others.<\/p>\nSeveral ways of classifying the attributes have been suggested. Generally such schemes divide the divine attributes into pairs: negative and positive, natural and moral, absolute and relative, immanent and eminent, intransitive and transitive, quiescent and operative, antithetical and synthetical, or incommunicable and communicable. Roman Catholics prefer the distinction of negative and positive, or natural and moral. Lutherans generally favor the distinction between quiescent and operative attributes. Reformed and evangelical scholars usually distinguish incommunicable and communicable attributes. Karl Barth grouped the attributes under freedom and love, and then proposed pairs of attributes that reflect freedom-love or love-freedom. In spite of the diversity of labels given the groups of attributes, surprising agreement exists in the attributes listed under each group.<\/p>\nThis article will make a distinction between incommunicable and communicable attributes without considering the classification itself as significant. No classification of God’s attributes is fully satisfactory. The incommunicable<\/em> attributes emphasize the absolute distinctness of God, his transcendent greatness and exalted nature. Such attributes have little or no analogy in God’s creatures. The communicable<\/em> attributes find some reflection or analogy in human beings created in God’s image. They indicate the immanence of God in relation to creatures. Yet all the attributes are God’s attributes; the distinction between God and man, between Creator and creature, is always basic.<\/p>\nIncommunicable Attributes<\/p>\nAcknowledging some diversity of theological opinion, the following attributes will be considered incommunicable: unity, spirituality, independence, immutability, eternity, and immensity. In addition, the incomprehensibility of God must be mentioned.<\/p>\nGod’s incomprehensibility<\/em> is sometimes included in lists of his attributes. It seems preferable to regard it as a description of human inability to understand God fully. Incomprehensibility is therefore not an attribute, although it is a given in every discussion of God. Through his revelation God is truly known by faith, yet no creature will ever comprehend God the Creator. Likewise, no one will ever fully understand any one of God’s attributes. Acknowledgment of God’s incomprehensibility should contribute to a spirit of humility in every consideration of God and his attributes (Pss 139:6; 145:3; Is 40:28; 55:8-9; Mt 11:25-27; Rom 11:33-36; 1 Cor 2:6-16; 13:8-13).<\/p>\nGod’s unity<\/em> is an expression of monotheism—the fact that the God of Scripture is the only, living, true God (Dt 6:4; Mk 12:29; Jn 17:3). All other gods are idols and figments of human imagination. This attribute is reflected in the first commandment: “You shall have no other gods before me” (Ex 20:3).<\/p>\nGod’s spirituality<\/em> indicates that God is not physical and is invisible. Positively it means that God is personal, living, self-conscious, and self-determining. The invisible God cannot be seen by human eyes (Ex 33:20), so the second commandment forbids every visible representation of God (20:4). Because God is Spirit, he must be worshiped in spirit and in truth (Jn 4:24).<\/p>\nGod’s independence<\/em> or self-existence indicates that he is not dependent upon anything outside himself. He is self-sufficient in his existence, in his decrees, and in all his works. God has “life in himself” (Jn 5:26) and “he himself gives life and breath and everything” (Acts 17:25). To Israel, he revealed himself as the “I Am<\/span>” (Ex 3:14), and he made Israel a covenant people for his own possession. God continues to work out his will in the world, and even though he uses various means, his independence remains intact. Thus, he enters into fellowship with his covenant people, and he publishes the gospel through human agents.<\/p>\nGod’s immutability<\/em> or constancy expresses his changelessness and his faithfulness to himself, to his decrees, promises, and works. He remains forever the same true God who undergoes no change from within or from anything outside himself. And so in James 1:17 we read: “Every good endowment and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change” (rsv<\/span>). God’s oath to Abraham expressed his immutability so that his covenant people could be sure of the “unchangeable character of his purpose” (Heb 6:17). Samuel told King Saul that the Lord would not “change his mind; for he is not a man” (1 Sm 15:29, niv<\/span>; cf. Nm 23:19). “For I the Lord<\/span> do not change” (Mal 3:6). That was God’s explanation for not destroying sinful Judah; he shows mercy and keeps his covenant. Because “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever,” Christians are warned not to be “led by diverse and strange teachings” (Heb 13:8-9).<\/p>\nGod’s immutability or constancy does not imply that he is static or immobile. He is a dynamic, living God who is constantly working (Jn 5:17). Sometimes God is described as being sorry, repenting, or changing his mind (Gn 6:6-7; 1 Sm 15:11; Jon 3:10). In their contexts, such figurative expressions show the constancy of a God who, in holiness and righteousness, always abhors sin and reacts against it. In his grace and mercy, he forgives the penitent, and he carries out his promises without fail (Ps 110:4; Is 46:10; Jer 18:7-10; Eph 1:11). Thus, the constancy of God is significant in all human relationships with him, including petitions offered in prayer.<\/p>\nGod’s eternity<\/em> indicates his transcendence over time. He is timeless and everlasting. He has no beginning or end; he does not undergo growth, development, or maturation. He existed before the creation of the world; he dwells now in eternity; he will continue as the eternal God even when history ends. Scripture speaks of God as “eternal” (Dt 33:27), “the King” (1 Tm 1:17), “the beginning and the end” (Rv 22:13). He “inhabits eternity” (Is 57:15) and his “years have no end” (Ps 102:27; cf. 2 Pt 3:8). Although God is above time and is timeless, time is his creation and history is the arena of his work. “When the time had fully come God sent forth his Son” (Gal 4:4); Jesus Christ died on a Friday and rose on the third day.<\/p>\nGod’s immensity<\/em> and omnipresence<\/em> express his transcendence over space. God fills heaven and earth (Jer 23:23-24). Heaven is his throne, and the earth his footstool, so he is not restricted to a temple building (Is 66:1; Acts 17:24). Yet God is immanent in this world and is actively at work in it to establish his kingdom. No one can hide from the omnipresent God (Ps 139:6-12). Jesus promised, “I am with you always, to the close of the age” (Mt 28:20). Since Pentecost (Acts 2), the Holy Spirit is said actually to dwell within the bodies of believers (1 Cor 6:19).<\/p>\nCommunicable Attributes<\/p>\nMany attributes of God can be classified under this heading, although it is sometimes difficult to say which biblical references to God should be regarded as attributes. A rich diversity of terminology is found in Scripture, with many synonyms. For convenience, the communicable attributes are often classified as intellectual, moral, and volitional.<\/p>\n<h5>Intellectual Attributes<\/h5>\nGod’s knowledge<\/em> indicates that in a unique way God knows himself and all things possible and actual. Omniscience<\/em> means that “he knows everything” (1 Jn 3:20). “Even before a word is on my tongue, lo, O Lord<\/span>, thou knowest it altogether” (Ps 139:4), including the secret thoughts of a person’s heart. God’s righteous judgment is rooted in the fact that he “knows the thoughts of man” (Ps 94:11). Acknowledging that God’s omniscience is incomprehensible, the psalmist finds it a source of comfort (139:1-5). All the “treasures of wisdom and knowledge” are hidden in Christ (Col 2:3); therefore, the Christian is told to bring every thought captive to obey Christ (2 Cor 10:5). Christian sanctification includes renewal in knowledge to become more like Christ (Col 3:10).<\/p>\nGod’s wisdom<\/em> indicates that he uses his knowledge in the best possible manner to achieve his goals. God’s works are varied, but they are all done in wisdom (Ps 104:24). “The Lord<\/span> by wisdom founded the earth” (Prv 3:19); his providence also displays his wisdom (Gn 50:20). Redemption through Jesus Christ reveals God’s wisdom (1 Cor 1:24) and awakens awe and praise (Rom 11:33-36). Human beings should seek wisdom (Prv 3:21)—wisdom rooted in the fear of God (Jb 28:28; Ps 111:10; Prv 9:10). Christians are said to be “wise in Christ” (1 Cor 4:10), and Christ charges them to act wisely (Mt 10:16), thus emulating the wisdom of God.<\/p>\nGod’s veracity<\/em> expresses his truthfulness and faithfulness. He is the truth and he is faithful to himself, to his Word, and to his promises (2 Tm 2:13). “God is light and in him is no darkness at all” (1 Jn 1:5); therefore, his followers are to walk in the light (vv 6-7). Jesus is “the way, and the truth, and the life” (Jn 14:6); hence, Christians are to walk in the truth and show faithfulness in their lives.<\/p>\n<h5>Moral Attributes<\/h5>\nThe most comprehensive description of God’s moral character is his goodness.<\/em> God deals bountifully and kindly with all his creatures. He is “good to all” (Ps 145:9). Jesus insisted that “no one is good but God alone” (Mk 10:18; Lk 18:19). The redeemed praise God for his goodness (1 Chr 16:34; 2 Chr 5:13; Pss 106:1; 107:1; 118:1; 136:1; Jer 33:11) and are called upon to emulate this divine characteristic (Mt 5:45; Lk 6:27-36).<\/p>\nGod’s love<\/em> is the heartbeat of the gospel. Perfect love flows among the Persons of the Trinity (Jn 3:35; 17:24). At Sinai God revealed himself as abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness (Ex 34:6-7), and all his covenantal relations with Abraham’s descendants showed his steadfast love. The chief manifestation of God’s love was the sending of his Son, Jesus Christ (Jn 3:16). The apostle John, who declared that “God is love,” pointed to the cross to indicate what that love really meant: “he loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins” (1 Jn 4:8, 10).<\/p>\nGod’s love shown to undeserving sinners is called grace<\/em> (Eph 1:6-8; 2:7-9; Ti 3:4). Mercy<\/em> is God’s love (sometimes his goodness) shown to those in misery and distress. God is longsuffering<\/em> or patient in his love; he gives time for repentance.<\/p>\nGod’s holiness<\/em> depicts the moral purity and excellence of God. The description of Jesus’ holiness is applicable to each of the Persons of the Trinity: “holy, blameless, unstained, separated from sinners, exalted above the heavens” (Heb 7:26). The root idea of holiness is to be separate or set apart. Because of his inherent holiness, God is distinct from everything impure or unholy. God alone is holy; his name is holy, and he bears the name the “Holy One” (Pss 78:41; 89:18; 99:3, 9; 111:9; Is 12:6; Jer 51:5; Rv 15:4). Angels praise God’s holiness (Is 6:3; Rv 4:8). Objects, places, and people are called holy when set apart for the worship of God. Because God is holy, his people are called to holiness (Lv 11:44-45; 19:2; 1 Pt 1:14-15). God’s discipline of his people is aimed at making them share his holiness (Heb 12:10). The holiness of God is so prominent in Scripture that some have (mistakenly) regarded it as God’s chief attribute.<\/p>\n<h5>Volitional Attributes<\/h5>\nGod’s sovereignty<\/em> indicates the divine authority with which he rules the entire creation and in his sovereign good pleasure does whatever he wills. God is King over the entire creation, and he rules the destiny of human beings and nations. He restores his kingdom through Jesus Christ; the risen Lord revealed that all authority in heaven and on earth was given to him (Mt 28:18). Election to salvation in Christ is “according to the purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to the counsel of his will” (Eph 1:11, rsv<\/span>). God’s sovereign will, though free, is not arbitrary; it is righteous and holy. He created the world and gave his law as the rule for his people’s lives; he covenants, blesses, and judges. God is the “King of kings and Lord of lords” (1 Tm 6:15); he calls all his subjects to obedient love (Dt 6:4-5; Mt 22:37-40; 1 Jn 5:3).<\/p>\nGod’s sovereign power<\/em> means that he is without bounds or limit in ability; he is omnipotent<\/em> or almighty (Rv 4:8). By his powerful word, he created all things, and upholds “the universe by his word of power” (Heb 1:3). There is nothing too hard for the Lord God Almighty (Gn 18:14; Jer 32:27; Mt 19:26); he keeps his gracious covenant and fulfills all his promises (Lk 1:37; 2 Tm 2:13; Heb 6:18). The gospel is “the power of God for salvation” (Rom 1:16), for Christ is “the power of God” to save (1 Cor 1:24). Hence, believers must come to know “the immeasurable greatness of his power in us who believe, according to the working of his great might which he accomplished in Christ when he raised him from the dead and made him sit at his right hand in the heavenly places” (Eph 1:19-20, rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h5>God’s Glory<\/h5>\nAll the attributes of God are summarized in Scripture’s references to the glory<\/em> of God. The majesty, splendor, beauty, and brilliance of God who dwells in unapproachable light are expressed by this indefinable term. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham (Acts 7:2); God showed his glory to Moses (Ex 33:18-19; 34:6-7). The God of the Lord Jesus Christ is the Father of glory (Eph 1:17). The heavens declare the glory of God (Ps 19:1); the majesty and glory of God fill heaven and earth (8:1). When finally every tongue shall confess Jesus as Lord, it will be for the glory of God the Father (Phil 2:11). Human beings were created for God’s glory, and Christian believers are instructed to do everything for the glory of God (1 Cor 10:31), thus reflecting in themselves his inherent glory.<\/p>","summary_ro":"GOD, Being and Attributes of Inherent characteristics of God revealed in Scripture and displayed in God’s actions in biblical history. They are characteristics equally of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. God’s attributes are revealed in progressively richer and fuller ways within the history of redemption. According to the Bible, the entire creation shows God’s deity and eternal power (Ps 19:1-6; Rom 1:20). God’s providence also reveals certain of his attributes (Mt 5:45; Lk 6:35; Ac...","summary_en":"GOD, Being and Attributes of Inherent characteristics of God revealed in Scripture and displayed in God’s actions in biblical history. They are characteristics equally of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. God’s attributes are revealed in progressively richer and fuller ways within the history of redemption. According to the Bible, the entire creation shows God’s deity and eternal power (Ps 19:1-6; Rom 1:20). God’s providence also reveals certain of his attributes (Mt 5:45; Lk 6:35; Ac...","source":"Articles\/G.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":14255,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Names of God","title_en":"Names of God","content_ro":"<h3>GOD, Names of<\/h3>\nGod’s self-identifications expressing various aspects of his being.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• The Biblical Idea of Name<\/p>\n• The Names of God in the Old Testament<\/p>\n• The Names of God in the New Testament<\/p>\nThe Biblical Idea of Name<\/p>\nIn the Scriptures the name and person of God are inseparably related. This is in keeping with the biblical conception of what a name signifies.<\/p>\nIn the Hebrew language, the term for “name” most probably meant “sign” or “distinctive mark.” In the Greek language, “name” (<\/em>onoma<\/span>)<\/em> is derived from a verb that means “to know.” A name, therefore, indicates that by which a person or object is to be known. But the idea of name is not to be taken in the sense of a label or an arbitrary means of identifying or specifying a person, place, or object. “Name” in biblical usage correctly describes the person, place, or object and indicates the essential character of that to which the name is given. Adam named the animals according to their nature (Gn 2:19-20); Noah means “one who brings relief and comfort” (5:29); Jesus means “savior” (Mt 1:21). When a person was given a new position or a radical change took place in his life, a new name was given to indicate that new aspect—for example, Abraham (“father of many,” Gn 17:5), and Israel (“one who strives with God” or “God strives,” 32:28). The name of a person or people expressed what the person or people thought the proper description or statement of character was.<\/p>\nWith regard to the names of God, there are considerable differences, and these are most clearly seen when biblical scholars and theologians confront the question of whether the names of God are ascriptions given by God concerning himself or they are ascriptions given to God by people who observed his acts and reflected on his character as discerned through a study of divine deeds. Here are some examples of various kinds of divine names:<\/p>\n1. Proper names: El, Yahweh, Adonai, Theos (God), Kurios (Lord).<\/p>\n<li>2. Personal names: Father, Abba, Son, Jesus, Holy Spirit.<\/li>\n<li>3. Titles: Creator, Messiah\/Christ, Paraclete\/Comforter.<\/li>\n<li>4. Essential names: Light, Love, Spirit.<\/li>\n<li>5. Descriptive names: Rock, Ba’al, Master, Rabboni, Shepherd.<\/li>\nThe Names of God in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<h5>El and Related Names<\/h5>\nThe name ’El<\/span> is found over 200 times in the Hebrew Bible. It is best translated as “God.” The term ’el<\/span> has a number of possible meanings. The root is thought by some to be ’ul<\/span>,<\/em> which means “to be first” or “to be strong.” Others suggest the root is ’alah<\/span>,<\/em> which means “to precede” and suggests “leader” or “commander.” It can also mean “to be afraid.” Thus God as ’alah<\/span>,<\/em> as the strong one, is to be feared. Still others suggest the preposition ’el<\/span> (“to, toward”) as the root; the idea then is of “one giving self to others” or of “one to whom others go for help.” Some scholars suggest that the word ’alim<\/span>,<\/em> meaning “to bind,” should be considered as a root also—that is, “the strong one binds and holds firm control.” Common to these four suggested root meanings is the idea of strength, power, and of supreme excellence and greatness.<\/p>\n’El<\/span> in the OT is used particularly in the earlier books, where it describes God’s exercising dynamic power as distinguished from authority. ’El<\/span> speaks of God as the great doer and producer. He is the One who exercises such power that whatever is made, done, kept, or destroyed is his doing (cf. Ex 15). ’El<\/span> is also used to express the idea that God is not to be identified as part of creation but as the One who is above, behind, and beyond creation (Ps 19:1).<\/p>\n’Elohim<\/span> is also commonly used as the name of God, occurring over 2,500 times in the OT. There are differences of opinion concerning the exact origin and meaning of this plural name. Some have suggested that ’Elohim<\/span> is the plural form of ’El<\/span>,<\/em> but it seems more likely that it is a plural of ’Eloah<\/span>,<\/em> which appears in the poetical writings. Some critical writers have suggested that this plural form is borrowed from pagan polytheistic sources, but no such plural form is found among pagans as the name of a deity. Others have suggested that the plural form is used to indicate the triune nature of God, and support for this has been seen in the use of a singular verb with this plural noun. The biblical doctrine of the Trinity, as it is developed throughout the Scriptures, does not appear to be based on the use of this plural form of God’s name, even though the two positions are not contradictory.<\/p>\nThe plural form, ’Elohim<\/span>,<\/em> is best understood as expressing intensity. God makes himself known by this name as the Lord of intense and extensive glory and richness as he exercises his preeminence and power in the created cosmos. Hence, when the Scripture speaks of creation, it states, “In the beginning ’Elohim<\/span> created the heavens and the earth” (Gn 1:1). This name is repeated 35 times in Genesis 1 and 2 in connection with God’s power as revealed in Creation. In the book of Deuteronomy the name ’Elohim<\/span> is used repeatedly to stress the majestic power of God that was shown in Israel’s release from bondage in Egypt, preservation in the wilderness, and preparation for entrance into the Promised Land. In this context, God (<\/em>’Elohim<\/span>)<\/em> is also recognized as the Lawgiver who will powerfully execute judgment on covenant breakers. The psalmists also used this named repeatedly as they acknowledged and praised God the majestic ruler who had demonstrated his omnipotence in many dimensions of life (see Ps 68, in which ’Elohim<\/span> appears 26 times.)<\/p>\nSome scholars point to the use of ’Elohim<\/span> when God spoke to Abraham and said he would be ’Elohim<\/span> to the patriarch and his seed; that is, God would be in a covenant relationship to them (Gn 17:1-8). Included in this relationship is the idea that God is ever ready to use his power on behalf of those who are in covenant with him. Thus, ’<\/span>Elohim<\/span> also expresses the concept of God’s faithfulness in regard to the covenant and the promises and blessings involved in it.<\/p>\nThe name ’<\/span>Eloah<\/span> occurs mainly in the poetical writings, no fewer than 41 times in Job. Isaiah used it to express the incomparable character of God (Is 44:8). In like manner David asked, “Who is God [’<\/span>Eloah<\/span>], but the Lord<\/span>?” (2 Sm 22:32). Moses was the first to use the name ’<\/span>Eloah<\/span> in his song (Dt 32:15-17), referring to Israel’s God in the context of the “no-gods,” which had been chosen in place of the Rock of salvation and the incomparable One. This name was probably used to stress the fact that God is the only true and living One, the One to be adored and worshiped; he is to be revered with a holy fear.<\/p>\nAnother closely related name is ’Elah<\/span>,<\/em> found in Ezra and Daniel. Some think ’Elah<\/span> is a Chaldee or Aramaic form of ’Eloah<\/span>.<\/em> Its root is said to be ’alah<\/span>,<\/em> which means “to fear” or “to be perplexed.” God as ’Elah<\/span> is the God to be feared and worshiped accordingly. In view of this meaning, it can be understood why, in the time of Israel’s exile and immediately after their return, this name was commonly used.<\/p>\nThree other names of God include the term ’El<\/span>:<\/em><\/p>\n’El ‘Elyon<\/span> is the name used to designate the God of Melchizedek (Gn 14:18-22) as God Most High. In Psalms 57:2 and 78:56 the Hebrew reads ’Elohim ‘Elyon<\/span>.<\/em> It is believed that the term ‘Elyon<\/span> is derived from the verb ‘alah<\/span>,<\/em> meaning “go up, be elevated, to be exalted.” There are a number of instances where the term ‘Elyon<\/span> is used alone, but the context indicates that it is then used as a synonym for God (e.g., Nm 24:16; Ps 83:18; Is 14:14). The term ‘elyon<\/span> is used quite frequently as an adjective; it is then translated as “high, highest, upper, uppermost.” The basic ascription given to God when this name is employed is to One who is above all things as the maker, possessor, and ruler. He is incomparable in every way; he is subject to no one and no thing; he is the Exalted One.<\/p>\n’El Shaddai<\/span> is used in the longer form seven times in the Scriptures (Gn 17:1; 28:3; 35:11; 43:14; 48:3; Ex 6:3; Ez 10:5). In the shorter form (<\/em>Shaddai<\/span>),<\/em> it appears more frequently: in Job 30 times; in Psalms 19:1 and 68:14; once in Ruth (1:21), Isaiah (13:6), Ezekiel (1:24), and Joel (1:15). In these passages the combined ideas of God as the all-powerful, all-sufficient, transcendent, sovereign ruler and disposer are present. This meaning is generally accepted, but there are differences as to the exact meaning of the term Shaddai<\/span>.<\/em> Some have begun with shad<\/span> as the first concept to be considered; its meaning is “breast, pap, or teat,” and it is considered a “precious metaphor” of the God who nourishes, supplies, and satisfies. The root of shad<\/span> (<\/em>shadah<\/span>),<\/em> in Semitic usage, is to moisten. This meaning is not the preferred one in the context of which ’El Shaddai<\/span> appears; nor is shed<\/span> (demon), which some scholars have sought to use because it appears in Deuteronomy 32:17 and Psalm 106:37 speaking of Israel’s idolatry. In addition to the fact that shed<\/span> is spelled differently, the connection between the concept of demon and God as all-powerful is difficult to establish. More acceptable is the suggestion that Shaddai<\/span> is a composite term of sha<\/span> (“the one who”) and dai<\/span> (“is sufficient”). The later Greek versions have adopted this meaning. The most preferred explanation is that Shaddai<\/span> is derived from the verb shadad<\/span> (“to overpower, to deal violently, or to devastate”). A clear connection between shadad<\/span> and Shaddai<\/span> is said to be found in Isaiah 13:6 and Joel 1:15. God as ’El Shaddai<\/span> is presented as the all-powerful One, totally self-sufficient, absolute ruler, and the One who can and does make final disposition. The Septuagint has adapted this meaning; it translates ’El Shaddai<\/span> as Pantokrator<\/span>,<\/em> the “All-Ruler” or “Sovereign One.”<\/p>\n’El ‘Olam<\/span> is used to refer to God as the everlasting or eternal One, a clear instance where the name of God and an attribute of God are combined. The term ‘olam<\/span> has a wide range of uses. It is usually defined in lexicons as meaning “long duration, antiquity, and indefinite futurity.” It is used to speak of God’s existence, of God’s covenant and promises, and of the Messiah’s reign. Speaking to God, the psalmist said, “You are from ‘olam<\/span> (everlasting) to ‘olam<\/span> (everlasting)” (Ps 90:2), and the prophet Isaiah spoke of God as the everlasting Creator (Is 40:28) and as everlasting strength (26:4), and Jeremiah spoke of God as everlasting King (Jer 10:10). God’s everlastingness or eternity speaks of his infinity in relation to time. ‘Olam<\/span>,<\/em> as ascribed to God, should not be thought of as duration prolonged indefinitely backward and forward. Rather, the word speaks to God’s transcending all temporal limits; in addition, ‘olam<\/span> refers to the quality of God that differs essentially from time. The Scriptures speak of ’El ‘Olam<\/span> in contexts where the believer’s assurance of well-being, security, and hope are presented as prized possessions.<\/p>\n’El Gibbor<\/span> is a name that speaks of God’s power and might. Gibbor<\/span> alone is used in reference to mighty and heroic men. The two terms together always refer to God, and in some instances Haggadol<\/span> (“the greatest”) is added (Dt 10:17; Jer 32:18) to emphasize the greatness and awesome majesty of God. ’El Gibbor<\/span> is also used to describe the Messiah in Isaiah 9:6 (cf. Ps 45:4).<\/p>\n’El Ro’i<\/span> is used once to describe God as the seeing One. Hagar described the Lord this way when she was found in the wilderness (Gn 16:13). Psalm 139:1-2 expresses this concept of God as the all-seeing One from whose eye nothing is hidden (cf. Ps 33:18).<\/p>\nYahweh<\/span> is a distinctly proper name of God. It is never used to refer to any pagan gods; neither is it used in regard to men. It appears 6,823 times in the OT, occurring first in Genesis 2:4, where it is joined with ’Elohim<\/span>.<\/em> Yahweh<\/span> is used 164 times in Genesis, and it appears 1,800 times in Exodus through Joshua. It never appears in a declined form in the Hebrew language, and it never occurs in the plural form or with suffixes. It is abbreviated as Yah<\/span> and Yahu<\/span> (cf. Ex 15:2; Ps 68:4; Is 12:2; etc.).<\/p>\nThe exact meaning of the name Yahweh<\/span> is difficult to determine. Some have sought the root in the verb hayah<\/span> (“to be”) or in an ancient form of that same verb, hawah<\/span>.<\/em> There is no agreement as to whether the qal<\/span> or hiphil<\/span> form of the verb should be considered as the root. Those who opt for the hiphil<\/span> form read Yahweh<\/span> to mean “cause to be”; thus Exodus 3:14 would read, “I will cause to be what has come to be.” Others look to the qal<\/span> form and then translate the name as “I Am” or “I Shall Be.” Still others are inclined to disassociate the name from the verb hayah<\/span> and regard it as an original and independent term, expressing the uniqueness of Israel’s gracious God.<\/p>\n\nTranslators of the OT have not agreed upon the correct translation of the name Yahweh<\/span>.<\/em> Since it is translated into the Greek as kurios<\/span>,<\/em> which means “Lord,” many have rendered Yahweh<\/span> as “Lord<\/span>.” But ’Adonai<\/span>,<\/em> which is best rendered “Lord,” appears with Yahweh<\/span> in various instances. The kjv<\/span>, for example, translates Yahweh<\/span> as “God,” and ’Adonai<\/span> as “Lord.” Some modern translators have chosen to use Yahweh<\/span> (see jb<\/span> and njb<\/span>). The name Jehovah, as used in the asv<\/span> (1901), has been judged unacceptable. This name arose due to the Jewish practice of not pronouncing Yahweh<\/span> because of Leviticus 24:16, “He that blasphemes the name of Yahweh<\/span> shall surely be put to death.” This warning against a vain or blasphemous use of the name was taken in an absolute sense, especially after Israel’s deportation (cf. Am 6:10). Hence, when reading the OT the Jews substituted either ’Elohim<\/span> or ’Adonai<\/span> for Yahweh<\/span>.<\/em> From this, the practice of adding the vowels of ’Adonai<\/span> to YHWH (JeHoWaH) became established.<\/p>\nThe interpretation of Exodus 6:2-3 has caused much debate. “And God said to Moses, ‘I am Yahweh<\/span>;<\/em> I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as ’<\/span>El Shaddai<\/span>,<\/em> but by my name Yahweh<\/span> I did not make myself known to them.’ ” This passage has been understood to mean that the name Yahweh<\/span> was not known or used prior to the time of Moses. But that is not what the passage states; rather, it speaks of the patriarchs not knowing God as Yahweh<\/span>.<\/em> They knew him as ’El Shaddai<\/span> in actual revelatory historical deeds. They had not come to know God according to his unique character, that is, as Yahweh<\/span>.<\/em> In other words, God had always been Yahweh<\/span>;<\/em> he is saying to Moses that the descendants of the patriarchs would come to know the full, rich meaning of the name by the way God dealt with them.<\/p>\nThis name Yahweh<\/span> reveals God’s nature in the highest and fullest sense possible. It includes, or presupposes, the meaning of the other names. Yahweh<\/span> particularly stresses the absolute faithfulness of God. God had promised the patriarchs that he would be their God, that he would be with them and deliver and bless them, keep them, and give them a land as a place of service and inheritance. Moses is told by God that Israel is about to behold and experience the unchangeableness of God as he steadfastly and wondrously remembers his word and executes it to the fullest degree. God would prove to be a faithful, redeeming, upholding, restoring God. In working out this redemption, God would demonstrate that he is all that his name implies: merciful, gracious, patient, full of loving-kindness, truthful, faithful, forgiving, just, and righteous (Ex 34:5-6). Truly, Jacob had received an insight into the meaning of the name when he exclaimed, “I wait for thy salvation, O Yahweh<\/span>” (Gn 49:18).<\/p>\nYahweh<\/span>,<\/em> then, is the name par excellence of Israel’s God. As Yahweh<\/span>,<\/em> he is a faithful covenant God who, having given his word of love and life, keeps that word by bestowing love and life abundantly on his own.<\/p>\nIn view of the richness of the name Yahweh<\/span>,<\/em> it can be understood why there were stringent rules regarding its proper use (Lv 24:11, 16). It also explains why thankful, rejoicing, worshiping Israelites used the abbreviated form of Yahweh<\/span> in song when they sang Hallelujah: “Praise Yah” (Pss 104:35; 106:1; 149:1; 150:1).<\/p>\nYahweh<\/span> is used in a number of phrases that are considered names of or ascriptions of God. The most common of these compound names is Yahweh Tseba’oth<\/span> (“hosts”). The word “hosts” is used frequently in the Pentateuch to refer to the armies of Israel (cf. Nm 10:14-28). This is because the word is derived from the verb saba<\/span>’<\/span>,<\/em> which means “to wage” war. It also means “to serve” in some contexts; for example, Numbers 8:24 clearly has reference to the service performed in the tabernacle. The noun tseba’oth<\/span> first occurs in Genesis 2:1, where it refers to the many components of the earth and heaven. Some would limit the reference in these contexts to the stars. Still others would suggest that the tseba’oth<\/span> refers to the angels, appealing to Psalm 33:6 for confirmation.<\/p>\nThe compound name Yahweh Tseba’oth<\/span> first appears in 1 Samuel 1:3. In view of the frequent use of tseba’oth<\/span> in 1—2 Samuel to refer to armies (1 Sm 12:9; 14:50; 17:55; 2 Sm 2:8; 8:16; 10:16), it is thought that the compound name refers to Yahweh<\/span> as the God of armies, that is, God has his armies to serve him. These are considered to be armies of angels who are ministering servants to God. It has been correctly pointed out that the compound name Yahweh Tseba’oth<\/span> is used most frequently by the prophets (Jeremiah, 88 times; Zechariah, 55 times; Malachi, 25 times; Haggai, 14 times) at times when God’s people had either suffered defeat at the hands of enemy armies or were threatened by defeat. Therefore, the compound name was used to remind them that their covenant God had great hosts to fight and work for him on behalf of his people. Thus, though Israel’s armies failed, their covenant God was sufficient for every possible circumstance. And it was to this Yahweh Tseba’oth<\/span> that Israel’s commanders were to give allegiance (Jos 5:14-15), and in whose name Israel was blessed (2 Sm 6:18).<\/p>\nSeveral other compound names occur infrequently:<\/p>\nYahweh-Nissi<\/span> (nissi<\/span>,<\/em> “my banner”) is the name that Moses called on when he built an altar celebrating Israel’s God-given victory over the Amalekites (Ex 17:15). Isaiah uses the term nissi<\/span> when speaking of the coming Messiah who is to be the conqueror (Is 11:10).<\/p>\nYahweh-Rapha<\/span> (rapha’<\/span>,<\/em> “healer”) appears in Exodus 15:26, when Israel is assured that God, their healer, will prevent the diseases of Egypt from affecting Israel. Although the name is only used once, God was often called upon and praised as the healing One (e.g., Ps 103:3; Is 30:26; Jer 6:14).<\/p>\nYahweh-Rohi<\/span> (ro‘i<\/span>,<\/em> “my shepherd”) appears in Psalm 23:1. The concept of Yahweh<\/span> as shepherd is explicated in Ezekiel 34. “I myself will be the Shepherd of my sheep” (v 15). Jesus demonstrated this concept’s full meaning when as a shepherd he gave his life for his sheep.<\/p>\nYahweh-Jireh<\/span> (yir’eh<\/span>,<\/em> “to see ahead or to provide”) appears in Genesis 22:14. Abraham gave this name to the place where God provided a substitute for his son Isaac, whom Abraham was to offer as a sacrifice to God. Yahweh-Shalom<\/span> (shalom<\/span>,<\/em> “peace”) is the name Gideon gave to the altar he built when the angel of the Lord came to give him orders to fight the Midianites (Jgs 6:24).<\/p>\nYahweh<\/span> appears with a few forms of the term tsadaq<\/span>,<\/em> “righteousness.” Yahweh<\/span> is spoken of as our righteousness in Jeremiah 23:6; the thought evidently is that David’s Righteous Branch (the Messiah) will attribute God’s righteousness to those who are incorporated in the new covenant. This concept is expressed in the Pentateuch a number of times when it is said that God has provided a way for living righteously; that is, God provides a way of sanctification (cf. Lv 20:8; 22:9).<\/p>\n’Adonai<\/span> as a name for God appears about 360 times in the OT, though it is not uniformly used. It is first found in Genesis 15:2 and 8, when Abram requests more definite information concerning a son and the Promised Land. It appears only 14 times after that in the Pentateuch. It appears repeatedly in the Psalms (over 50 times), and certain of the prophets use it frequently (Isaiah, 47 times; Jeremiah, 29 times; Ezekiel, over 150 times; and Amos, 27 times).<\/p>\nThe word ’adan<\/span>,<\/em> meaning “master, ruler, owner, lord,” is thought to be the root of the noun ’adon<\/span>,<\/em> which is frequently used of men. For example, in Genesis and 1—2 Samuel the term is used often for men who own slaves or are in positions of authority. ’Adonai<\/span> is correctly described as the name of personal communication between the believer and God. In such communication the worshiper acknowledged God’s intense majesty and greatness and also the sense of belonging to this God. ’Adonai<\/span>,<\/em> coming from human lips, expressed honor for God and humble submission on the part of the believing person. ’Adonai<\/span>,<\/em> thus, is the name that expresses faith, assurance, security, ready service, and thanksgiving (Pss 16:2; 57:9-10).<\/p>\n<h5>Old Testament Name Combinations<\/h5>\nIn the OT the names of God appear in various combinations. For example ’Elohim-Yahweh<\/span>,<\/em> ’Elohim-Yahweh-’Adonai<\/span>,<\/em> and ’Elohim-’Adonai<\/span> are very common. These combinations were an effort to express the fullness of God’s being and character as these had been revealed. Names of God in combination with “Israel” occur also as, for example, with Yahweh<\/span>-God-Israel (Jgs 5:3; Is 17:6). God is also invoked in relation to Israel without the mention of one of his names—for example, Qedosh Yisrael<\/span> (“Holy One of Israel,” Is 43:14) and ’Abir Yisrael<\/span> (“Mighty One of Israel,” Gn 49:24; Ps 132:2; Is 49:26). By means of these phrases, the covenantal relationship between God and his people was expressed and God’s unchanging character was positively acknowledged.<\/p>\n<h5>Old Testament Personal Names<\/h5>\nThe personal names of God are Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and variations of these.<\/p>\nThe term ’Abh<\/span> (“father”) appears more frequently in Genesis than in any other book, and in the Pentateuch more than in any other division of the OT. But it is not used there of God but rather of one who has generated children (i.e., the male parent), the progenitor—head, chief, and ruler of the family group or clan. It is used often in the sense of the responsible one through whom God has spoken, with whom God has dealt, and through whom he has given a rich heritage to the children and descendants of the patriarchs.<\/p>\nIn the poetical books, God is referred to as Father but is not directly named as such. Job is asked, “Has the rain a father?” (Jb 38:28). The reference is to God as the maker, source, and controller of rain. In Psalm 68:5 God in his holy dwelling place is the “Father of the fatherless”; the parallel phrase, “protector of widows,” indicates the sense. Psalm 89:26 says that David will cry to God, “Thou art my Father,” and the parallels use the terms “God” and “Rock of my salvation.” The idea here is of God as Creator and Savior who raised up, delivered, and protected David. In Psalm 103:13, “Father” is used analogously, “As a father pities his children.”<\/p>\nIsaiah uses the term “Father” in relation to God four times. Three times it refers to the One who has made, saved, formed, kept, and directed Israel (Is 63:16; 64:8). Isaiah says the promised child is to be named Everlasting Father (9:6). Used in this sense, the term establishes the Son’s equality with the Father in stature, function, ability, and responsibility. Jeremiah also refers to God as Father in Jeremiah 3:4, 19, meaning the origin, keeper, and friend of his people Israel. Malachi 1:6 and 2:10 speak of God as the parent who deserves honor from his children and as the origin and ruler of all people.<\/p>\nThe term “son” is one of the most-used terms in the OT; it commonly occurs in the sense of offspring and descendant. It also appears in the sense of follower or successor. There are a few indirect references to the second person of the Trinity.<\/p>\nThe messianic Psalm 2 has such a reference: “You are my son” (v 7). It is stated in the context of the king speaking to one who rules and is to rule with and under the sovereign. The immediate reference may be to the theocratic king; however, the reference is revealed in the NT to be the second person of the Trinity (Acts 13:33). Thus, the term “son” is applied to the promised Messiah who is set forth as the divine sovereign ruler and judge of the nations. The Son is perceived to be equal with the Father in deity and function. Not all biblical scholars accept this interpretation, but support is found in such NT passages as Hebrews 1:8 which quotes Psalm 45:6. As stated above, Isaiah speaks of the son to be given (Is 9:6), the One born of the virgin (7:14), who is Immanuel, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.<\/p>\nThe name “Holy Spirit” occurs only a few times in the OT. The Spirit is referred to frequently by terms and phrases such as “the Spirit of God” (Gn 1:2), “the Spirit of the Lord God” (Is 61:1), “the Spirit of the Lord” (Ez 37:1), “the Spirit” (Nm 11:17; 27:18), “my Spirit” (Gn 6:3), and “your Spirit” (Ps 51:11). Though the character of the Spirit is not developed as clearly in the OT as in the NT, it can be safely stated that the relationship posited between God and the Spirit is such that there is no doubt that the OT teaches the deity of the Spirit. The character and function of the Spirit is referred to especially in relation to the work of creation (Gn 1:2; Ps 33:6; etc.) and the equipping of servants for the service of God—for example, craftsmanship (Ex 35:31), leadership (Nm 11:17; 27:18), and prophecy (1 Sm 10:6; 2 Sm 23:2; 2 Chr 15:1; Ez 11:5).<\/p>\nThe Names of God in the New Testament<\/p>\n<h5>Proper Names of God<\/h5>\nTheos<\/span> is the NT equivalent of the OT names ’El<\/span>and ’Elohim<\/span>;<\/em> ‘Elyon<\/span> appears in the NT as Hupsistos<\/span>,<\/em> the Highest (Mk 5:7; Lk 1:32, 76). Pantokrator<\/span> (‘El Shaddai<\/span>) appears with Theos<\/span> (2 Cor 6:18; Rv 16:7). This name was used not only to express God’s transcendency, power, sovereignty, and lordship, but also to express that God is one who has a close relationship with his people. This fact is established by the very frequent use of personal pronouns with Theos<\/span>.<\/em> The name Theos<\/span> appears over 1,000 times in the NT.<\/p>\nKurios<\/span>,<\/em> “Lord,” is used to express the OT names Yahweh<\/span> and ‘Adonai<\/span> in the Septuagint, and the NT follows it. Kurios<\/span> means “power,” so the meaning is not the same as with Yahweh<\/span>;<\/em> yet the NT does give Kurios<\/span> the full weight of meaning that the OT gave to Yahweh<\/span>,<\/em> especially when used of Jesus Christ (cf. Acts 2:36; Phil 2:9-11; etc.)<\/p>\nDespotes<\/span> is used five times of God or Jesus in the NT (Lk 2:29; Acts 4:24; 2 Pt 2:11; Jude 1:4; Rv 6:10). It expresses the idea of authority. The idea of brutality conveyed by the modern concept “despot” is absent from the NT usage even when applied to men, where its central thought is ownership (2 Tm 2:21).<\/p>\n<h5>Personal Names of God<\/h5>\nIn the baptismal formula, which is part of the Great Commission (Mt 28:19-20), the three personal names of God appear: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These names carry the OT meaning, but since the relationship of the three Persons is explicated, the NT meaning of the names is enriched.<\/p>\n“Jesus” is the personal name of the Son, the second person of the triune Godhead. It means “savior” (Mt 1:21). The root of this name “to save” gave rise to names such as Joshua, Hoshea, and Hosea. The basic meaning of the OT root is “to bring into a safe, wide-open place.” Joshua, bringing Israel into Canaan, personally did what his name meant. The NT explanation (“save from sin”) is not contrary to the OT meaning. To be saved from sin is to be restored to fellowship with God and to enter into the paradise of the heavenly kingdom.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Christology; God, Being and Attributes of; Holy Spirit; Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of; Messiah; Names, Significance of.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>GOD, Names of<\/h3>\nGod’s self-identifications expressing various aspects of his being.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• The Biblical Idea of Name<\/p>\n• The Names of God in the Old Testament<\/p>\n• The Names of God in the New Testament<\/p>\nThe Biblical Idea of Name<\/p>\nIn the Scriptures the name and person of God are inseparably related. This is in keeping with the biblical conception of what a name signifies.<\/p>\nIn the Hebrew language, the term for “name” most probably meant “sign” or “distinctive mark.” In the Greek language, “name” (<\/em>onoma<\/span>)<\/em> is derived from a verb that means “to know.” A name, therefore, indicates that by which a person or object is to be known. But the idea of name is not to be taken in the sense of a label or an arbitrary means of identifying or specifying a person, place, or object. “Name” in biblical usage correctly describes the person, place, or object and indicates the essential character of that to which the name is given. Adam named the animals according to their nature (Gn 2:19-20); Noah means “one who brings relief and comfort” (5:29); Jesus means “savior” (Mt 1:21). When a person was given a new position or a radical change took place in his life, a new name was given to indicate that new aspect—for example, Abraham (“father of many,” Gn 17:5), and Israel (“one who strives with God” or “God strives,” 32:28). The name of a person or people expressed what the person or people thought the proper description or statement of character was.<\/p>\nWith regard to the names of God, there are considerable differences, and these are most clearly seen when biblical scholars and theologians confront the question of whether the names of God are ascriptions given by God concerning himself or they are ascriptions given to God by people who observed his acts and reflected on his character as discerned through a study of divine deeds. Here are some examples of various kinds of divine names:<\/p>\n1. Proper names: El, Yahweh, Adonai, Theos (God), Kurios (Lord).<\/p>\n<li>2. Personal names: Father, Abba, Son, Jesus, Holy Spirit.<\/li>\n<li>3. Titles: Creator, Messiah\/Christ, Paraclete\/Comforter.<\/li>\n<li>4. Essential names: Light, Love, Spirit.<\/li>\n<li>5. Descriptive names: Rock, Ba’al, Master, Rabboni, Shepherd.<\/li>\nThe Names of God in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<h5>El and Related Names<\/h5>\nThe name ’El<\/span> is found over 200 times in the Hebrew Bible. It is best translated as “God.” The term ’el<\/span> has a number of possible meanings. The root is thought by some to be ’ul<\/span>,<\/em> which means “to be first” or “to be strong.” Others suggest the root is ’alah<\/span>,<\/em> which means “to precede” and suggests “leader” or “commander.” It can also mean “to be afraid.” Thus God as ’alah<\/span>,<\/em> as the strong one, is to be feared. Still others suggest the preposition ’el<\/span> (“to, toward”) as the root; the idea then is of “one giving self to others” or of “one to whom others go for help.” Some scholars suggest that the word ’alim<\/span>,<\/em> meaning “to bind,” should be considered as a root also—that is, “the strong one binds and holds firm control.” Common to these four suggested root meanings is the idea of strength, power, and of supreme excellence and greatness.<\/p>\n’El<\/span> in the OT is used particularly in the earlier books, where it describes God’s exercising dynamic power as distinguished from authority. ’El<\/span> speaks of God as the great doer and producer. He is the One who exercises such power that whatever is made, done, kept, or destroyed is his doing (cf. Ex 15). ’El<\/span> is also used to express the idea that God is not to be identified as part of creation but as the One who is above, behind, and beyond creation (Ps 19:1).<\/p>\n’Elohim<\/span> is also commonly used as the name of God, occurring over 2,500 times in the OT. There are differences of opinion concerning the exact origin and meaning of this plural name. Some have suggested that ’Elohim<\/span> is the plural form of ’El<\/span>,<\/em> but it seems more likely that it is a plural of ’Eloah<\/span>,<\/em> which appears in the poetical writings. Some critical writers have suggested that this plural form is borrowed from pagan polytheistic sources, but no such plural form is found among pagans as the name of a deity. Others have suggested that the plural form is used to indicate the triune nature of God, and support for this has been seen in the use of a singular verb with this plural noun. The biblical doctrine of the Trinity, as it is developed throughout the Scriptures, does not appear to be based on the use of this plural form of God’s name, even though the two positions are not contradictory.<\/p>\nThe plural form, ’Elohim<\/span>,<\/em> is best understood as expressing intensity. God makes himself known by this name as the Lord of intense and extensive glory and richness as he exercises his preeminence and power in the created cosmos. Hence, when the Scripture speaks of creation, it states, “In the beginning ’Elohim<\/span> created the heavens and the earth” (Gn 1:1). This name is repeated 35 times in Genesis 1 and 2 in connection with God’s power as revealed in Creation. In the book of Deuteronomy the name ’Elohim<\/span> is used repeatedly to stress the majestic power of God that was shown in Israel’s release from bondage in Egypt, preservation in the wilderness, and preparation for entrance into the Promised Land. In this context, God (<\/em>’Elohim<\/span>)<\/em> is also recognized as the Lawgiver who will powerfully execute judgment on covenant breakers. The psalmists also used this named repeatedly as they acknowledged and praised God the majestic ruler who had demonstrated his omnipotence in many dimensions of life (see Ps 68, in which ’Elohim<\/span> appears 26 times.)<\/p>\nSome scholars point to the use of ’Elohim<\/span> when God spoke to Abraham and said he would be ’Elohim<\/span> to the patriarch and his seed; that is, God would be in a covenant relationship to them (Gn 17:1-8). Included in this relationship is the idea that God is ever ready to use his power on behalf of those who are in covenant with him. Thus, ’<\/span>Elohim<\/span> also expresses the concept of God’s faithfulness in regard to the covenant and the promises and blessings involved in it.<\/p>\nThe name ’<\/span>Eloah<\/span> occurs mainly in the poetical writings, no fewer than 41 times in Job. Isaiah used it to express the incomparable character of God (Is 44:8). In like manner David asked, “Who is God [’<\/span>Eloah<\/span>], but the Lord<\/span>?” (2 Sm 22:32). Moses was the first to use the name ’<\/span>Eloah<\/span> in his song (Dt 32:15-17), referring to Israel’s God in the context of the “no-gods,” which had been chosen in place of the Rock of salvation and the incomparable One. This name was probably used to stress the fact that God is the only true and living One, the One to be adored and worshiped; he is to be revered with a holy fear.<\/p>\nAnother closely related name is ’Elah<\/span>,<\/em> found in Ezra and Daniel. Some think ’Elah<\/span> is a Chaldee or Aramaic form of ’Eloah<\/span>.<\/em> Its root is said to be ’alah<\/span>,<\/em> which means “to fear” or “to be perplexed.” God as ’Elah<\/span> is the God to be feared and worshiped accordingly. In view of this meaning, it can be understood why, in the time of Israel’s exile and immediately after their return, this name was commonly used.<\/p>\nThree other names of God include the term ’El<\/span>:<\/em><\/p>\n’El ‘Elyon<\/span> is the name used to designate the God of Melchizedek (Gn 14:18-22) as God Most High. In Psalms 57:2 and 78:56 the Hebrew reads ’Elohim ‘Elyon<\/span>.<\/em> It is believed that the term ‘Elyon<\/span> is derived from the verb ‘alah<\/span>,<\/em> meaning “go up, be elevated, to be exalted.” There are a number of instances where the term ‘Elyon<\/span> is used alone, but the context indicates that it is then used as a synonym for God (e.g., Nm 24:16; Ps 83:18; Is 14:14). The term ‘elyon<\/span> is used quite frequently as an adjective; it is then translated as “high, highest, upper, uppermost.” The basic ascription given to God when this name is employed is to One who is above all things as the maker, possessor, and ruler. He is incomparable in every way; he is subject to no one and no thing; he is the Exalted One.<\/p>\n’El Shaddai<\/span> is used in the longer form seven times in the Scriptures (Gn 17:1; 28:3; 35:11; 43:14; 48:3; Ex 6:3; Ez 10:5). In the shorter form (<\/em>Shaddai<\/span>),<\/em> it appears more frequently: in Job 30 times; in Psalms 19:1 and 68:14; once in Ruth (1:21), Isaiah (13:6), Ezekiel (1:24), and Joel (1:15). In these passages the combined ideas of God as the all-powerful, all-sufficient, transcendent, sovereign ruler and disposer are present. This meaning is generally accepted, but there are differences as to the exact meaning of the term Shaddai<\/span>.<\/em> Some have begun with shad<\/span> as the first concept to be considered; its meaning is “breast, pap, or teat,” and it is considered a “precious metaphor” of the God who nourishes, supplies, and satisfies. The root of shad<\/span> (<\/em>shadah<\/span>),<\/em> in Semitic usage, is to moisten. This meaning is not the preferred one in the context of which ’El Shaddai<\/span> appears; nor is shed<\/span> (demon), which some scholars have sought to use because it appears in Deuteronomy 32:17 and Psalm 106:37 speaking of Israel’s idolatry. In addition to the fact that shed<\/span> is spelled differently, the connection between the concept of demon and God as all-powerful is difficult to establish. More acceptable is the suggestion that Shaddai<\/span> is a composite term of sha<\/span> (“the one who”) and dai<\/span> (“is sufficient”). The later Greek versions have adopted this meaning. The most preferred explanation is that Shaddai<\/span> is derived from the verb shadad<\/span> (“to overpower, to deal violently, or to devastate”). A clear connection between shadad<\/span> and Shaddai<\/span> is said to be found in Isaiah 13:6 and Joel 1:15. God as ’El Shaddai<\/span> is presented as the all-powerful One, totally self-sufficient, absolute ruler, and the One who can and does make final disposition. The Septuagint has adapted this meaning; it translates ’El Shaddai<\/span> as Pantokrator<\/span>,<\/em> the “All-Ruler” or “Sovereign One.”<\/p>\n’El ‘Olam<\/span> is used to refer to God as the everlasting or eternal One, a clear instance where the name of God and an attribute of God are combined. The term ‘olam<\/span> has a wide range of uses. It is usually defined in lexicons as meaning “long duration, antiquity, and indefinite futurity.” It is used to speak of God’s existence, of God’s covenant and promises, and of the Messiah’s reign. Speaking to God, the psalmist said, “You are from ‘olam<\/span> (everlasting) to ‘olam<\/span> (everlasting)” (Ps 90:2), and the prophet Isaiah spoke of God as the everlasting Creator (Is 40:28) and as everlasting strength (26:4), and Jeremiah spoke of God as everlasting King (Jer 10:10). God’s everlastingness or eternity speaks of his infinity in relation to time. ‘Olam<\/span>,<\/em> as ascribed to God, should not be thought of as duration prolonged indefinitely backward and forward. Rather, the word speaks to God’s transcending all temporal limits; in addition, ‘olam<\/span> refers to the quality of God that differs essentially from time. The Scriptures speak of ’El ‘Olam<\/span> in contexts where the believer’s assurance of well-being, security, and hope are presented as prized possessions.<\/p>\n’El Gibbor<\/span> is a name that speaks of God’s power and might. Gibbor<\/span> alone is used in reference to mighty and heroic men. The two terms together always refer to God, and in some instances Haggadol<\/span> (“the greatest”) is added (Dt 10:17; Jer 32:18) to emphasize the greatness and awesome majesty of God. ’El Gibbor<\/span> is also used to describe the Messiah in Isaiah 9:6 (cf. Ps 45:4).<\/p>\n’El Ro’i<\/span> is used once to describe God as the seeing One. Hagar described the Lord this way when she was found in the wilderness (Gn 16:13). Psalm 139:1-2 expresses this concept of God as the all-seeing One from whose eye nothing is hidden (cf. Ps 33:18).<\/p>\nYahweh<\/span> is a distinctly proper name of God. It is never used to refer to any pagan gods; neither is it used in regard to men. It appears 6,823 times in the OT, occurring first in Genesis 2:4, where it is joined with ’Elohim<\/span>.<\/em> Yahweh<\/span> is used 164 times in Genesis, and it appears 1,800 times in Exodus through Joshua. It never appears in a declined form in the Hebrew language, and it never occurs in the plural form or with suffixes. It is abbreviated as Yah<\/span> and Yahu<\/span> (cf. Ex 15:2; Ps 68:4; Is 12:2; etc.).<\/p>\nThe exact meaning of the name Yahweh<\/span> is difficult to determine. Some have sought the root in the verb hayah<\/span> (“to be”) or in an ancient form of that same verb, hawah<\/span>.<\/em> There is no agreement as to whether the qal<\/span> or hiphil<\/span> form of the verb should be considered as the root. Those who opt for the hiphil<\/span> form read Yahweh<\/span> to mean “cause to be”; thus Exodus 3:14 would read, “I will cause to be what has come to be.” Others look to the qal<\/span> form and then translate the name as “I Am” or “I Shall Be.” Still others are inclined to disassociate the name from the verb hayah<\/span> and regard it as an original and independent term, expressing the uniqueness of Israel’s gracious God.<\/p>\n\nTranslators of the OT have not agreed upon the correct translation of the name Yahweh<\/span>.<\/em> Since it is translated into the Greek as kurios<\/span>,<\/em> which means “Lord,” many have rendered Yahweh<\/span> as “Lord<\/span>.” But ’Adonai<\/span>,<\/em> which is best rendered “Lord,” appears with Yahweh<\/span> in various instances. The kjv<\/span>, for example, translates Yahweh<\/span> as “God,” and ’Adonai<\/span> as “Lord.” Some modern translators have chosen to use Yahweh<\/span> (see jb<\/span> and njb<\/span>). The name Jehovah, as used in the asv<\/span> (1901), has been judged unacceptable. This name arose due to the Jewish practice of not pronouncing Yahweh<\/span> because of Leviticus 24:16, “He that blasphemes the name of Yahweh<\/span> shall surely be put to death.” This warning against a vain or blasphemous use of the name was taken in an absolute sense, especially after Israel’s deportation (cf. Am 6:10). Hence, when reading the OT the Jews substituted either ’Elohim<\/span> or ’Adonai<\/span> for Yahweh<\/span>.<\/em> From this, the practice of adding the vowels of ’Adonai<\/span> to YHWH (JeHoWaH) became established.<\/p>\nThe interpretation of Exodus 6:2-3 has caused much debate. “And God said to Moses, ‘I am Yahweh<\/span>;<\/em> I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as ’<\/span>El Shaddai<\/span>,<\/em> but by my name Yahweh<\/span> I did not make myself known to them.’ ” This passage has been understood to mean that the name Yahweh<\/span> was not known or used prior to the time of Moses. But that is not what the passage states; rather, it speaks of the patriarchs not knowing God as Yahweh<\/span>.<\/em> They knew him as ’El Shaddai<\/span> in actual revelatory historical deeds. They had not come to know God according to his unique character, that is, as Yahweh<\/span>.<\/em> In other words, God had always been Yahweh<\/span>;<\/em> he is saying to Moses that the descendants of the patriarchs would come to know the full, rich meaning of the name by the way God dealt with them.<\/p>\nThis name Yahweh<\/span> reveals God’s nature in the highest and fullest sense possible. It includes, or presupposes, the meaning of the other names. Yahweh<\/span> particularly stresses the absolute faithfulness of God. God had promised the patriarchs that he would be their God, that he would be with them and deliver and bless them, keep them, and give them a land as a place of service and inheritance. Moses is told by God that Israel is about to behold and experience the unchangeableness of God as he steadfastly and wondrously remembers his word and executes it to the fullest degree. God would prove to be a faithful, redeeming, upholding, restoring God. In working out this redemption, God would demonstrate that he is all that his name implies: merciful, gracious, patient, full of loving-kindness, truthful, faithful, forgiving, just, and righteous (Ex 34:5-6). Truly, Jacob had received an insight into the meaning of the name when he exclaimed, “I wait for thy salvation, O Yahweh<\/span>” (Gn 49:18).<\/p>\nYahweh<\/span>,<\/em> then, is the name par excellence of Israel’s God. As Yahweh<\/span>,<\/em> he is a faithful covenant God who, having given his word of love and life, keeps that word by bestowing love and life abundantly on his own.<\/p>\nIn view of the richness of the name Yahweh<\/span>,<\/em> it can be understood why there were stringent rules regarding its proper use (Lv 24:11, 16). It also explains why thankful, rejoicing, worshiping Israelites used the abbreviated form of Yahweh<\/span> in song when they sang Hallelujah: “Praise Yah” (Pss 104:35; 106:1; 149:1; 150:1).<\/p>\nYahweh<\/span> is used in a number of phrases that are considered names of or ascriptions of God. The most common of these compound names is Yahweh Tseba’oth<\/span> (“hosts”). The word “hosts” is used frequently in the Pentateuch to refer to the armies of Israel (cf. Nm 10:14-28). This is because the word is derived from the verb saba<\/span>’<\/span>,<\/em> which means “to wage” war. It also means “to serve” in some contexts; for example, Numbers 8:24 clearly has reference to the service performed in the tabernacle. The noun tseba’oth<\/span> first occurs in Genesis 2:1, where it refers to the many components of the earth and heaven. Some would limit the reference in these contexts to the stars. Still others would suggest that the tseba’oth<\/span> refers to the angels, appealing to Psalm 33:6 for confirmation.<\/p>\nThe compound name Yahweh Tseba’oth<\/span> first appears in 1 Samuel 1:3. In view of the frequent use of tseba’oth<\/span> in 1—2 Samuel to refer to armies (1 Sm 12:9; 14:50; 17:55; 2 Sm 2:8; 8:16; 10:16), it is thought that the compound name refers to Yahweh<\/span> as the God of armies, that is, God has his armies to serve him. These are considered to be armies of angels who are ministering servants to God. It has been correctly pointed out that the compound name Yahweh Tseba’oth<\/span> is used most frequently by the prophets (Jeremiah, 88 times; Zechariah, 55 times; Malachi, 25 times; Haggai, 14 times) at times when God’s people had either suffered defeat at the hands of enemy armies or were threatened by defeat. Therefore, the compound name was used to remind them that their covenant God had great hosts to fight and work for him on behalf of his people. Thus, though Israel’s armies failed, their covenant God was sufficient for every possible circumstance. And it was to this Yahweh Tseba’oth<\/span> that Israel’s commanders were to give allegiance (Jos 5:14-15), and in whose name Israel was blessed (2 Sm 6:18).<\/p>\nSeveral other compound names occur infrequently:<\/p>\nYahweh-Nissi<\/span> (nissi<\/span>,<\/em> “my banner”) is the name that Moses called on when he built an altar celebrating Israel’s God-given victory over the Amalekites (Ex 17:15). Isaiah uses the term nissi<\/span> when speaking of the coming Messiah who is to be the conqueror (Is 11:10).<\/p>\nYahweh-Rapha<\/span> (rapha’<\/span>,<\/em> “healer”) appears in Exodus 15:26, when Israel is assured that God, their healer, will prevent the diseases of Egypt from affecting Israel. Although the name is only used once, God was often called upon and praised as the healing One (e.g., Ps 103:3; Is 30:26; Jer 6:14).<\/p>\nYahweh-Rohi<\/span> (ro‘i<\/span>,<\/em> “my shepherd”) appears in Psalm 23:1. The concept of Yahweh<\/span> as shepherd is explicated in Ezekiel 34. “I myself will be the Shepherd of my sheep” (v 15). Jesus demonstrated this concept’s full meaning when as a shepherd he gave his life for his sheep.<\/p>\nYahweh-Jireh<\/span> (yir’eh<\/span>,<\/em> “to see ahead or to provide”) appears in Genesis 22:14. Abraham gave this name to the place where God provided a substitute for his son Isaac, whom Abraham was to offer as a sacrifice to God. Yahweh-Shalom<\/span> (shalom<\/span>,<\/em> “peace”) is the name Gideon gave to the altar he built when the angel of the Lord came to give him orders to fight the Midianites (Jgs 6:24).<\/p>\nYahweh<\/span> appears with a few forms of the term tsadaq<\/span>,<\/em> “righteousness.” Yahweh<\/span> is spoken of as our righteousness in Jeremiah 23:6; the thought evidently is that David’s Righteous Branch (the Messiah) will attribute God’s righteousness to those who are incorporated in the new covenant. This concept is expressed in the Pentateuch a number of times when it is said that God has provided a way for living righteously; that is, God provides a way of sanctification (cf. Lv 20:8; 22:9).<\/p>\n’Adonai<\/span> as a name for God appears about 360 times in the OT, though it is not uniformly used. It is first found in Genesis 15:2 and 8, when Abram requests more definite information concerning a son and the Promised Land. It appears only 14 times after that in the Pentateuch. It appears repeatedly in the Psalms (over 50 times), and certain of the prophets use it frequently (Isaiah, 47 times; Jeremiah, 29 times; Ezekiel, over 150 times; and Amos, 27 times).<\/p>\nThe word ’adan<\/span>,<\/em> meaning “master, ruler, owner, lord,” is thought to be the root of the noun ’adon<\/span>,<\/em> which is frequently used of men. For example, in Genesis and 1—2 Samuel the term is used often for men who own slaves or are in positions of authority. ’Adonai<\/span> is correctly described as the name of personal communication between the believer and God. In such communication the worshiper acknowledged God’s intense majesty and greatness and also the sense of belonging to this God. ’Adonai<\/span>,<\/em> coming from human lips, expressed honor for God and humble submission on the part of the believing person. ’Adonai<\/span>,<\/em> thus, is the name that expresses faith, assurance, security, ready service, and thanksgiving (Pss 16:2; 57:9-10).<\/p>\n<h5>Old Testament Name Combinations<\/h5>\nIn the OT the names of God appear in various combinations. For example ’Elohim-Yahweh<\/span>,<\/em> ’Elohim-Yahweh-’Adonai<\/span>,<\/em> and ’Elohim-’Adonai<\/span> are very common. These combinations were an effort to express the fullness of God’s being and character as these had been revealed. Names of God in combination with “Israel” occur also as, for example, with Yahweh<\/span>-God-Israel (Jgs 5:3; Is 17:6). God is also invoked in relation to Israel without the mention of one of his names—for example, Qedosh Yisrael<\/span> (“Holy One of Israel,” Is 43:14) and ’Abir Yisrael<\/span> (“Mighty One of Israel,” Gn 49:24; Ps 132:2; Is 49:26). By means of these phrases, the covenantal relationship between God and his people was expressed and God’s unchanging character was positively acknowledged.<\/p>\n<h5>Old Testament Personal Names<\/h5>\nThe personal names of God are Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and variations of these.<\/p>\nThe term ’Abh<\/span> (“father”) appears more frequently in Genesis than in any other book, and in the Pentateuch more than in any other division of the OT. But it is not used there of God but rather of one who has generated children (i.e., the male parent), the progenitor—head, chief, and ruler of the family group or clan. It is used often in the sense of the responsible one through whom God has spoken, with whom God has dealt, and through whom he has given a rich heritage to the children and descendants of the patriarchs.<\/p>\nIn the poetical books, God is referred to as Father but is not directly named as such. Job is asked, “Has the rain a father?” (Jb 38:28). The reference is to God as the maker, source, and controller of rain. In Psalm 68:5 God in his holy dwelling place is the “Father of the fatherless”; the parallel phrase, “protector of widows,” indicates the sense. Psalm 89:26 says that David will cry to God, “Thou art my Father,” and the parallels use the terms “God” and “Rock of my salvation.” The idea here is of God as Creator and Savior who raised up, delivered, and protected David. In Psalm 103:13, “Father” is used analogously, “As a father pities his children.”<\/p>\nIsaiah uses the term “Father” in relation to God four times. Three times it refers to the One who has made, saved, formed, kept, and directed Israel (Is 63:16; 64:8). Isaiah says the promised child is to be named Everlasting Father (9:6). Used in this sense, the term establishes the Son’s equality with the Father in stature, function, ability, and responsibility. Jeremiah also refers to God as Father in Jeremiah 3:4, 19, meaning the origin, keeper, and friend of his people Israel. Malachi 1:6 and 2:10 speak of God as the parent who deserves honor from his children and as the origin and ruler of all people.<\/p>\nThe term “son” is one of the most-used terms in the OT; it commonly occurs in the sense of offspring and descendant. It also appears in the sense of follower or successor. There are a few indirect references to the second person of the Trinity.<\/p>\nThe messianic Psalm 2 has such a reference: “You are my son” (v 7). It is stated in the context of the king speaking to one who rules and is to rule with and under the sovereign. The immediate reference may be to the theocratic king; however, the reference is revealed in the NT to be the second person of the Trinity (Acts 13:33). Thus, the term “son” is applied to the promised Messiah who is set forth as the divine sovereign ruler and judge of the nations. The Son is perceived to be equal with the Father in deity and function. Not all biblical scholars accept this interpretation, but support is found in such NT passages as Hebrews 1:8 which quotes Psalm 45:6. As stated above, Isaiah speaks of the son to be given (Is 9:6), the One born of the virgin (7:14), who is Immanuel, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.<\/p>\nThe name “Holy Spirit” occurs only a few times in the OT. The Spirit is referred to frequently by terms and phrases such as “the Spirit of God” (Gn 1:2), “the Spirit of the Lord God” (Is 61:1), “the Spirit of the Lord” (Ez 37:1), “the Spirit” (Nm 11:17; 27:18), “my Spirit” (Gn 6:3), and “your Spirit” (Ps 51:11). Though the character of the Spirit is not developed as clearly in the OT as in the NT, it can be safely stated that the relationship posited between God and the Spirit is such that there is no doubt that the OT teaches the deity of the Spirit. The character and function of the Spirit is referred to especially in relation to the work of creation (Gn 1:2; Ps 33:6; etc.) and the equipping of servants for the service of God—for example, craftsmanship (Ex 35:31), leadership (Nm 11:17; 27:18), and prophecy (1 Sm 10:6; 2 Sm 23:2; 2 Chr 15:1; Ez 11:5).<\/p>\nThe Names of God in the New Testament<\/p>\n<h5>Proper Names of God<\/h5>\nTheos<\/span> is the NT equivalent of the OT names ’El<\/span>and ’Elohim<\/span>;<\/em> ‘Elyon<\/span> appears in the NT as Hupsistos<\/span>,<\/em> the Highest (Mk 5:7; Lk 1:32, 76). Pantokrator<\/span> (‘El Shaddai<\/span>) appears with Theos<\/span> (2 Cor 6:18; Rv 16:7). This name was used not only to express God’s transcendency, power, sovereignty, and lordship, but also to express that God is one who has a close relationship with his people. This fact is established by the very frequent use of personal pronouns with Theos<\/span>.<\/em> The name Theos<\/span> appears over 1,000 times in the NT.<\/p>\nKurios<\/span>,<\/em> “Lord,” is used to express the OT names Yahweh<\/span> and ‘Adonai<\/span> in the Septuagint, and the NT follows it. Kurios<\/span> means “power,” so the meaning is not the same as with Yahweh<\/span>;<\/em> yet the NT does give Kurios<\/span> the full weight of meaning that the OT gave to Yahweh<\/span>,<\/em> especially when used of Jesus Christ (cf. Acts 2:36; Phil 2:9-11; etc.)<\/p>\nDespotes<\/span> is used five times of God or Jesus in the NT (Lk 2:29; Acts 4:24; 2 Pt 2:11; Jude 1:4; Rv 6:10). It expresses the idea of authority. The idea of brutality conveyed by the modern concept “despot” is absent from the NT usage even when applied to men, where its central thought is ownership (2 Tm 2:21).<\/p>\n<h5>Personal Names of God<\/h5>\nIn the baptismal formula, which is part of the Great Commission (Mt 28:19-20), the three personal names of God appear: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These names carry the OT meaning, but since the relationship of the three Persons is explicated, the NT meaning of the names is enriched.<\/p>\n“Jesus” is the personal name of the Son, the second person of the triune Godhead. It means “savior” (Mt 1:21). The root of this name “to save” gave rise to names such as Joshua, Hoshea, and Hosea. The basic meaning of the OT root is “to bring into a safe, wide-open place.” Joshua, bringing Israel into Canaan, personally did what his name meant. The NT explanation (“save from sin”) is not contrary to the OT meaning. To be saved from sin is to be restored to fellowship with God and to enter into the paradise of the heavenly kingdom.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Christology; God, Being and Attributes of; Holy Spirit; Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of; Messiah; Names, Significance of.<\/p>","summary_ro":"GOD, Names of God’s self-identifications expressing various aspects of his being. Preview • The Biblical Idea of Name • The Names of God in the Old Testament • The Names of God in the New Testament The Biblical Idea of Name In the Scriptures the name and person of God are inseparably related. This is in keeping with the biblical conception of what a name signifies. In the Hebrew language, the term for “name” most probably meant “sign” or “distinctive mark.” In the Greek language, “name” (onom...","summary_en":"GOD, Names of God’s self-identifications expressing various aspects of his being. Preview • The Biblical Idea of Name • The Names of God in the Old Testament • The Names of God in the New Testament The Biblical Idea of Name In the Scriptures the name and person of God are inseparably related. This is in keeping with the biblical conception of what a name signifies. In the Hebrew language, the term for “name” most probably meant “sign” or “distinctive mark.” In the Greek language, “name” (onom...","source":"Articles\/G.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":42838,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:4","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:4","content_ro":"2:4-25<\/strong> This account (see study note on 2:4) of the heavens and the earth is not a second creation account; rather, it is a theological and historical expansion on 1:1–2:3. The focus is now on what the cosmos produced rather than on its creation. Special attention is given to the first man and woman. As the story progresses, it is colored by contrasts of good and evil, knowledge and ignorance, life and death, harmony and discord.<\/p>","content_en":"2:4-25<\/strong> This account (see study note on 2:4) of the heavens and the earth is not a second creation account; rather, it is a theological and historical expansion on 1:1–2:3. The focus is now on what the cosmos produced rather than on its creation. Special attention is given to the first man and woman. As the story progresses, it is colored by contrasts of good and evil, knowledge and ignorance, life and death, harmony and discord.<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:4-25 This account (see study note on 2:4) of the heavens and the earth is not a second creation account; rather, it is a theological and historical expansion on 1:1–2:3. The focus is now on what the cosmos produced rather than on its creation. Special attention is given to the first man and woman. As the story progresses, it is colored by contrasts of good and evil, knowledge and ignorance, life and death, harmony and discord.","summary_en":"2:4-25 This account (see study note on 2:4) of the heavens and the earth is not a second creation account; rather, it is a theological and historical expansion on 1:1–2:3. The focus is now on what the cosmos produced rather than on its creation. Special attention is given to the first man and woman. As the story progresses, it is colored by contrasts of good and evil, knowledge and ignorance, life and death, harmony and discord.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":42839,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:4","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:4","content_ro":"2:4<\/strong> This is the account<\/em> (literally These are the generations<\/em>; Hebrew toledoth<\/span>): This or a similar phrase is repeated throughout Genesis, creating an internal outline for the book. In other occurrences, it introduces the genealogy or story of a key personality (5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1; 37:2). • Some have argued that the first half of 2:4 belongs with 1:1–2:3, but it is more likely the introduction to the account that follows. • Lord<\/span> God<\/em> (Hebrew Yahweh Elohim<\/span>) is the second name used for God in the early chapters of Genesis. Elohim<\/span> (1:1–2:3) describes the all-powerful creator God. Yahweh Elohim<\/span> speaks of the eternal God who formed a lasting covenant with Israel (Exod 3:6, 13-15). Accordingly, Gen 2:4-25 focuses on God as provider more than as creator. The three themes of sexuality, dominion, and food in ch 1 are now addressed in reverse order (food, 2:8-17; dominion, 2:18-20; sexuality, 2:21-25).<\/p>","content_en":"2:4<\/strong> This is the account<\/em> (literally These are the generations<\/em>; Hebrew toledoth<\/span>): This or a similar phrase is repeated throughout Genesis, creating an internal outline for the book. In other occurrences, it introduces the genealogy or story of a key personality (5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1; 37:2). • Some have argued that the first half of 2:4 belongs with 1:1–2:3, but it is more likely the introduction to the account that follows. • Lord<\/span> God<\/em> (Hebrew Yahweh Elohim<\/span>) is the second name used for God in the early chapters of Genesis. Elohim<\/span> (1:1–2:3) describes the all-powerful creator God. Yahweh Elohim<\/span> speaks of the eternal God who formed a lasting covenant with Israel (Exod 3:6, 13-15). Accordingly, Gen 2:4-25 focuses on God as provider more than as creator. The three themes of sexuality, dominion, and food in ch 1 are now addressed in reverse order (food, 2:8-17; dominion, 2:18-20; sexuality, 2:21-25).<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:4 This is the account (literally These are the generations; Hebrew toledoth): This or a similar phrase is repeated throughout Genesis, creating an internal outline for the book. In other occurrences, it introduces the genealogy or story of a key personality (5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1; 37:2). • Some have argued that the first half of 2:4 belongs with 1:1–2:3, but it is more likely the introduction to the account that follows. • Lord God (Hebrew Yahweh Elohim) is the second n...","summary_en":"2:4 This is the account (literally These are the generations; Hebrew toledoth): This or a similar phrase is repeated throughout Genesis, creating an internal outline for the book. In other occurrences, it introduces the genealogy or story of a key personality (5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1; 37:2). • Some have argued that the first half of 2:4 belongs with 1:1–2:3, but it is more likely the introduction to the account that follows. • Lord God (Hebrew Yahweh Elohim) is the second n...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":70464,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:4","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:4","content_ro":"2:4-25<\/strong> This account (see study note on 2:4) of the heavens and the earth is not a second creation account; rather, it is a theological and historical expansion on 1:1–2:3. The focus is now on what the cosmos produced rather than on its creation. Special attention is given to the first man and woman. As the story progresses, it is colored by contrasts of good and evil, knowledge and ignorance, life and death, harmony and discord.<\/p>","content_en":"2:4-25<\/strong> This account (see study note on 2:4) of the heavens and the earth is not a second creation account; rather, it is a theological and historical expansion on 1:1–2:3. The focus is now on what the cosmos produced rather than on its creation. Special attention is given to the first man and woman. As the story progresses, it is colored by contrasts of good and evil, knowledge and ignorance, life and death, harmony and discord.<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:4-25 This account (see study note on 2:4) of the heavens and the earth is not a second creation account; rather, it is a theological and historical expansion on 1:1–2:3. The focus is now on what the cosmos produced rather than on its creation. Special attention is given to the first man and woman. As the story progresses, it is colored by contrasts of good and evil, knowledge and ignorance, life and death, harmony and discord.","summary_en":"2:4-25 This account (see study note on 2:4) of the heavens and the earth is not a second creation account; rather, it is a theological and historical expansion on 1:1–2:3. The focus is now on what the cosmos produced rather than on its creation. Special attention is given to the first man and woman. As the story progresses, it is colored by contrasts of good and evil, knowledge and ignorance, life and death, harmony and discord.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":70465,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:4","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:4","content_ro":"2:4<\/strong> This is the account<\/em> (literally These are the generations<\/em>; Hebrew toledoth<\/span>): This or a similar phrase is repeated throughout Genesis, creating an internal outline for the book. In other occurrences, it introduces the genealogy or story of a key personality (5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1; 37:2). • Some have argued that the first half of 2:4 belongs with 1:1–2:3, but it is more likely the introduction to the account that follows. • Lord<\/span> God<\/em> (Hebrew Yahweh Elohim<\/span>) is the second name used for God in the early chapters of Genesis. Elohim<\/span> (1:1–2:3) describes the all-powerful creator God. Yahweh Elohim<\/span> speaks of the eternal God who formed a lasting covenant with Israel (Exod 3:6, 13-15). Accordingly, Gen 2:4-25 focuses on God as provider more than as creator. The three themes of sexuality, dominion, and food in ch 1 are now addressed in reverse order (food, 2:8-17; dominion, 2:18-20; sexuality, 2:21-25).<\/p>","content_en":"2:4<\/strong> This is the account<\/em> (literally These are the generations<\/em>; Hebrew toledoth<\/span>): This or a similar phrase is repeated throughout Genesis, creating an internal outline for the book. In other occurrences, it introduces the genealogy or story of a key personality (5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1; 37:2). • Some have argued that the first half of 2:4 belongs with 1:1–2:3, but it is more likely the introduction to the account that follows. • Lord<\/span> God<\/em> (Hebrew Yahweh Elohim<\/span>) is the second name used for God in the early chapters of Genesis. Elohim<\/span> (1:1–2:3) describes the all-powerful creator God. Yahweh Elohim<\/span> speaks of the eternal God who formed a lasting covenant with Israel (Exod 3:6, 13-15). Accordingly, Gen 2:4-25 focuses on God as provider more than as creator. The three themes of sexuality, dominion, and food in ch 1 are now addressed in reverse order (food, 2:8-17; dominion, 2:18-20; sexuality, 2:21-25).<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:4 This is the account (literally These are the generations; Hebrew toledoth): This or a similar phrase is repeated throughout Genesis, creating an internal outline for the book. In other occurrences, it introduces the genealogy or story of a key personality (5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1; 37:2). • Some have argued that the first half of 2:4 belongs with 1:1–2:3, but it is more likely the introduction to the account that follows. • Lord God (Hebrew Yahweh Elohim) is the second n...","summary_en":"2:4 This is the account (literally These are the generations; Hebrew toledoth): This or a similar phrase is repeated throughout Genesis, creating an internal outline for the book. In other occurrences, it introduces the genealogy or story of a key personality (5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1; 37:2). • Some have argued that the first half of 2:4 belongs with 1:1–2:3, but it is more likely the introduction to the account that follows. • Lord God (Hebrew Yahweh Elohim) is the second n...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":98090,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:4","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:4","content_ro":"2:4-25<\/strong> This account (see study note on 2:4) of the heavens and the earth is not a second creation account; rather, it is a theological and historical expansion on 1:1–2:3. The focus is now on what the cosmos produced rather than on its creation. Special attention is given to the first man and woman. As the story progresses, it is colored by contrasts of good and evil, knowledge and ignorance, life and death, harmony and discord.<\/p>","content_en":"2:4-25<\/strong> This account (see study note on 2:4) of the heavens and the earth is not a second creation account; rather, it is a theological and historical expansion on 1:1–2:3. The focus is now on what the cosmos produced rather than on its creation. Special attention is given to the first man and woman. As the story progresses, it is colored by contrasts of good and evil, knowledge and ignorance, life and death, harmony and discord.<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:4-25 This account (see study note on 2:4) of the heavens and the earth is not a second creation account; rather, it is a theological and historical expansion on 1:1–2:3. The focus is now on what the cosmos produced rather than on its creation. Special attention is given to the first man and woman. As the story progresses, it is colored by contrasts of good and evil, knowledge and ignorance, life and death, harmony and discord.","summary_en":"2:4-25 This account (see study note on 2:4) of the heavens and the earth is not a second creation account; rather, it is a theological and historical expansion on 1:1–2:3. The focus is now on what the cosmos produced rather than on its creation. Special attention is given to the first man and woman. As the story progresses, it is colored by contrasts of good and evil, knowledge and ignorance, life and death, harmony and discord.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":98091,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:4","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:4","content_ro":"2:4<\/strong> This is the account<\/em> (literally These are the generations<\/em>; Hebrew toledoth<\/span>): This or a similar phrase is repeated throughout Genesis, creating an internal outline for the book. In other occurrences, it introduces the genealogy or story of a key personality (5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1; 37:2). • Some have argued that the first half of 2:4 belongs with 1:1–2:3, but it is more likely the introduction to the account that follows. • Lord<\/span> God<\/em> (Hebrew Yahweh Elohim<\/span>) is the second name used for God in the early chapters of Genesis. Elohim<\/span> (1:1–2:3) describes the all-powerful creator God. Yahweh Elohim<\/span> speaks of the eternal God who formed a lasting covenant with Israel (Exod 3:6, 13-15). Accordingly, Gen 2:4-25 focuses on God as provider more than as creator. The three themes of sexuality, dominion, and food in ch 1 are now addressed in reverse order (food, 2:8-17; dominion, 2:18-20; sexuality, 2:21-25).<\/p>","content_en":"2:4<\/strong> This is the account<\/em> (literally These are the generations<\/em>; Hebrew toledoth<\/span>): This or a similar phrase is repeated throughout Genesis, creating an internal outline for the book. In other occurrences, it introduces the genealogy or story of a key personality (5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1; 37:2). • Some have argued that the first half of 2:4 belongs with 1:1–2:3, but it is more likely the introduction to the account that follows. • Lord<\/span> God<\/em> (Hebrew Yahweh Elohim<\/span>) is the second name used for God in the early chapters of Genesis. Elohim<\/span> (1:1–2:3) describes the all-powerful creator God. Yahweh Elohim<\/span> speaks of the eternal God who formed a lasting covenant with Israel (Exod 3:6, 13-15). Accordingly, Gen 2:4-25 focuses on God as provider more than as creator. The three themes of sexuality, dominion, and food in ch 1 are now addressed in reverse order (food, 2:8-17; dominion, 2:18-20; sexuality, 2:21-25).<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:4 This is the account (literally These are the generations; Hebrew toledoth): This or a similar phrase is repeated throughout Genesis, creating an internal outline for the book. In other occurrences, it introduces the genealogy or story of a key personality (5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1; 37:2). • Some have argued that the first half of 2:4 belongs with 1:1–2:3, but it is more likely the introduction to the account that follows. • Lord God (Hebrew Yahweh Elohim) is the second n...","summary_en":"2:4 This is the account (literally These are the generations; Hebrew toledoth): This or a similar phrase is repeated throughout Genesis, creating an internal outline for the book. In other occurrences, it introduces the genealogy or story of a key personality (5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1; 37:2). • Some have argued that the first half of 2:4 belongs with 1:1–2:3, but it is more likely the introduction to the account that follows. • Lord God (Hebrew Yahweh Elohim) is the second n...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":125716,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:4","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:4","content_ro":"2:4-25<\/strong> This account (see study note on 2:4) of the heavens and the earth is not a second creation account; rather, it is a theological and historical expansion on 1:1–2:3. The focus is now on what the cosmos produced rather than on its creation. Special attention is given to the first man and woman. As the story progresses, it is colored by contrasts of good and evil, knowledge and ignorance, life and death, harmony and discord.<\/p>","content_en":"2:4-25<\/strong> This account (see study note on 2:4) of the heavens and the earth is not a second creation account; rather, it is a theological and historical expansion on 1:1–2:3. The focus is now on what the cosmos produced rather than on its creation. Special attention is given to the first man and woman. As the story progresses, it is colored by contrasts of good and evil, knowledge and ignorance, life and death, harmony and discord.<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:4-25 This account (see study note on 2:4) of the heavens and the earth is not a second creation account; rather, it is a theological and historical expansion on 1:1–2:3. The focus is now on what the cosmos produced rather than on its creation. Special attention is given to the first man and woman. As the story progresses, it is colored by contrasts of good and evil, knowledge and ignorance, life and death, harmony and discord.","summary_en":"2:4-25 This account (see study note on 2:4) of the heavens and the earth is not a second creation account; rather, it is a theological and historical expansion on 1:1–2:3. The focus is now on what the cosmos produced rather than on its creation. Special attention is given to the first man and woman. As the story progresses, it is colored by contrasts of good and evil, knowledge and ignorance, life and death, harmony and discord.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":125717,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:4","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:4","content_ro":"2:4<\/strong> This is the account<\/em> (literally These are the generations<\/em>; Hebrew toledoth<\/span>): This or a similar phrase is repeated throughout Genesis, creating an internal outline for the book. In other occurrences, it introduces the genealogy or story of a key personality (5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1; 37:2). • Some have argued that the first half of 2:4 belongs with 1:1–2:3, but it is more likely the introduction to the account that follows. • Lord<\/span> God<\/em> (Hebrew Yahweh Elohim<\/span>) is the second name used for God in the early chapters of Genesis. Elohim<\/span> (1:1–2:3) describes the all-powerful creator God. Yahweh Elohim<\/span> speaks of the eternal God who formed a lasting covenant with Israel (Exod 3:6, 13-15). Accordingly, Gen 2:4-25 focuses on God as provider more than as creator. The three themes of sexuality, dominion, and food in ch 1 are now addressed in reverse order (food, 2:8-17; dominion, 2:18-20; sexuality, 2:21-25).<\/p>","content_en":"2:4<\/strong> This is the account<\/em> (literally These are the generations<\/em>; Hebrew toledoth<\/span>): This or a similar phrase is repeated throughout Genesis, creating an internal outline for the book. In other occurrences, it introduces the genealogy or story of a key personality (5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1; 37:2). • Some have argued that the first half of 2:4 belongs with 1:1–2:3, but it is more likely the introduction to the account that follows. • Lord<\/span> God<\/em> (Hebrew Yahweh Elohim<\/span>) is the second name used for God in the early chapters of Genesis. Elohim<\/span> (1:1–2:3) describes the all-powerful creator God. Yahweh Elohim<\/span> speaks of the eternal God who formed a lasting covenant with Israel (Exod 3:6, 13-15). Accordingly, Gen 2:4-25 focuses on God as provider more than as creator. The three themes of sexuality, dominion, and food in ch 1 are now addressed in reverse order (food, 2:8-17; dominion, 2:18-20; sexuality, 2:21-25).<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:4 This is the account (literally These are the generations; Hebrew toledoth): This or a similar phrase is repeated throughout Genesis, creating an internal outline for the book. In other occurrences, it introduces the genealogy or story of a key personality (5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1; 37:2). • Some have argued that the first half of 2:4 belongs with 1:1–2:3, but it is more likely the introduction to the account that follows. • Lord God (Hebrew Yahweh Elohim) is the second n...","summary_en":"2:4 This is the account (literally These are the generations; Hebrew toledoth): This or a similar phrase is repeated throughout Genesis, creating an internal outline for the book. In other occurrences, it introduces the genealogy or story of a key personality (5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1; 37:2). • Some have argued that the first half of 2:4 belongs with 1:1–2:3, but it is more likely the introduction to the account that follows. • Lord God (Hebrew Yahweh Elohim) is the second n...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"5":[{"id":38223,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Water","title_en":"Water","content_ro":"<h3>WATER<\/h3>\nOne of the essentials of life, which covers much of the earth’s surface and is the primary component of the human body. Life cannot be sustained more than a few days without it.<\/p>\nIn the beginning, water covered the earth. Then God brought up the dry land from the water (Gn 1:9-10). As Peter said, “God made the heavens by the word of his command, and he brought the earth up from the water and surrounded it with water” (2 Pt 3:5, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nWhen the Lord created the Garden of Eden, he made a river to water it. This river divided into four rivers, of which two are identified with certainty, the Euphrates and the Tigris, which have sustained agricultural life in the Mesopotamian area both in antiquity and today (Gn 2:10-14). The Bible also relates that early in the history of the earth there was no rain but only a mist that watered the earth (vv 5-6). In the time of Noah, the Lord used an overwhelming mass and movement of water to destroy “the world that then existed” (2 Pt 3:6), as punishment for its wickedness.<\/p>\nIn the Near East, water is of special importance, for much of the area receives only moderate amounts of rainfall. In Egypt, for example, only two to four inches (5.1 to 10.2 centimeters) of rain falls in the area of Cairo, and at Aswan the average annual rainfall is zero. Egypt is dependent upon the Nile, which is supplied by equatorial rains. By contrast, Palestine is watered well by “the rain from heaven” (Dt 11:10-11).<\/p>\nWater has many symbolic usages in Scripture (quoted below mostly from the nlt<\/span>). The righteous man is like a tree planted by streams of water (Ps 1:3; Jer 17:8). The longing of the soul after God is likened to thirst for water: “My soul thirsts for you; my whole body longs for you in this parched and weary land where there is no water” (Ps 63:1); “I thirst for you as parched land thirsts for rain” (143:6). Jesus fulfills this need and declares, “If you are thirsty, come to me! If you believe in me, come and drink!” (Jn 7:37-38). And Jesus said, “The water I give them takes away thirst altogether. It becomes a perpetual spring within them, giving them eternal life” (4:14). The Spirit of Jesus is that spiritual water that satisfies the thirst of the human spirit (7:38-39). The Word of God is also presented as water by which spiritual cleansing is effected. The Lord speaks of the cleansing of the church by “the washing of water with the word” (Eph 5:26). And Paul said that people are saved “by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit” (Ti 3:5).<\/p>\nIn the closing chapters of the Bible the Lord declares, “To all who are thirsty I will give the springs of the water of life without charge!” (Rv 21:6, nlt<\/span>). Even in the description of the heavenly Jerusalem there is mention of water—the river of the water of life: “The angel showed me a pure river with the water of life, clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb, coursing down the center of the main street” (22:1-2). The final invitation of Scripture comes to us in similar terms: “Let the thirsty ones come—anyone who wants to. Let them come and drink the water of life without charge” (v 17).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>WATER<\/h3>\nOne of the essentials of life, which covers much of the earth’s surface and is the primary component of the human body. Life cannot be sustained more than a few days without it.<\/p>\nIn the beginning, water covered the earth. Then God brought up the dry land from the water (Gn 1:9-10). As Peter said, “God made the heavens by the word of his command, and he brought the earth up from the water and surrounded it with water” (2 Pt 3:5, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nWhen the Lord created the Garden of Eden, he made a river to water it. This river divided into four rivers, of which two are identified with certainty, the Euphrates and the Tigris, which have sustained agricultural life in the Mesopotamian area both in antiquity and today (Gn 2:10-14). The Bible also relates that early in the history of the earth there was no rain but only a mist that watered the earth (vv 5-6). In the time of Noah, the Lord used an overwhelming mass and movement of water to destroy “the world that then existed” (2 Pt 3:6), as punishment for its wickedness.<\/p>\nIn the Near East, water is of special importance, for much of the area receives only moderate amounts of rainfall. In Egypt, for example, only two to four inches (5.1 to 10.2 centimeters) of rain falls in the area of Cairo, and at Aswan the average annual rainfall is zero. Egypt is dependent upon the Nile, which is supplied by equatorial rains. By contrast, Palestine is watered well by “the rain from heaven” (Dt 11:10-11).<\/p>\nWater has many symbolic usages in Scripture (quoted below mostly from the nlt<\/span>). The righteous man is like a tree planted by streams of water (Ps 1:3; Jer 17:8). The longing of the soul after God is likened to thirst for water: “My soul thirsts for you; my whole body longs for you in this parched and weary land where there is no water” (Ps 63:1); “I thirst for you as parched land thirsts for rain” (143:6). Jesus fulfills this need and declares, “If you are thirsty, come to me! If you believe in me, come and drink!” (Jn 7:37-38). And Jesus said, “The water I give them takes away thirst altogether. It becomes a perpetual spring within them, giving them eternal life” (4:14). The Spirit of Jesus is that spiritual water that satisfies the thirst of the human spirit (7:38-39). The Word of God is also presented as water by which spiritual cleansing is effected. The Lord speaks of the cleansing of the church by “the washing of water with the word” (Eph 5:26). And Paul said that people are saved “by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit” (Ti 3:5).<\/p>\nIn the closing chapters of the Bible the Lord declares, “To all who are thirsty I will give the springs of the water of life without charge!” (Rv 21:6, nlt<\/span>). Even in the description of the heavenly Jerusalem there is mention of water—the river of the water of life: “The angel showed me a pure river with the water of life, clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb, coursing down the center of the main street” (22:1-2). The final invitation of Scripture comes to us in similar terms: “Let the thirsty ones come—anyone who wants to. Let them come and drink the water of life without charge” (v 17).<\/p>","summary_ro":"WATER One of the essentials of life, which covers much of the earth’s surface and is the primary component of the human body. Life cannot be sustained more than a few days without it. In the beginning, water covered the earth. Then God brought up the dry land from the water (Gn 1:9-10). As Peter said, “God made the heavens by the word of his command, and he brought the earth up from the water and surrounded it with water” (2 Pt 3:5, nlt). When the Lord created the Garden of Eden, he made a ri...","summary_en":"WATER One of the essentials of life, which covers much of the earth’s surface and is the primary component of the human body. Life cannot be sustained more than a few days without it. In the beginning, water covered the earth. Then God brought up the dry land from the water (Gn 1:9-10). As Peter said, “God made the heavens by the word of his command, and he brought the earth up from the water and surrounded it with water” (2 Pt 3:5, nlt). When the Lord created the Garden of Eden, he made a ri...","source":"Articles\/W.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":42840,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:5","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:5","content_ro":"2:5<\/strong> cultivate:<\/em> Work does not result from sin; it was part of the original structure of creation and is directly tied to human identity and purpose (1:28; 2:15).<\/p>","content_en":"2:5<\/strong> cultivate:<\/em> Work does not result from sin; it was part of the original structure of creation and is directly tied to human identity and purpose (1:28; 2:15).<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:5 cultivate: Work does not result from sin; it was part of the original structure of creation and is directly tied to human identity and purpose (1:28; 2:15).","summary_en":"2:5 cultivate: Work does not result from sin; it was part of the original structure of creation and is directly tied to human identity and purpose (1:28; 2:15).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":70466,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:5","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:5","content_ro":"2:5<\/strong> cultivate:<\/em> Work does not result from sin; it was part of the original structure of creation and is directly tied to human identity and purpose (1:28; 2:15).<\/p>","content_en":"2:5<\/strong> cultivate:<\/em> Work does not result from sin; it was part of the original structure of creation and is directly tied to human identity and purpose (1:28; 2:15).<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:5 cultivate: Work does not result from sin; it was part of the original structure of creation and is directly tied to human identity and purpose (1:28; 2:15).","summary_en":"2:5 cultivate: Work does not result from sin; it was part of the original structure of creation and is directly tied to human identity and purpose (1:28; 2:15).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":98092,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:5","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:5","content_ro":"2:5<\/strong> cultivate:<\/em> Work does not result from sin; it was part of the original structure of creation and is directly tied to human identity and purpose (1:28; 2:15).<\/p>","content_en":"2:5<\/strong> cultivate:<\/em> Work does not result from sin; it was part of the original structure of creation and is directly tied to human identity and purpose (1:28; 2:15).<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:5 cultivate: Work does not result from sin; it was part of the original structure of creation and is directly tied to human identity and purpose (1:28; 2:15).","summary_en":"2:5 cultivate: Work does not result from sin; it was part of the original structure of creation and is directly tied to human identity and purpose (1:28; 2:15).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":125718,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:5","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:5","content_ro":"2:5<\/strong> cultivate:<\/em> Work does not result from sin; it was part of the original structure of creation and is directly tied to human identity and purpose (1:28; 2:15).<\/p>","content_en":"2:5<\/strong> cultivate:<\/em> Work does not result from sin; it was part of the original structure of creation and is directly tied to human identity and purpose (1:28; 2:15).<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:5 cultivate: Work does not result from sin; it was part of the original structure of creation and is directly tied to human identity and purpose (1:28; 2:15).","summary_en":"2:5 cultivate: Work does not result from sin; it was part of the original structure of creation and is directly tied to human identity and purpose (1:28; 2:15).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"6":[{"id":9925,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Earth","title_en":"Earth","content_ro":"<h3>EARTH<\/h3>\nTerm used for our inhabited planet; the world, as distinguished from heaven and hell; land; soil; and in several other ways. Biblical usage is as broad as modern usage.<\/p>\nOne Hebrew word translated “earth” is also used generically for “man,” or Adam (Gn 2:7, 19). That word refers to reddish soil from which Adam’s body was made. Another Hebrew word translated “earth” or “land” can refer to a country (21:21). A word translated “dust” can mean simply earth or dry ground (3:19). In the NT one Greek word translated “earth” can refer to a land or country (Mt 27:45). The Greek word from which “ecumenical” is derived refers to the whole inhabited earth (Lk 21:26) or the Roman Empire of those days (2:1).<\/p>\nIn the beginning “God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. . . . And God said, ‘Let the earth put forth vegetation’” (Gn 1:10-11, rsv<\/span>). In some passages “the earth” is used in essentially the modern sense for the whole planet (Jb 1:7), hanging in empty space (26:7). References to the earth’s four corners (Is 11:12; Ez 7:2) allude to the points of a compass, not to the earth’s shape. The circle of the earth probably refers to the circumference of the horizon (Is 40:22; cf. Jb 38:13). The earth is sometimes pictured as supported on pillars (Jb 9:6; Ps 75:3) or foundations (Ps 104:5; Prv 8:29; Is 24:18; Jer 31:37). Since many of the biblical usages are found in figurative passages of poetry or prophecy, they reveal little about the Hebrews’ cosmological understanding.<\/p>\n“Earth” sometimes refers to the soil or ground that a farmer works (cf. 2 Kgs 5:17). According to the Bible, the original condition of the earth (Gn 2:6) was affected by the curse of human sinfulness (3:17-19). (Modern ecologists seem to agree that the earth suffers because of human greed and arrogance.) After Abel’s blood was spilled on the ground, Cain’s difficulty in making the soil produce for him was a constant reminder that he had murdered his brother (4:8-12).<\/p>\nThe Israelites were instructed to let the land rest every seventh year (Ex 23:10-12; Lv 25:4-5), allowing the soil to replenish nutrients used up by crops. After seven such “sabbath years,” in the 50th “jubilee year” the land reverted back to original family holdings (Lv 25:10-17). That provision not only reminded the people of God’s ultimate ownership but kept potential “land barons” from amassing huge estates.<\/p>\nThe Mosaic law instructed the Israelites that the land’s condition would be a spiritual barometer of their relationship with God. Drought or lack of productivity was a sign that the relationship had been broken (Lv 26; Dt 28). Israel was warned that their wickedness could become so great that the Lord would evict them from his land (cf. Lv 26:37; Dt 28:64). Even if that happened, however, God would eventually restore his people so they could again be “wedded” to the land (Is 62:4).<\/p>\nMany passages point to a “coming age,” when the earth will be set free from its “bondage to decay,” a deliverance for which the whole creation is said to be “groaning” in anticipation (Rom 8:19-23). The Bible pictures a period of prodigious renewal of the earth’s fertility (Ez 47; Jl 3:18; Am 9:13-15; Zec 14:6-9). One day, however, “the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and the works that are upon it will be burned up” (2 Pt 3:10, rsv<\/span>). Yet in the apostle John’s apocalyptic vision, he saw “a new heaven and a new earth, for the old heaven and the old earth had disappeared” (Rv 21:1, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> New Heavens and New Earth.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>EARTH<\/h3>\nTerm used for our inhabited planet; the world, as distinguished from heaven and hell; land; soil; and in several other ways. Biblical usage is as broad as modern usage.<\/p>\nOne Hebrew word translated “earth” is also used generically for “man,” or Adam (Gn 2:7, 19). That word refers to reddish soil from which Adam’s body was made. Another Hebrew word translated “earth” or “land” can refer to a country (21:21). A word translated “dust” can mean simply earth or dry ground (3:19). In the NT one Greek word translated “earth” can refer to a land or country (Mt 27:45). The Greek word from which “ecumenical” is derived refers to the whole inhabited earth (Lk 21:26) or the Roman Empire of those days (2:1).<\/p>\nIn the beginning “God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. . . . And God said, ‘Let the earth put forth vegetation’” (Gn 1:10-11, rsv<\/span>). In some passages “the earth” is used in essentially the modern sense for the whole planet (Jb 1:7), hanging in empty space (26:7). References to the earth’s four corners (Is 11:12; Ez 7:2) allude to the points of a compass, not to the earth’s shape. The circle of the earth probably refers to the circumference of the horizon (Is 40:22; cf. Jb 38:13). The earth is sometimes pictured as supported on pillars (Jb 9:6; Ps 75:3) or foundations (Ps 104:5; Prv 8:29; Is 24:18; Jer 31:37). Since many of the biblical usages are found in figurative passages of poetry or prophecy, they reveal little about the Hebrews’ cosmological understanding.<\/p>\n“Earth” sometimes refers to the soil or ground that a farmer works (cf. 2 Kgs 5:17). According to the Bible, the original condition of the earth (Gn 2:6) was affected by the curse of human sinfulness (3:17-19). (Modern ecologists seem to agree that the earth suffers because of human greed and arrogance.) After Abel’s blood was spilled on the ground, Cain’s difficulty in making the soil produce for him was a constant reminder that he had murdered his brother (4:8-12).<\/p>\nThe Israelites were instructed to let the land rest every seventh year (Ex 23:10-12; Lv 25:4-5), allowing the soil to replenish nutrients used up by crops. After seven such “sabbath years,” in the 50th “jubilee year” the land reverted back to original family holdings (Lv 25:10-17). That provision not only reminded the people of God’s ultimate ownership but kept potential “land barons” from amassing huge estates.<\/p>\nThe Mosaic law instructed the Israelites that the land’s condition would be a spiritual barometer of their relationship with God. Drought or lack of productivity was a sign that the relationship had been broken (Lv 26; Dt 28). Israel was warned that their wickedness could become so great that the Lord would evict them from his land (cf. Lv 26:37; Dt 28:64). Even if that happened, however, God would eventually restore his people so they could again be “wedded” to the land (Is 62:4).<\/p>\nMany passages point to a “coming age,” when the earth will be set free from its “bondage to decay,” a deliverance for which the whole creation is said to be “groaning” in anticipation (Rom 8:19-23). The Bible pictures a period of prodigious renewal of the earth’s fertility (Ez 47; Jl 3:18; Am 9:13-15; Zec 14:6-9). One day, however, “the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and the works that are upon it will be burned up” (2 Pt 3:10, rsv<\/span>). Yet in the apostle John’s apocalyptic vision, he saw “a new heaven and a new earth, for the old heaven and the old earth had disappeared” (Rv 21:1, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> New Heavens and New Earth.<\/p>","summary_ro":"EARTH Term used for our inhabited planet; the world, as distinguished from heaven and hell; land; soil; and in several other ways. Biblical usage is as broad as modern usage. One Hebrew word translated “earth” is also used generically for “man,” or Adam (Gn 2:7, 19). That word refers to reddish soil from which Adam’s body was made. Another Hebrew word translated “earth” or “land” can refer to a country (21:21). A word translated “dust” can mean simply earth or dry ground (3:19). In the NT one...","summary_en":"EARTH Term used for our inhabited planet; the world, as distinguished from heaven and hell; land; soil; and in several other ways. Biblical usage is as broad as modern usage. One Hebrew word translated “earth” is also used generically for “man,” or Adam (Gn 2:7, 19). That word refers to reddish soil from which Adam’s body was made. Another Hebrew word translated “earth” or “land” can refer to a country (21:21). A word translated “dust” can mean simply earth or dry ground (3:19). In the NT one...","source":"Articles\/E.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":15878,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Hebrew Language","title_en":"Hebrew Language","content_ro":"<h3>HEBREW LANGUAGE<\/h3>\nLanguage of the Jewish people. The name Hebrew is not applied by the OT to its own language, although the NT does use the name that way. In the OT, “Hebrew” means the individual or people who used the language. The language itself is called “the language of Canaan” (Is 19:18, nlt<\/span> mg) or “the language of Judah” (Neh 13:24).<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Origin and History<\/p>\n• Family of Languages<\/p>\n• Character<\/p>\n• Hebrew Script and Grammar<\/p>\n• Style<\/p>\n• Legacy<\/p>\nOrigin and History<\/p>\nIn the Middle Ages a common view was that Hebrew was the primitive language of humankind. Even in colonial America, Hebrew was still referred to as “the mother of all languages.” Linguistic scholarship has now made this theory untenable.<\/p>\nHebrew is actually one of several Canaanite dialects that included Phoenician, Ugaritic, and Moabite. Other Canaanite dialects (for example, Ammonite) existed but have left insufficient inscriptions for scholarly investigation. Such dialects were already present in the land of Canaan before its conquest by the Israelites.<\/p>\nUntil about 1974, the oldest witnesses to Canaanite language were found in the Ugarit and Amarna records dating from the 14th and 15th centuries BC<\/span>. A few Canaanite words and expressions appeared in earlier Egyptian records, but the origin of Canaanite has been uncertain. Between 1974 and 1976, however, nearly 17,000 tablets were dug up at Tell Mardikh (ancient Ebla) in northern Syria, written in a previously unknown Semitic dialect. Because they possibly date back to 2400 BC<\/span> (perhaps even earlier), many scholars think that language may be the “Old Canaanite” that gave rise to Hebrew. By 1977, when another 1,000 tablets were unearthed, only about 100 inscriptions from Ebla had been reported on. Languages change over a long period of time. For example, the English used in the time of Alfred the Great (ninth century AD<\/span>) seems almost like a foreign language to contemporary English speakers. Although Hebrew was no exception to the general principle, like other Semitic languages it remained remarkably stable over many centuries. Poems such as the Song of Deborah (Jgs 5) tended to preserve the language’s oldest form. Changes that took place later in the long history of the language are shown in the presence of archaic words (often preserved in poetic language) and a general difference in style. For example, the book of Job reflects a more archaic style than the book of Esther.<\/p>\nVarious Hebrew dialects apparently existed side by side in OT times, as reflected in the episode involving the pronunciation of the Hebrew word “shibboleth\/sibboleth” (Jgs 12:4-6). It seems that the Israelites east of the Jordan pronounced the initial letter with a strong “sh” sound, while those in Canaan gave it the simple “s” sound. Scholars have also identified features of Hebrew that could be described as reflecting the northern or southern parts of the country.<\/p>\nFamily of Languages<\/p>\nHebrew belongs to the Semitic family of languages; these languages were used from the Mediterranean Sea to the mountains east of the Euphrates River valley, and from Armenia (Turkey) in the north to the southern extremity of the Arabian peninsula. Semitic languages are classified as Southern (Arabic and Ethiopic), Eastern (Akkadian), and Northwestern (Aramaic, Syriac, and Canaanite—Hebrew, Phoenician, Ugaritic, and Moabite).<\/p>\nCharacter<\/p>\nHebrew, like the other early Semitic languages, concentrates on observation more than reflection. That is, things are generally observed according to their appearance as phenomena, not analyzed as to their inward being or essence. Effects are observed but not traced through a series of causes.<\/p>\nHebrew’s vividness, conciseness, and simplicity make the language difficult to translate fully. It is amazingly concise and direct. For example, Psalm 23 contains 55 words; most translations require about twice that many to translate it. The first two lines, with slashes separating the individual Hebrew words in the original, read:<\/p>\nThe Lord\/[is] my shepherd\/<\/p>\nI shall want\/not<\/p>\nThus eight English words are required to translate four Hebrew words.<\/p>\nHebrew does not use separate, distinct expressions for every shade of thought. Someone has said, “The Semites have been the quarries whose great rough blocks the Greeks have trimmed, polished, and fitted together. The former gave religion; the latter philosophy.”<\/p>\nHebrew is a pictorial language in which the past is not merely described but verbally painted. Not just a landscape is presented but a moving panorama. The course of events is reenacted in the mind’s sight. (Note the frequent use of “behold,” a Hebraism carried over to the NT.) Such common Hebraic expressions as “he arose and went,” “he opened his lips and spoke,” “he lifted up his eyes and saw,” and “he lifted up his voice and wept” illustrate the pictorial strength of the language.<\/p>\nMany profound theological expressions of the OT are tightly bound up with Hebrew language and grammar. Even the most sacred name of God himself, “the Lord<\/span>” (Yahweh), is directly related to the Hebrew verb “to be” (or perhaps “to cause to be”). Many other names of persons and places in the OT can best be understood only with a working knowledge of Hebrew.<\/p>\nHebrew Script and Grammar<\/p>\n<h5>Alphabet and Script<\/h5>\nThe Hebrew alphabet consists of 22 consonants; signs for vowels were devised and added late in the language’s history. The origin of the alphabet is unknown. The oldest examples of a Canaanite alphabet were preserved in the Ugaritic cuneiform alphabet of the 14th century BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nThe old style of writing the letters is called the Phoenician or paleo-Hebrew script. It is the predecessor of the Greek and other Western alphabets. The script used in modern Hebrew Bibles (Aramaic or square script) came into vogue after Israel’s exile into Babylon (sixth century BC<\/span>). The older style was still used sporadically in the early Christian era on coins and for writing God’s name (as in the Dead Sea Scrolls). Hebrew has always been written right to left.<\/p>\n\n<h5>Consonants<\/h5>\nThe Canaanite alphabet of the Phoenician and Moabite languages had 22 consonants. The older Canaanite language reflected in Ugaritic had more consonants. Arabic also preserves some Old Canaanite consonants found in Ugaritic but missing in Hebrew.<\/p>\n<h5>Vowels<\/h5>\nIn the original consonantal Hebrew script, vowels were simply understood by the writer or reader. On the basis of tradition and context, the reader would supply whatever vowels were needed, much as is done in English abbreviations (“bldg.” for “building”; “blvd.” for “boulevard”). After the collapse of the nation in AD<\/span> 70, the dispersion of the Jews and the destruction of Jerusalem led to Hebrew’s becoming a “dead language,” no longer widely spoken. Loss of traditional pronunciation and understanding then became more of a possibility, so Jewish scribes felt a need for permanently establishing the vowel sounds.<\/p>\nFirst, vowel letters called “mothers of reading” (matres lectionis)<\/em> were added. These were consonants used especially to indicate long vowels. These were added before the Christian era, as the Dead Sea Scrolls reveal.<\/p>\nLater (about the fifth century AD<\/span>), the scribes called Masoretes added vowel signs to indicate short vowels. At least three different systems of vowel signs were employed at different times and places. The text used today represents the system devised by Masoretic scribes who worked in the city of Tiberias. The vowels, each of which may be long or short, are indicated by dots or dashes placed above or below the consonants. Certain combinations of dots and dashes represent very short vowel sounds, or “half-vowels.”<\/p>\n<h5>Linkage<\/h5>\nHebrew joins together many words that in Western languages would be written separately. Some prepositions (be<\/span>-, “in”; le<\/span>-, “to”; ke<\/span>-, “like”) are prefixed directly to the noun or verb that they introduce, as are the definite article ha<\/span>-, “the” and the conjunction wa<\/span>-, “and.” Suffixes are used for pronouns, either in the possessive or accusative relationship. The same word may simultaneously have both a prefix and a suffix.<\/p>\n<h5>Nouns<\/h5>\nHebrew has no neuter gender; everything is masculine or feminine. Inanimate objects may be either masculine or feminine, depending on the formation or character of the word. Usually, abstract ideas or words indicating a group are feminine. Nouns are derived from roots and are formed in various ways, either by vowel modification or by adding prefixes or suffixes to the root. Contrary to Greek and many Western languages, compound nouns are not characteristic of Hebrew.<\/p>\nThe Hebrew plural is formed by adding -im<\/span> for masculine nouns (<\/em>seraphim, cherubim<\/span>)<\/em> and -oth<\/span> for feminine nouns.<\/p>\nThree original case endings indicating nominative, genitive, and accusative have dropped away during the evolution of Hebrew. To compensate for the lack of case endings, Hebrew resorts to various indicators. Indirect objects are indicated by the preposition le<\/span>-, “to”; direct objects by the objective sign ’eth<\/span>;<\/em> the genitive relationship by putting the word before the genitive in the “construct state,” or shortened form.<\/p>\n<h5>Adjectives<\/h5>\nHebrew is deficient in adjectives. “A double heart” is indicated in the original Hebrew by “a heart and a heart” (Ps 12:2), and “two differing weights” is actually “a stone and a stone” (Dt 25:13); “the whole royal family” is “the seed of the kingdom” (2 Kgs 11:1).<\/p>\nAdjectives that do exist in Hebrew have no comparative or superlative forms. Relationship is indicated by the preposition “from.” “Better than you” is expressed literally in Hebrew “good from you.” “The serpent was more subtle than any other beast” is literally “the serpent was subtle from every beast” (Gn 3:1). The superlative is expressed by several different constructions. The idea “very deep” is literally “deep, deep” (Eccl 7:24); the “best song” is literally “song of songs” (compare “king of kings”); “holiest” is literally “holy, holy, holy” (Is 6:3).<\/p>\n<h5>Verbs<\/h5>\nHebrew verbs are formed from a root usually consisting of three letters. From such roots, verbal forms are developed by a change of vowels or by adding prefixes or suffixes. The root consonants provide the semantic backbone of the language and give a stability of meaning not characteristic of Western languages. The vowels are quite flexible, giving Hebrew considerable elasticity.<\/p>\nHebrew verb usage is not characterized by precise definition of tenses. Hebrew tenses, especially in poetry, are largely determined by context. The two tense formations are the perfect (completed action) and imperfect (incomplete action). The imperfect is ambiguous. It represents the indicative mood (present, past, future) but may also represent such moods as the imperative, optative, and jussive or cohortative. A distinctive usage of the perfect tense is the “prophetic perfect,” where the perfect form represents a future event considered so sure that it is expressed as past (e.g., see Is 5:13, kjv<\/span>).<\/p>\nStyle<\/p>\n<h5>Vocabulary<\/h5>\nMost Hebrew roots originally expressed some physical action or denoted some natural object. The verb “to decide” originally meant “to cut”; “to be true” originally meant “to be firmly fixed”; “to be right” meant “to be straight”; “to be honorable” meant “to be heavy.”<\/p>\nAbstract terms are alien to the character of Hebrew; for example, biblical Hebrew has no specific words for “theology,” “philosophy,” or “religion.” Intellectual or theological concepts are expressed by concrete terms. The abstract idea of sin is represented by such words as “to miss the mark” or “crooked” or “rebellion” or “trespass” (“to cross over”). Mind or intellect is expressed by “heart” or “kidneys,” and emotion or compassion by “bowels” (see Is 63:15, kjv<\/span>). Other concrete terms in Hebrew are “horn” for strength or vigor, “bones” for self, and “seed” for descendants. A mental quality is often depicted by the part of the body thought of as its most appropriate embodiment. Strength can be represented by “arm” or “hand,” anger by “nostril,” displeasure by “falling face,” acceptance by “shining face,” thinking by “say.”<\/p>\nSome translators have attempted to represent a Hebrew word always by the same English word, but that leads to serious problems. Sometimes there is considerable disagreement on the exact shade of meaning of a Hebrew word in a given passage. A single root frequently represents a variety of meanings, depending on usage and context. The word for “bless” can also mean “curse, greet, favor, praise.” The word for “judgment” is used also for “justice, verdict, penalty, ordinance, duty, custom, manner.” The word for “strength” or “power” also means “army, virtue, worth, courage.”<\/p>\nFurther ambiguity arises from the fact that some Hebrew consonants stand for two different original consonants that have merged in the evolution of the language. Two words that on the surface appear to be identical may be traced back to two different roots. For an example of this phenomenon in English, compare “bass” (a fish) with “bass” (a vocalist).<\/p>\n<h5>Syntax<\/h5>\nHebrew syntax is relatively uncomplicated. Few subordinating conjunctions (“if,” “when,” “because,” etc.) are used; sentences are usually coordinated by using the simple conjunction “and.” English translations of biblical texts generally try to show the logical connection between successive sentences, even though it is not always clear. In Genesis 1:2–3:1, all but three of the 56 verses begin with “and,” yet the nlt<\/span> translates that conjunction variously as “then” (1:3), “so” (v 27), “so” (2:1), and “instead” (v 6).<\/p>\nHebrew style is enlivened by use of direct discourse. The narrator does not simply state that “such and such a person said that . . .” (indirect discourse). Instead, the parties speak for themselves (direct discourse), creating a freshness that remains even after repeated reading.<\/p>\n<h5>Poetry<\/h5>\nHebrew poetry uses a variety of rhetorical devices. Some of them—such as assonance, alliteration, and acrostics—can be appreciated only in the original Hebrew. But parallelism, the most important characteristic of Hebrew poetry, is evident even in English translation. Among the many forms of parallelism possible, four common categories exist: (1) synonymous, a repeating style in which parallel lines say the same thing in different words; (2) antithetic, a contrasting style in which contrary thoughts are expressed; (3) completive, with a completing parallel line filling out the thought of the first; (4) climactic, in which an ascending parallel line picks up something from the first line and repeats it. Numerous other forms of parallelism enrich Hebrew poetry. The possible varations of parallelism are almost endless.<\/p>\n<h5>Figures of Speech<\/h5>\nHebrew abounds in expressive figures of speech based on the Hebrew people’s character and way of life. Certain odd but well-known expressions found in English literature come from the Hebrew style, like “apple of his eye” (Dt 32:10; Ps 17:8; Prv 7:2; Zec 2:8) and “skin of my teeth” (Job 19:20). Some of the more striking Hebrew modes of expression are hard to transfer into English, such as “to uncover the ear,” meaning “to disclose, reveal.” Others are more familiar, like “to stiffen the neck” for “to be stubborn, rebellious”; “to bend or incline the ear” for “to listen closely.”<\/p>\nLegacy<\/p>\nEnglish and a number of other modern languages have been enriched by Hebrew. English even contains a number of Hebrew “loan words.” Some of these have had wide influence (“amen,” “hallelujah,” “jubilee”). Many Hebrew proper nouns are used in modern languages for persons and places, such as David, Jonathan\/John, Miriam\/Mary, Bethlehem (the name of several towns and cities in the United States).<\/p>\nMany common Hebrew expressions have been unconsciously accepted into English figures of speech, as in “mouth of the cave” and “face of the earth.” Some figures, such as “east of Eden,” have been used as titles for books and films.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>HEBREW LANGUAGE<\/h3>\nLanguage of the Jewish people. The name Hebrew is not applied by the OT to its own language, although the NT does use the name that way. In the OT, “Hebrew” means the individual or people who used the language. The language itself is called “the language of Canaan” (Is 19:18, nlt<\/span> mg) or “the language of Judah” (Neh 13:24).<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Origin and History<\/p>\n• Family of Languages<\/p>\n• Character<\/p>\n• Hebrew Script and Grammar<\/p>\n• Style<\/p>\n• Legacy<\/p>\nOrigin and History<\/p>\nIn the Middle Ages a common view was that Hebrew was the primitive language of humankind. Even in colonial America, Hebrew was still referred to as “the mother of all languages.” Linguistic scholarship has now made this theory untenable.<\/p>\nHebrew is actually one of several Canaanite dialects that included Phoenician, Ugaritic, and Moabite. Other Canaanite dialects (for example, Ammonite) existed but have left insufficient inscriptions for scholarly investigation. Such dialects were already present in the land of Canaan before its conquest by the Israelites.<\/p>\nUntil about 1974, the oldest witnesses to Canaanite language were found in the Ugarit and Amarna records dating from the 14th and 15th centuries BC<\/span>. A few Canaanite words and expressions appeared in earlier Egyptian records, but the origin of Canaanite has been uncertain. Between 1974 and 1976, however, nearly 17,000 tablets were dug up at Tell Mardikh (ancient Ebla) in northern Syria, written in a previously unknown Semitic dialect. Because they possibly date back to 2400 BC<\/span> (perhaps even earlier), many scholars think that language may be the “Old Canaanite” that gave rise to Hebrew. By 1977, when another 1,000 tablets were unearthed, only about 100 inscriptions from Ebla had been reported on. Languages change over a long period of time. For example, the English used in the time of Alfred the Great (ninth century AD<\/span>) seems almost like a foreign language to contemporary English speakers. Although Hebrew was no exception to the general principle, like other Semitic languages it remained remarkably stable over many centuries. Poems such as the Song of Deborah (Jgs 5) tended to preserve the language’s oldest form. Changes that took place later in the long history of the language are shown in the presence of archaic words (often preserved in poetic language) and a general difference in style. For example, the book of Job reflects a more archaic style than the book of Esther.<\/p>\nVarious Hebrew dialects apparently existed side by side in OT times, as reflected in the episode involving the pronunciation of the Hebrew word “shibboleth\/sibboleth” (Jgs 12:4-6). It seems that the Israelites east of the Jordan pronounced the initial letter with a strong “sh” sound, while those in Canaan gave it the simple “s” sound. Scholars have also identified features of Hebrew that could be described as reflecting the northern or southern parts of the country.<\/p>\nFamily of Languages<\/p>\nHebrew belongs to the Semitic family of languages; these languages were used from the Mediterranean Sea to the mountains east of the Euphrates River valley, and from Armenia (Turkey) in the north to the southern extremity of the Arabian peninsula. Semitic languages are classified as Southern (Arabic and Ethiopic), Eastern (Akkadian), and Northwestern (Aramaic, Syriac, and Canaanite—Hebrew, Phoenician, Ugaritic, and Moabite).<\/p>\nCharacter<\/p>\nHebrew, like the other early Semitic languages, concentrates on observation more than reflection. That is, things are generally observed according to their appearance as phenomena, not analyzed as to their inward being or essence. Effects are observed but not traced through a series of causes.<\/p>\nHebrew’s vividness, conciseness, and simplicity make the language difficult to translate fully. It is amazingly concise and direct. For example, Psalm 23 contains 55 words; most translations require about twice that many to translate it. The first two lines, with slashes separating the individual Hebrew words in the original, read:<\/p>\nThe Lord\/[is] my shepherd\/<\/p>\nI shall want\/not<\/p>\nThus eight English words are required to translate four Hebrew words.<\/p>\nHebrew does not use separate, distinct expressions for every shade of thought. Someone has said, “The Semites have been the quarries whose great rough blocks the Greeks have trimmed, polished, and fitted together. The former gave religion; the latter philosophy.”<\/p>\nHebrew is a pictorial language in which the past is not merely described but verbally painted. Not just a landscape is presented but a moving panorama. The course of events is reenacted in the mind’s sight. (Note the frequent use of “behold,” a Hebraism carried over to the NT.) Such common Hebraic expressions as “he arose and went,” “he opened his lips and spoke,” “he lifted up his eyes and saw,” and “he lifted up his voice and wept” illustrate the pictorial strength of the language.<\/p>\nMany profound theological expressions of the OT are tightly bound up with Hebrew language and grammar. Even the most sacred name of God himself, “the Lord<\/span>” (Yahweh), is directly related to the Hebrew verb “to be” (or perhaps “to cause to be”). Many other names of persons and places in the OT can best be understood only with a working knowledge of Hebrew.<\/p>\nHebrew Script and Grammar<\/p>\n<h5>Alphabet and Script<\/h5>\nThe Hebrew alphabet consists of 22 consonants; signs for vowels were devised and added late in the language’s history. The origin of the alphabet is unknown. The oldest examples of a Canaanite alphabet were preserved in the Ugaritic cuneiform alphabet of the 14th century BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nThe old style of writing the letters is called the Phoenician or paleo-Hebrew script. It is the predecessor of the Greek and other Western alphabets. The script used in modern Hebrew Bibles (Aramaic or square script) came into vogue after Israel’s exile into Babylon (sixth century BC<\/span>). The older style was still used sporadically in the early Christian era on coins and for writing God’s name (as in the Dead Sea Scrolls). Hebrew has always been written right to left.<\/p>\n\n<h5>Consonants<\/h5>\nThe Canaanite alphabet of the Phoenician and Moabite languages had 22 consonants. The older Canaanite language reflected in Ugaritic had more consonants. Arabic also preserves some Old Canaanite consonants found in Ugaritic but missing in Hebrew.<\/p>\n<h5>Vowels<\/h5>\nIn the original consonantal Hebrew script, vowels were simply understood by the writer or reader. On the basis of tradition and context, the reader would supply whatever vowels were needed, much as is done in English abbreviations (“bldg.” for “building”; “blvd.” for “boulevard”). After the collapse of the nation in AD<\/span> 70, the dispersion of the Jews and the destruction of Jerusalem led to Hebrew’s becoming a “dead language,” no longer widely spoken. Loss of traditional pronunciation and understanding then became more of a possibility, so Jewish scribes felt a need for permanently establishing the vowel sounds.<\/p>\nFirst, vowel letters called “mothers of reading” (matres lectionis)<\/em> were added. These were consonants used especially to indicate long vowels. These were added before the Christian era, as the Dead Sea Scrolls reveal.<\/p>\nLater (about the fifth century AD<\/span>), the scribes called Masoretes added vowel signs to indicate short vowels. At least three different systems of vowel signs were employed at different times and places. The text used today represents the system devised by Masoretic scribes who worked in the city of Tiberias. The vowels, each of which may be long or short, are indicated by dots or dashes placed above or below the consonants. Certain combinations of dots and dashes represent very short vowel sounds, or “half-vowels.”<\/p>\n<h5>Linkage<\/h5>\nHebrew joins together many words that in Western languages would be written separately. Some prepositions (be<\/span>-, “in”; le<\/span>-, “to”; ke<\/span>-, “like”) are prefixed directly to the noun or verb that they introduce, as are the definite article ha<\/span>-, “the” and the conjunction wa<\/span>-, “and.” Suffixes are used for pronouns, either in the possessive or accusative relationship. The same word may simultaneously have both a prefix and a suffix.<\/p>\n<h5>Nouns<\/h5>\nHebrew has no neuter gender; everything is masculine or feminine. Inanimate objects may be either masculine or feminine, depending on the formation or character of the word. Usually, abstract ideas or words indicating a group are feminine. Nouns are derived from roots and are formed in various ways, either by vowel modification or by adding prefixes or suffixes to the root. Contrary to Greek and many Western languages, compound nouns are not characteristic of Hebrew.<\/p>\nThe Hebrew plural is formed by adding -im<\/span> for masculine nouns (<\/em>seraphim, cherubim<\/span>)<\/em> and -oth<\/span> for feminine nouns.<\/p>\nThree original case endings indicating nominative, genitive, and accusative have dropped away during the evolution of Hebrew. To compensate for the lack of case endings, Hebrew resorts to various indicators. Indirect objects are indicated by the preposition le<\/span>-, “to”; direct objects by the objective sign ’eth<\/span>;<\/em> the genitive relationship by putting the word before the genitive in the “construct state,” or shortened form.<\/p>\n<h5>Adjectives<\/h5>\nHebrew is deficient in adjectives. “A double heart” is indicated in the original Hebrew by “a heart and a heart” (Ps 12:2), and “two differing weights” is actually “a stone and a stone” (Dt 25:13); “the whole royal family” is “the seed of the kingdom” (2 Kgs 11:1).<\/p>\nAdjectives that do exist in Hebrew have no comparative or superlative forms. Relationship is indicated by the preposition “from.” “Better than you” is expressed literally in Hebrew “good from you.” “The serpent was more subtle than any other beast” is literally “the serpent was subtle from every beast” (Gn 3:1). The superlative is expressed by several different constructions. The idea “very deep” is literally “deep, deep” (Eccl 7:24); the “best song” is literally “song of songs” (compare “king of kings”); “holiest” is literally “holy, holy, holy” (Is 6:3).<\/p>\n<h5>Verbs<\/h5>\nHebrew verbs are formed from a root usually consisting of three letters. From such roots, verbal forms are developed by a change of vowels or by adding prefixes or suffixes. The root consonants provide the semantic backbone of the language and give a stability of meaning not characteristic of Western languages. The vowels are quite flexible, giving Hebrew considerable elasticity.<\/p>\nHebrew verb usage is not characterized by precise definition of tenses. Hebrew tenses, especially in poetry, are largely determined by context. The two tense formations are the perfect (completed action) and imperfect (incomplete action). The imperfect is ambiguous. It represents the indicative mood (present, past, future) but may also represent such moods as the imperative, optative, and jussive or cohortative. A distinctive usage of the perfect tense is the “prophetic perfect,” where the perfect form represents a future event considered so sure that it is expressed as past (e.g., see Is 5:13, kjv<\/span>).<\/p>\nStyle<\/p>\n<h5>Vocabulary<\/h5>\nMost Hebrew roots originally expressed some physical action or denoted some natural object. The verb “to decide” originally meant “to cut”; “to be true” originally meant “to be firmly fixed”; “to be right” meant “to be straight”; “to be honorable” meant “to be heavy.”<\/p>\nAbstract terms are alien to the character of Hebrew; for example, biblical Hebrew has no specific words for “theology,” “philosophy,” or “religion.” Intellectual or theological concepts are expressed by concrete terms. The abstract idea of sin is represented by such words as “to miss the mark” or “crooked” or “rebellion” or “trespass” (“to cross over”). Mind or intellect is expressed by “heart” or “kidneys,” and emotion or compassion by “bowels” (see Is 63:15, kjv<\/span>). Other concrete terms in Hebrew are “horn” for strength or vigor, “bones” for self, and “seed” for descendants. A mental quality is often depicted by the part of the body thought of as its most appropriate embodiment. Strength can be represented by “arm” or “hand,” anger by “nostril,” displeasure by “falling face,” acceptance by “shining face,” thinking by “say.”<\/p>\nSome translators have attempted to represent a Hebrew word always by the same English word, but that leads to serious problems. Sometimes there is considerable disagreement on the exact shade of meaning of a Hebrew word in a given passage. A single root frequently represents a variety of meanings, depending on usage and context. The word for “bless” can also mean “curse, greet, favor, praise.” The word for “judgment” is used also for “justice, verdict, penalty, ordinance, duty, custom, manner.” The word for “strength” or “power” also means “army, virtue, worth, courage.”<\/p>\nFurther ambiguity arises from the fact that some Hebrew consonants stand for two different original consonants that have merged in the evolution of the language. Two words that on the surface appear to be identical may be traced back to two different roots. For an example of this phenomenon in English, compare “bass” (a fish) with “bass” (a vocalist).<\/p>\n<h5>Syntax<\/h5>\nHebrew syntax is relatively uncomplicated. Few subordinating conjunctions (“if,” “when,” “because,” etc.) are used; sentences are usually coordinated by using the simple conjunction “and.” English translations of biblical texts generally try to show the logical connection between successive sentences, even though it is not always clear. In Genesis 1:2–3:1, all but three of the 56 verses begin with “and,” yet the nlt<\/span> translates that conjunction variously as “then” (1:3), “so” (v 27), “so” (2:1), and “instead” (v 6).<\/p>\nHebrew style is enlivened by use of direct discourse. The narrator does not simply state that “such and such a person said that . . .” (indirect discourse). Instead, the parties speak for themselves (direct discourse), creating a freshness that remains even after repeated reading.<\/p>\n<h5>Poetry<\/h5>\nHebrew poetry uses a variety of rhetorical devices. Some of them—such as assonance, alliteration, and acrostics—can be appreciated only in the original Hebrew. But parallelism, the most important characteristic of Hebrew poetry, is evident even in English translation. Among the many forms of parallelism possible, four common categories exist: (1) synonymous, a repeating style in which parallel lines say the same thing in different words; (2) antithetic, a contrasting style in which contrary thoughts are expressed; (3) completive, with a completing parallel line filling out the thought of the first; (4) climactic, in which an ascending parallel line picks up something from the first line and repeats it. Numerous other forms of parallelism enrich Hebrew poetry. The possible varations of parallelism are almost endless.<\/p>\n<h5>Figures of Speech<\/h5>\nHebrew abounds in expressive figures of speech based on the Hebrew people’s character and way of life. Certain odd but well-known expressions found in English literature come from the Hebrew style, like “apple of his eye” (Dt 32:10; Ps 17:8; Prv 7:2; Zec 2:8) and “skin of my teeth” (Job 19:20). Some of the more striking Hebrew modes of expression are hard to transfer into English, such as “to uncover the ear,” meaning “to disclose, reveal.” Others are more familiar, like “to stiffen the neck” for “to be stubborn, rebellious”; “to bend or incline the ear” for “to listen closely.”<\/p>\nLegacy<\/p>\nEnglish and a number of other modern languages have been enriched by Hebrew. English even contains a number of Hebrew “loan words.” Some of these have had wide influence (“amen,” “hallelujah,” “jubilee”). Many Hebrew proper nouns are used in modern languages for persons and places, such as David, Jonathan\/John, Miriam\/Mary, Bethlehem (the name of several towns and cities in the United States).<\/p>\nMany common Hebrew expressions have been unconsciously accepted into English figures of speech, as in “mouth of the cave” and “face of the earth.” Some figures, such as “east of Eden,” have been used as titles for books and films.<\/p>","summary_ro":"HEBREW LANGUAGE Language of the Jewish people. The name Hebrew is not applied by the OT to its own language, although the NT does use the name that way. In the OT, “Hebrew” means the individual or people who used the language. The language itself is called “the language of Canaan” (Is 19:18, nlt mg) or “the language of Judah” (Neh 13:24). Preview • Origin and History • Family of Languages • Character • Hebrew Script and Grammar • Style • Legacy Origin and History In the Middle Ages a common v...","summary_en":"HEBREW LANGUAGE Language of the Jewish people. The name Hebrew is not applied by the OT to its own language, although the NT does use the name that way. In the OT, “Hebrew” means the individual or people who used the language. The language itself is called “the language of Canaan” (Is 19:18, nlt mg) or “the language of Judah” (Neh 13:24). Preview • Origin and History • Family of Languages • Character • Hebrew Script and Grammar • Style • Legacy Origin and History In the Middle Ages a common v...","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":42841,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:6","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:6","content_ro":"2:6<\/strong> springs:<\/em> The word refers to subterranean springs that rose to the surface of the ground.<\/p>","content_en":"2:6<\/strong> springs:<\/em> The word refers to subterranean springs that rose to the surface of the ground.<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:6 springs: The word refers to subterranean springs that rose to the surface of the ground.","summary_en":"2:6 springs: The word refers to subterranean springs that rose to the surface of the ground.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":70467,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:6","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:6","content_ro":"2:6<\/strong> springs:<\/em> The word refers to subterranean springs that rose to the surface of the ground.<\/p>","content_en":"2:6<\/strong> springs:<\/em> The word refers to subterranean springs that rose to the surface of the ground.<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:6 springs: The word refers to subterranean springs that rose to the surface of the ground.","summary_en":"2:6 springs: The word refers to subterranean springs that rose to the surface of the ground.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":98093,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:6","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:6","content_ro":"2:6<\/strong> springs:<\/em> The word refers to subterranean springs that rose to the surface of the ground.<\/p>","content_en":"2:6<\/strong> springs:<\/em> The word refers to subterranean springs that rose to the surface of the ground.<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:6 springs: The word refers to subterranean springs that rose to the surface of the ground.","summary_en":"2:6 springs: The word refers to subterranean springs that rose to the surface of the ground.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":125719,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:6","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:6","content_ro":"2:6<\/strong> springs:<\/em> The word refers to subterranean springs that rose to the surface of the ground.<\/p>","content_en":"2:6<\/strong> springs:<\/em> The word refers to subterranean springs that rose to the surface of the ground.<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:6 springs: The word refers to subterranean springs that rose to the surface of the ground.","summary_en":"2:6 springs: The word refers to subterranean springs that rose to the surface of the ground.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"7":[{"id":40449,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Adam and Eve","title_en":"Adam and Eve","content_ro":"<h3>Adam and Eve<\/h3>\nAdam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17).<\/p>\nGod created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity that God intended for man and woman in marriage (2:23-25). She is honored as “the mother of all who live” (3:20).<\/p>\nAfter the serpent deceived Eve into rejecting God’s rule, Adam also rebelled (3:1-6). Their willful disobedience disrupted their relationship (3:7) and separated them from God. God looked for Adam after his rebellion; he and Eve were hiding among the trees, already aware of the alienation (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam blamed Eve and, by implication, God (3:12). Their rebellion brought pain, strained relationships, hardship in governing the earth, and death—physical and spiritual (3:16-19, 22-24). Nonetheless, God provided animal skins to cover Adam and Eve (3:21), and promised that Eve’s offspring would defeat Satan (3:15; see Rom 16:20; Rev 12:1-9; 20:1-10).<\/p>\nAdam was a historical individual (Gen 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tim 2:13-14; Jude 1:14) who also represents humanity as a whole. God’s mandates (Gen 1:26-30) and curses (3:16-19) affected not only Adam and Eve, but the entire human race. Adam represents separation from God, which all humanity experiences.<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul contrasted those represented by Adam, the first man, with those who follow Christ, the “last Adam” (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:45-50; see also Rom 8:5-11, 20-22). Those represented by Adam live only after his example—they partake of his sin, his alienation from God and God’s creation, and his spiritual death. By contrast, those who follow Christ live by faith in him. They are recreated in Christ’s image and become “new people” who partake of a new creation (see Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The barriers Adam and Eve raised are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16); Christ restores what they lost.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:26-31; 2:4–3:24; 4:25–5:5; Hos 6:6-7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:22, 45-49; 1 Tim 2:13-14<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Adam and Eve<\/h3>\nAdam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17).<\/p>\nGod created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity that God intended for man and woman in marriage (2:23-25). She is honored as “the mother of all who live” (3:20).<\/p>\nAfter the serpent deceived Eve into rejecting God’s rule, Adam also rebelled (3:1-6). Their willful disobedience disrupted their relationship (3:7) and separated them from God. God looked for Adam after his rebellion; he and Eve were hiding among the trees, already aware of the alienation (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam blamed Eve and, by implication, God (3:12). Their rebellion brought pain, strained relationships, hardship in governing the earth, and death—physical and spiritual (3:16-19, 22-24). Nonetheless, God provided animal skins to cover Adam and Eve (3:21), and promised that Eve’s offspring would defeat Satan (3:15; see Rom 16:20; Rev 12:1-9; 20:1-10).<\/p>\nAdam was a historical individual (Gen 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tim 2:13-14; Jude 1:14) who also represents humanity as a whole. God’s mandates (Gen 1:26-30) and curses (3:16-19) affected not only Adam and Eve, but the entire human race. Adam represents separation from God, which all humanity experiences.<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul contrasted those represented by Adam, the first man, with those who follow Christ, the “last Adam” (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:45-50; see also Rom 8:5-11, 20-22). Those represented by Adam live only after his example—they partake of his sin, his alienation from God and God’s creation, and his spiritual death. By contrast, those who follow Christ live by faith in him. They are recreated in Christ’s image and become “new people” who partake of a new creation (see Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The barriers Adam and Eve raised are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16); Christ restores what they lost.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:26-31; 2:4–3:24; 4:25–5:5; Hos 6:6-7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:22, 45-49; 1 Tim 2:13-14<\/p>","summary_ro":"Adam and Eve Adam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17). God created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity...","summary_en":"Adam and Eve Adam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17). God created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":68075,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Adam and Eve","title_en":"Adam and Eve","content_ro":"<h3>Adam and Eve<\/h3>\nAdam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17).<\/p>\nGod created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity that God intended for man and woman in marriage (2:23-25). She is honored as “the mother of all who live” (3:20).<\/p>\nAfter the serpent deceived Eve into rejecting God’s rule, Adam also rebelled (3:1-6). Their willful disobedience disrupted their relationship (3:7) and separated them from God. God looked for Adam after his rebellion; he and Eve were hiding among the trees, already aware of the alienation (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam blamed Eve and, by implication, God (3:12). Their rebellion brought pain, strained relationships, hardship in governing the earth, and death—physical and spiritual (3:16-19, 22-24). Nonetheless, God provided animal skins to cover Adam and Eve (3:21), and promised that Eve’s offspring would defeat Satan (3:15; see Rom 16:20; Rev 12:1-9; 20:1-10).<\/p>\nAdam was a historical individual (Gen 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tim 2:13-14; Jude 1:14) who also represents humanity as a whole. God’s mandates (Gen 1:26-30) and curses (3:16-19) affected not only Adam and Eve, but the entire human race. Adam represents separation from God, which all humanity experiences.<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul contrasted those represented by Adam, the first man, with those who follow Christ, the “last Adam” (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:45-50; see also Rom 8:5-11, 20-22). Those represented by Adam live only after his example—they partake of his sin, his alienation from God and God’s creation, and his spiritual death. By contrast, those who follow Christ live by faith in him. They are recreated in Christ’s image and become “new people” who partake of a new creation (see Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The barriers Adam and Eve raised are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16); Christ restores what they lost.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:26-31; 2:4–3:24; 4:25–5:5; Hos 6:6-7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:22, 45-49; 1 Tim 2:13-14<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Adam and Eve<\/h3>\nAdam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17).<\/p>\nGod created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity that God intended for man and woman in marriage (2:23-25). She is honored as “the mother of all who live” (3:20).<\/p>\nAfter the serpent deceived Eve into rejecting God’s rule, Adam also rebelled (3:1-6). Their willful disobedience disrupted their relationship (3:7) and separated them from God. God looked for Adam after his rebellion; he and Eve were hiding among the trees, already aware of the alienation (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam blamed Eve and, by implication, God (3:12). Their rebellion brought pain, strained relationships, hardship in governing the earth, and death—physical and spiritual (3:16-19, 22-24). Nonetheless, God provided animal skins to cover Adam and Eve (3:21), and promised that Eve’s offspring would defeat Satan (3:15; see Rom 16:20; Rev 12:1-9; 20:1-10).<\/p>\nAdam was a historical individual (Gen 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tim 2:13-14; Jude 1:14) who also represents humanity as a whole. God’s mandates (Gen 1:26-30) and curses (3:16-19) affected not only Adam and Eve, but the entire human race. Adam represents separation from God, which all humanity experiences.<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul contrasted those represented by Adam, the first man, with those who follow Christ, the “last Adam” (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:45-50; see also Rom 8:5-11, 20-22). Those represented by Adam live only after his example—they partake of his sin, his alienation from God and God’s creation, and his spiritual death. By contrast, those who follow Christ live by faith in him. They are recreated in Christ’s image and become “new people” who partake of a new creation (see Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The barriers Adam and Eve raised are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16); Christ restores what they lost.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:26-31; 2:4–3:24; 4:25–5:5; Hos 6:6-7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:22, 45-49; 1 Tim 2:13-14<\/p>","summary_ro":"Adam and Eve Adam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17). God created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity...","summary_en":"Adam and Eve Adam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17). God created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":95701,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Adam and Eve","title_en":"Adam and Eve","content_ro":"<h3>Adam and Eve<\/h3>\nAdam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17).<\/p>\nGod created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity that God intended for man and woman in marriage (2:23-25). She is honored as “the mother of all who live” (3:20).<\/p>\nAfter the serpent deceived Eve into rejecting God’s rule, Adam also rebelled (3:1-6). Their willful disobedience disrupted their relationship (3:7) and separated them from God. God looked for Adam after his rebellion; he and Eve were hiding among the trees, already aware of the alienation (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam blamed Eve and, by implication, God (3:12). Their rebellion brought pain, strained relationships, hardship in governing the earth, and death—physical and spiritual (3:16-19, 22-24). Nonetheless, God provided animal skins to cover Adam and Eve (3:21), and promised that Eve’s offspring would defeat Satan (3:15; see Rom 16:20; Rev 12:1-9; 20:1-10).<\/p>\nAdam was a historical individual (Gen 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tim 2:13-14; Jude 1:14) who also represents humanity as a whole. God’s mandates (Gen 1:26-30) and curses (3:16-19) affected not only Adam and Eve, but the entire human race. Adam represents separation from God, which all humanity experiences.<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul contrasted those represented by Adam, the first man, with those who follow Christ, the “last Adam” (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:45-50; see also Rom 8:5-11, 20-22). Those represented by Adam live only after his example—they partake of his sin, his alienation from God and God’s creation, and his spiritual death. By contrast, those who follow Christ live by faith in him. They are recreated in Christ’s image and become “new people” who partake of a new creation (see Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The barriers Adam and Eve raised are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16); Christ restores what they lost.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:26-31; 2:4–3:24; 4:25–5:5; Hos 6:6-7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:22, 45-49; 1 Tim 2:13-14<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Adam and Eve<\/h3>\nAdam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17).<\/p>\nGod created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity that God intended for man and woman in marriage (2:23-25). She is honored as “the mother of all who live” (3:20).<\/p>\nAfter the serpent deceived Eve into rejecting God’s rule, Adam also rebelled (3:1-6). Their willful disobedience disrupted their relationship (3:7) and separated them from God. God looked for Adam after his rebellion; he and Eve were hiding among the trees, already aware of the alienation (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam blamed Eve and, by implication, God (3:12). Their rebellion brought pain, strained relationships, hardship in governing the earth, and death—physical and spiritual (3:16-19, 22-24). Nonetheless, God provided animal skins to cover Adam and Eve (3:21), and promised that Eve’s offspring would defeat Satan (3:15; see Rom 16:20; Rev 12:1-9; 20:1-10).<\/p>\nAdam was a historical individual (Gen 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tim 2:13-14; Jude 1:14) who also represents humanity as a whole. God’s mandates (Gen 1:26-30) and curses (3:16-19) affected not only Adam and Eve, but the entire human race. Adam represents separation from God, which all humanity experiences.<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul contrasted those represented by Adam, the first man, with those who follow Christ, the “last Adam” (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:45-50; see also Rom 8:5-11, 20-22). Those represented by Adam live only after his example—they partake of his sin, his alienation from God and God’s creation, and his spiritual death. By contrast, those who follow Christ live by faith in him. They are recreated in Christ’s image and become “new people” who partake of a new creation (see Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The barriers Adam and Eve raised are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16); Christ restores what they lost.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:26-31; 2:4–3:24; 4:25–5:5; Hos 6:6-7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:22, 45-49; 1 Tim 2:13-14<\/p>","summary_ro":"Adam and Eve Adam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17). God created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity...","summary_en":"Adam and Eve Adam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17). God created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":123327,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Adam and Eve","title_en":"Adam and Eve","content_ro":"<h3>Adam and Eve<\/h3>\nAdam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17).<\/p>\nGod created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity that God intended for man and woman in marriage (2:23-25). She is honored as “the mother of all who live” (3:20).<\/p>\nAfter the serpent deceived Eve into rejecting God’s rule, Adam also rebelled (3:1-6). Their willful disobedience disrupted their relationship (3:7) and separated them from God. God looked for Adam after his rebellion; he and Eve were hiding among the trees, already aware of the alienation (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam blamed Eve and, by implication, God (3:12). Their rebellion brought pain, strained relationships, hardship in governing the earth, and death—physical and spiritual (3:16-19, 22-24). Nonetheless, God provided animal skins to cover Adam and Eve (3:21), and promised that Eve’s offspring would defeat Satan (3:15; see Rom 16:20; Rev 12:1-9; 20:1-10).<\/p>\nAdam was a historical individual (Gen 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tim 2:13-14; Jude 1:14) who also represents humanity as a whole. God’s mandates (Gen 1:26-30) and curses (3:16-19) affected not only Adam and Eve, but the entire human race. Adam represents separation from God, which all humanity experiences.<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul contrasted those represented by Adam, the first man, with those who follow Christ, the “last Adam” (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:45-50; see also Rom 8:5-11, 20-22). Those represented by Adam live only after his example—they partake of his sin, his alienation from God and God’s creation, and his spiritual death. By contrast, those who follow Christ live by faith in him. They are recreated in Christ’s image and become “new people” who partake of a new creation (see Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The barriers Adam and Eve raised are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16); Christ restores what they lost.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:26-31; 2:4–3:24; 4:25–5:5; Hos 6:6-7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:22, 45-49; 1 Tim 2:13-14<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Adam and Eve<\/h3>\nAdam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17).<\/p>\nGod created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity that God intended for man and woman in marriage (2:23-25). She is honored as “the mother of all who live” (3:20).<\/p>\nAfter the serpent deceived Eve into rejecting God’s rule, Adam also rebelled (3:1-6). Their willful disobedience disrupted their relationship (3:7) and separated them from God. God looked for Adam after his rebellion; he and Eve were hiding among the trees, already aware of the alienation (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam blamed Eve and, by implication, God (3:12). Their rebellion brought pain, strained relationships, hardship in governing the earth, and death—physical and spiritual (3:16-19, 22-24). Nonetheless, God provided animal skins to cover Adam and Eve (3:21), and promised that Eve’s offspring would defeat Satan (3:15; see Rom 16:20; Rev 12:1-9; 20:1-10).<\/p>\nAdam was a historical individual (Gen 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tim 2:13-14; Jude 1:14) who also represents humanity as a whole. God’s mandates (Gen 1:26-30) and curses (3:16-19) affected not only Adam and Eve, but the entire human race. Adam represents separation from God, which all humanity experiences.<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul contrasted those represented by Adam, the first man, with those who follow Christ, the “last Adam” (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:45-50; see also Rom 8:5-11, 20-22). Those represented by Adam live only after his example—they partake of his sin, his alienation from God and God’s creation, and his spiritual death. By contrast, those who follow Christ live by faith in him. They are recreated in Christ’s image and become “new people” who partake of a new creation (see Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The barriers Adam and Eve raised are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16); Christ restores what they lost.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:26-31; 2:4–3:24; 4:25–5:5; Hos 6:6-7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:22, 45-49; 1 Tim 2:13-14<\/p>","summary_ro":"Adam and Eve Adam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17). God created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity...","summary_en":"Adam and Eve Adam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17). God created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":470,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Adam (Person)","title_en":"Adam (Person)","content_ro":"<h3>ADAM (Person<\/span>)<\/h3>\nFirst man and father of the human race. Adam’s role in biblical history is important not only in OT considerations but also in understanding the meaning of salvation and the person and work of Jesus Christ.<\/p>\nThe creation of Adam and the first woman, Eve, is recited in two accounts in the book of Genesis. The intent of the first account (1:26-31) is to present the first pair in their relationship to God and to the rest of the created order. It teaches that with regard to God the first humans were created male and female in God’s image with his specific mandate to populate and rule over the earth. With regard to the rest of creation the first humans were, on one hand, part of it, being created on the same day as other land animals; on the other hand, they were distinctly above it, being the culmination of the creation process and sole bearers of God’s image.<\/p>\nThe intent of the second account is much more specific (2:4–3:24); it seeks to explain the origin of the present human condition of sin and death and to set the stage for the drama of redemption. The story treats in detail aspects of Adam’s creation omitted from the first story. For example, it tells of the formation of Adam from the dust of the ground and of his receiving the breath of life from God (2:7). It recounts the planting of the Garden and the responsibility given to Adam to cultivate it (2:8-15). God’s instruction to Adam that the fruit of every tree in the Garden was his for food, except one, is carefully recorded, as well as the solemn warning that the fruit of the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” was never to be eaten, under the pain of death (2:16-17). Adam’s loneliness after naming the animals and not finding a suitable companion is also described, thus introducing the creation of the first woman (2:18-22). The creation of Eve from Adam’s rib poignantly portrays the essential unity of spirit and purpose of the sexes intended by God.<\/p>\nThe story does not end on such a positive note, however. It moves on to record the great deception Satan played upon Eve through the serpent. By clever insinuations and distortion of God’s original commandment (cf. 3:1 with 2:16-17), the serpent tricked Eve into eating the forbidden fruit and sharing it with Adam. Eve seems to have eaten because she was deceived (1 Tm 2:14), Adam out of a willful and conscious rebellion. Ironically, the two beings originally created in God’s image and likeness believed that they could become “like” God by disobeying him (Gn 3:5).<\/p>\nThe effects of their disobedience were immediate, though not at all what Adam had expected. For the first time a barrier of shame disrupted the unity of man and woman (3:7). More important, a barrier of real moral guilt was erected between the first couple and God. The story relates that when God came looking for Adam after his rebellion, he was hiding among the trees, already aware of his separation from God (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam threw the blame on Eve and, by implication, back on God: “It was the woman you gave me who brought me the fruit” (3:12, nlt<\/span>). Eve in turn blamed the serpent (3:13).<\/p>\nAccording to the story in Genesis, God held all three responsible and informed each one of the calamitous consequences of their rebellion (3:14-19). The two great mandates, originally signs of pure blessing, became mixed with curse and pain—the earth could now be populated only through the woman’s birth pangs and could be subdued only by the man’s labor and perspiration (3:16-18). Further, the unity of man and woman would be strained by man’s subjugation of her, or possibly by the beginning of a struggle for dominance between them (3:16b can be taken both ways). Finally, God pronounced the ultimate consequence: as he had originally warned, Adam and Eve were to die. Someday the breath of life would be taken from them, and their bodies would return to the dust from which they were made (3:19). That very day they also experienced a “spiritual” death; they were separated from God, the giver of life, and from the tree of life, the symbol of eternal life (3:22). God sent them out of Eden, and there was no way back. The entrance to paradise was blocked by the cherubim and flaming sword (3:23-24). Only God could restore what they had lost.<\/p>\nThe story is not devoid of hope. God was merciful even then. He made them garments of skin to cover their bodies and promised that someday the power of Satan behind the serpent would be crushed by the woman’s “seed” (Gn 3:15; cf. Rom 16:20). Many scholars consider that promise to be the first biblical mention of redemption.<\/p>\nThe Significance of Adam<\/p>\nAdam’s significance is based upon several assumptions, the first being that he was a historical individual. That assumption was made by many OT writers (Gn 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7). The NT writers agreed (Lk 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tm 2:13-14; Jude 1:14). Equally essential to Adam’s significance is a second assumption, that he was more than an individual. To begin with, the Hebrew word adam<\/span> (more correctly ’a–dha–m<\/span>) is not merely a proper name. Even in the Genesis story it is not used as a name until Genesis 4:25. The word is one of several Hebrew words meaning “man” and is the generic term for “human race.” In the vast majority of cases it refers either to a male individual (Lv 1:2; Jos 14:15; Neh 9:29; Is 56:2) or to humanity in general (Ex 4:11; Nm 12:3; 16:29; Dt 4:28; 1 Kgs 4:31; Jb 7:20; 14:1). The generic, collective sense of the word adam<\/span> is also behind the phrase “children (or sons) of men” (2 Sm 7:14; Pss 11:4; 12:1; 14:2; 53:2; 90:3; Eccl 1:13; 2:3). That phrase, literally “sons of adam<\/span>,”<\/em> simply means “men” or “human beings,” and when it is used the entire human race is in view. Indeed, the universalistic human connotation of the word adam<\/span> indicates a concern in the OT going far beyond Israel’s nationalistic hopes and its God—to all the earth’s people and the Lord of all nations (Gn 9:5-7; Dt 5:24; 8:3; 1 Kgs 8:38-39; Pss 8:4; 89:48; 107:8-31; Prv 12:14; Mi 6:8).<\/p>\nIt is no accident, then, that the first man was named “Adam” or “Man.” The name intimates that to speak about Adam is somehow also to speak about the entire human race. Such usage can perhaps best be understood through the ancient concept of corporate personality and representation familiar to the Hebrews and other Near Eastern peoples. Modern thinking emphasizes the individual; existence of the social group and all social relationships has been seen as secondary to, and dependent upon, the existence and desire of the individual. The Hebrew understanding was quite different. Though the separate personality of the individual was appreciated (Jer 31:29-30; Ez 18:4), there was a strong tendency to see the social group (family, tribe, nation) as a single organism with a corporate identity of its own. Likewise the group representative was seen as the embodiment or personification of the corporate personality of the group. Within the representative the essential qualities and characteristics of the social group resided in such a way that the actions and decisions of the representative were binding on the entire group. If the group was a family, the father was usually considered the corporate representative; for good or for ill his family, and sometimes his descendants, received the results of his actions (Gn 17:1-8; cf. Gn 20:1-9, 18; Ex 20:5-6; Jos 7:24-25; Rom 11:28; Heb 7:1-10).<\/p>\nAs the original man and father of humankind, in whose image all succeeding generations would be born (Gn 5:3), Adam was the corporate representative of humanity. The creation accounts themselves give the impression that the mandates of Genesis 1:26-30 (cf. Gn 9:1, 7; Pss 8:5-7; 104:14) as well as the curses of Genesis 3:16-19 (cf. Ps 90:3; Eccl 12:7; Is 13:8; 21:3) were meant not only for Adam (and Eve) but, through him, for the entire race.<\/p>\nIn Romans 5:12-21 the apostle Paul contrasted the death and condemnation brought upon humanity by Adam’s disobedience with the life and justification given to humanity through Christ’s obedience. More explicitly, in 1 Corinthians 15:45-50 (rsv<\/span>), Paul called Christ the “last Adam,” “second man,” and the “man of heaven” in juxtaposition to the “first Adam,” the “first man,” and the “man of dust.”<\/p>\nFor Paul, the human race was divided into two groups in the persons of Adam and Christ. Those who remain “incorporated” in Adam are the “old” humanity, bearing the image of the “man of dust” and partaking of his sin and alienation from God and Creation (Rom 5:12-19; 8:20-22). But those who are incorporated into Christ by faith become Christ’s “body” (Rom 12:4-5; 1 Cor 12:12-13, 27; Eph 1:22-23; Col 1:18); they are recreated in Christ’s image (Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 3:18); they become one “new man” (Eph 2:15; 4:24; Col 3:9-10, kjv<\/span>); and they partake of the new creation (2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The old barriers raised by Adam are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16). For Paul, the functional similarity of Adam and Christ as representatives meant that Christ had restored what Adam had lost.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Eve; Man, Old and New; New Creation, New Creature.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>ADAM (Person<\/span>)<\/h3>\nFirst man and father of the human race. Adam’s role in biblical history is important not only in OT considerations but also in understanding the meaning of salvation and the person and work of Jesus Christ.<\/p>\nThe creation of Adam and the first woman, Eve, is recited in two accounts in the book of Genesis. The intent of the first account (1:26-31) is to present the first pair in their relationship to God and to the rest of the created order. It teaches that with regard to God the first humans were created male and female in God’s image with his specific mandate to populate and rule over the earth. With regard to the rest of creation the first humans were, on one hand, part of it, being created on the same day as other land animals; on the other hand, they were distinctly above it, being the culmination of the creation process and sole bearers of God’s image.<\/p>\nThe intent of the second account is much more specific (2:4–3:24); it seeks to explain the origin of the present human condition of sin and death and to set the stage for the drama of redemption. The story treats in detail aspects of Adam’s creation omitted from the first story. For example, it tells of the formation of Adam from the dust of the ground and of his receiving the breath of life from God (2:7). It recounts the planting of the Garden and the responsibility given to Adam to cultivate it (2:8-15). God’s instruction to Adam that the fruit of every tree in the Garden was his for food, except one, is carefully recorded, as well as the solemn warning that the fruit of the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” was never to be eaten, under the pain of death (2:16-17). Adam’s loneliness after naming the animals and not finding a suitable companion is also described, thus introducing the creation of the first woman (2:18-22). The creation of Eve from Adam’s rib poignantly portrays the essential unity of spirit and purpose of the sexes intended by God.<\/p>\nThe story does not end on such a positive note, however. It moves on to record the great deception Satan played upon Eve through the serpent. By clever insinuations and distortion of God’s original commandment (cf. 3:1 with 2:16-17), the serpent tricked Eve into eating the forbidden fruit and sharing it with Adam. Eve seems to have eaten because she was deceived (1 Tm 2:14), Adam out of a willful and conscious rebellion. Ironically, the two beings originally created in God’s image and likeness believed that they could become “like” God by disobeying him (Gn 3:5).<\/p>\nThe effects of their disobedience were immediate, though not at all what Adam had expected. For the first time a barrier of shame disrupted the unity of man and woman (3:7). More important, a barrier of real moral guilt was erected between the first couple and God. The story relates that when God came looking for Adam after his rebellion, he was hiding among the trees, already aware of his separation from God (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam threw the blame on Eve and, by implication, back on God: “It was the woman you gave me who brought me the fruit” (3:12, nlt<\/span>). Eve in turn blamed the serpent (3:13).<\/p>\nAccording to the story in Genesis, God held all three responsible and informed each one of the calamitous consequences of their rebellion (3:14-19). The two great mandates, originally signs of pure blessing, became mixed with curse and pain—the earth could now be populated only through the woman’s birth pangs and could be subdued only by the man’s labor and perspiration (3:16-18). Further, the unity of man and woman would be strained by man’s subjugation of her, or possibly by the beginning of a struggle for dominance between them (3:16b can be taken both ways). Finally, God pronounced the ultimate consequence: as he had originally warned, Adam and Eve were to die. Someday the breath of life would be taken from them, and their bodies would return to the dust from which they were made (3:19). That very day they also experienced a “spiritual” death; they were separated from God, the giver of life, and from the tree of life, the symbol of eternal life (3:22). God sent them out of Eden, and there was no way back. The entrance to paradise was blocked by the cherubim and flaming sword (3:23-24). Only God could restore what they had lost.<\/p>\nThe story is not devoid of hope. God was merciful even then. He made them garments of skin to cover their bodies and promised that someday the power of Satan behind the serpent would be crushed by the woman’s “seed” (Gn 3:15; cf. Rom 16:20). Many scholars consider that promise to be the first biblical mention of redemption.<\/p>\nThe Significance of Adam<\/p>\nAdam’s significance is based upon several assumptions, the first being that he was a historical individual. That assumption was made by many OT writers (Gn 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7). The NT writers agreed (Lk 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tm 2:13-14; Jude 1:14). Equally essential to Adam’s significance is a second assumption, that he was more than an individual. To begin with, the Hebrew word adam<\/span> (more correctly ’a–dha–m<\/span>) is not merely a proper name. Even in the Genesis story it is not used as a name until Genesis 4:25. The word is one of several Hebrew words meaning “man” and is the generic term for “human race.” In the vast majority of cases it refers either to a male individual (Lv 1:2; Jos 14:15; Neh 9:29; Is 56:2) or to humanity in general (Ex 4:11; Nm 12:3; 16:29; Dt 4:28; 1 Kgs 4:31; Jb 7:20; 14:1). The generic, collective sense of the word adam<\/span> is also behind the phrase “children (or sons) of men” (2 Sm 7:14; Pss 11:4; 12:1; 14:2; 53:2; 90:3; Eccl 1:13; 2:3). That phrase, literally “sons of adam<\/span>,”<\/em> simply means “men” or “human beings,” and when it is used the entire human race is in view. Indeed, the universalistic human connotation of the word adam<\/span> indicates a concern in the OT going far beyond Israel’s nationalistic hopes and its God—to all the earth’s people and the Lord of all nations (Gn 9:5-7; Dt 5:24; 8:3; 1 Kgs 8:38-39; Pss 8:4; 89:48; 107:8-31; Prv 12:14; Mi 6:8).<\/p>\nIt is no accident, then, that the first man was named “Adam” or “Man.” The name intimates that to speak about Adam is somehow also to speak about the entire human race. Such usage can perhaps best be understood through the ancient concept of corporate personality and representation familiar to the Hebrews and other Near Eastern peoples. Modern thinking emphasizes the individual; existence of the social group and all social relationships has been seen as secondary to, and dependent upon, the existence and desire of the individual. The Hebrew understanding was quite different. Though the separate personality of the individual was appreciated (Jer 31:29-30; Ez 18:4), there was a strong tendency to see the social group (family, tribe, nation) as a single organism with a corporate identity of its own. Likewise the group representative was seen as the embodiment or personification of the corporate personality of the group. Within the representative the essential qualities and characteristics of the social group resided in such a way that the actions and decisions of the representative were binding on the entire group. If the group was a family, the father was usually considered the corporate representative; for good or for ill his family, and sometimes his descendants, received the results of his actions (Gn 17:1-8; cf. Gn 20:1-9, 18; Ex 20:5-6; Jos 7:24-25; Rom 11:28; Heb 7:1-10).<\/p>\nAs the original man and father of humankind, in whose image all succeeding generations would be born (Gn 5:3), Adam was the corporate representative of humanity. The creation accounts themselves give the impression that the mandates of Genesis 1:26-30 (cf. Gn 9:1, 7; Pss 8:5-7; 104:14) as well as the curses of Genesis 3:16-19 (cf. Ps 90:3; Eccl 12:7; Is 13:8; 21:3) were meant not only for Adam (and Eve) but, through him, for the entire race.<\/p>\nIn Romans 5:12-21 the apostle Paul contrasted the death and condemnation brought upon humanity by Adam’s disobedience with the life and justification given to humanity through Christ’s obedience. More explicitly, in 1 Corinthians 15:45-50 (rsv<\/span>), Paul called Christ the “last Adam,” “second man,” and the “man of heaven” in juxtaposition to the “first Adam,” the “first man,” and the “man of dust.”<\/p>\nFor Paul, the human race was divided into two groups in the persons of Adam and Christ. Those who remain “incorporated” in Adam are the “old” humanity, bearing the image of the “man of dust” and partaking of his sin and alienation from God and Creation (Rom 5:12-19; 8:20-22). But those who are incorporated into Christ by faith become Christ’s “body” (Rom 12:4-5; 1 Cor 12:12-13, 27; Eph 1:22-23; Col 1:18); they are recreated in Christ’s image (Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 3:18); they become one “new man” (Eph 2:15; 4:24; Col 3:9-10, kjv<\/span>); and they partake of the new creation (2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The old barriers raised by Adam are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16). For Paul, the functional similarity of Adam and Christ as representatives meant that Christ had restored what Adam had lost.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Eve; Man, Old and New; New Creation, New Creature.<\/p>","summary_ro":"ADAM (Person) First man and father of the human race. Adam’s role in biblical history is important not only in OT considerations but also in understanding the meaning of salvation and the person and work of Jesus Christ. The creation of Adam and the first woman, Eve, is recited in two accounts in the book of Genesis. The intent of the first account (1:26-31) is to present the first pair in their relationship to God and to the rest of the created order. It teaches that with regard to God the f...","summary_en":"ADAM (Person) First man and father of the human race. Adam’s role in biblical history is important not only in OT considerations but also in understanding the meaning of salvation and the person and work of Jesus Christ. The creation of Adam and the first woman, Eve, is recited in two accounts in the book of Genesis. The intent of the first account (1:26-31) is to present the first pair in their relationship to God and to the rest of the created order. It teaches that with regard to God the f...","source":"Articles\/A.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":9773,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Divorce","title_en":"Divorce","content_ro":"<h3>DIVORCE<\/h3>\nBiblical provisions regulating divorce are closely bound up with the various definitions given to marriage within the successive phases of God’s progressive revelation in history.<\/p>\nIn the Genesis Creation account, marriage is defined as the “one flesh” union established by God in the context of a sinless environment (Gn 2:24). Given such conditions, the dissolution of the marriage relationship was inconceivable. During his ministry, Jesus affirmed this aspect of God’s original design for marriage. He described the implications of the “one flesh” relationship as the abrogation of the separatedness of the spouses and the creation of an inviolable union (Mt 19:6).<\/p>\nThe Old Testament’s View on Divorce<\/p>\nThe disruptions brought about by the fall had grievous consequences for the male\/female relationship. Having allowed sin to sever their primary dependency on God, man and woman became respectively subject to the elements from which they had been originally made. Man became subject to the dust of the ground whence he had come (Gn 2:7; 3:19), and woman became subject to the man from whom she had been formed (2:22; 3:16). Prior to the fall, man and woman had enjoyed a relationship of equality as cosharers in the divine image (1:27) and as partners in the divine mandate to exercise dominion over creation (v 28). After the fall man became ruler over woman, and woman became subject to man (3:16).<\/p>\nAs a result of these new conditions, man assumed rights of disposition over woman that he did not possess prior to the fall. The “one flesh” relation was violated when the right of rulership opened the way for the male ruler to multiply the number of his female subjects. This disparity between male and female resulted in the practice of polygamy (Gn 4:19; 16:3; 29:30) and of serial monogamy, which required the termination of each successive marriage by an act of divorce (Dt 24:1-4). Thus, the emergence of the practice of divorce appeared as the inevitable consequence of the principle of male rulership. Neither rulership nor divorce was part of God’s original design for the marriage relationship. The Mosaic regulation on divorce was a concession made by God to the fallen condition of mankind (Mt 19:8). Characteristically, the option of divorce was a right available only to the male rulers. As subjects of their male rulers, wives became the victims of divorce. Men could divorce their wives; women could not divorce their husbands.<\/p>\nAs unfair as it may seem, the Deuteronomic provisions for divorce were actually intended to offer a modicum of protection for its female victims. A husband had to justify a divorce action against his wife by citing something indecent about her. He was to give his divorced wife a bill of divorce that accounted for her marriage to him (Dt 24:1). Moreover, a divorced husband was forbidden to remarry his ex-wife after her subsequent marriage, since his original divorce was viewed as a defilement of her (v 4).<\/p>\nAlthough the Mosaic dispositions on divorce were granted as a divine concession to Israel’s hardness of heart, the OT emphatically states that God hates divorce (Mal 2:16). The right of divorce was grudgingly granted as an accommodation to the principle of male rulership that had resulted from the fall. But God’s original design, reflected in the “one flesh” marital relation, remained the standard for the union of man and woman in marriage.<\/p>\nJesus’ Teaching on Divorce<\/p>\nInasmuch as Christ’s ministry of redemption signaled a return to God’s original purposes in Creation, the old covenant regulations on divorce were abrogated in the Christian community. In order to justify the inviolability of the marriage bond among his followers, Jesus directed them to the creational model. Referring negatively to the intervening Mosaic allowance for divorce, Jesus upheld God’s original creation order by stating that “from the beginning it was not so” (Mt 19:8). Christ repudiated the fall and affirmed the Creation design.<\/p>\nIn Matthew 5:31-32 Jesus explicitly abrogated the Mosaic legislation that allowed men to divorce their wives. He viewed the practice as a violation of the integrity of women. Adulterous men who divorce their wives reduce them to the status of whores, using them as commodities to be passed around through the expediency of easy divorce. By divorcing their wives, men treat them as adulteresses. By marrying a woman discarded from a previous marriage, a man perpetuates the demeaning process and becomes guilty of adultery.<\/p>\nJesus deliberately withdrew from men the ruler’s right of discarding a wife at will and reinstated the creational pattern of the lifelong “one flesh” union. His disciples understood his intent accurately. But the principle of male privilege was so deeply ingrained in their mentality that they declared the freedom available in celibacy preferable to a commitment to lifelong monogamous marriage (Mt 19:10).<\/p>\nNot only did Jesus reaffirm the validity of the “one flesh” union for the community of redemption, but the NT reinforced the inviolability of the marriage bond by defining it as an earthly copy of the relationship between Christ and the church (Eph 5:25).<\/p>\nDespite such strong sanctions for the permanency of the marriage bond, the NT permits divorce as an exception intended to protect the innocent spouse in the case of immorality and desertion. Jesus made exceptions that established the right of a spouse wronged by an unfaithful mate to press for divorce (Mt 5:32; 19:9). Obviously, the wronged spouse has the option of maintaining the marriage bond despite the breach of commitment by the unfaithful mate. But in view of the exception allowed by Scripture, the obligation to maintain or reinstate the disrupted marriage may not be imposed upon the innocent spouse.<\/p>\nThe other exception that justifies divorce, according to the NT, is desertion. Although the provisions of 1 Corinthians 7:15 refer primarily to desertion by an unbelieving spouse, it should be noted that a believer guilty of desertion is to be treated as an unbeliever (1 Tm 5:8). Behavior equivalent to the abandonment of the marriage relationship constitutes a breach of conjugal commitment and becomes subject to the provision stated in 1 Corinthians 7:15.<\/p>\nIn either case, adultery or desertion, the aggrieved party has the right to seek divorce from the offending spouse and, having obtained it, becomes again a single person. Should repentance and reconciliation fail to restore the violated union, the aggrieved spouse is not bound to the marriage. According to Scripture, a person who is not bound is free to remarry, but only “in the Lord,” meaning to another Christian (1 Cor 7:39). The injunction for a single person who does not have the gift of celibacy to marry (v 9) applies to a person formerly married but who has become single by a scripturally legitimate divorce. In keeping with Christ’s teaching in Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18, the remarriage of believers may not be approved when the divorce has been used as a means of changing mates, since such intent makes the divorce adulterous.<\/p>\nMany factors usually combine to destroy a marriage; therefore, the church must deal with each case of divorce and remarriage on an individual basis, taking into account God’s inexhaustible capacity to forgive sin and to restore broken lives. Obviously, the scriptural restrictions on divorce do not apply to believers whose broken marriages predate their conversion, since God’s forgiveness wipes clean the sin of their pre-Christian past and makes them new creatures in Christ.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Adultery; Civil Law and Justice; Marriage, Marriage Customs; Sex, Sexuality.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>DIVORCE<\/h3>\nBiblical provisions regulating divorce are closely bound up with the various definitions given to marriage within the successive phases of God’s progressive revelation in history.<\/p>\nIn the Genesis Creation account, marriage is defined as the “one flesh” union established by God in the context of a sinless environment (Gn 2:24). Given such conditions, the dissolution of the marriage relationship was inconceivable. During his ministry, Jesus affirmed this aspect of God’s original design for marriage. He described the implications of the “one flesh” relationship as the abrogation of the separatedness of the spouses and the creation of an inviolable union (Mt 19:6).<\/p>\nThe Old Testament’s View on Divorce<\/p>\nThe disruptions brought about by the fall had grievous consequences for the male\/female relationship. Having allowed sin to sever their primary dependency on God, man and woman became respectively subject to the elements from which they had been originally made. Man became subject to the dust of the ground whence he had come (Gn 2:7; 3:19), and woman became subject to the man from whom she had been formed (2:22; 3:16). Prior to the fall, man and woman had enjoyed a relationship of equality as cosharers in the divine image (1:27) and as partners in the divine mandate to exercise dominion over creation (v 28). After the fall man became ruler over woman, and woman became subject to man (3:16).<\/p>\nAs a result of these new conditions, man assumed rights of disposition over woman that he did not possess prior to the fall. The “one flesh” relation was violated when the right of rulership opened the way for the male ruler to multiply the number of his female subjects. This disparity between male and female resulted in the practice of polygamy (Gn 4:19; 16:3; 29:30) and of serial monogamy, which required the termination of each successive marriage by an act of divorce (Dt 24:1-4). Thus, the emergence of the practice of divorce appeared as the inevitable consequence of the principle of male rulership. Neither rulership nor divorce was part of God’s original design for the marriage relationship. The Mosaic regulation on divorce was a concession made by God to the fallen condition of mankind (Mt 19:8). Characteristically, the option of divorce was a right available only to the male rulers. As subjects of their male rulers, wives became the victims of divorce. Men could divorce their wives; women could not divorce their husbands.<\/p>\nAs unfair as it may seem, the Deuteronomic provisions for divorce were actually intended to offer a modicum of protection for its female victims. A husband had to justify a divorce action against his wife by citing something indecent about her. He was to give his divorced wife a bill of divorce that accounted for her marriage to him (Dt 24:1). Moreover, a divorced husband was forbidden to remarry his ex-wife after her subsequent marriage, since his original divorce was viewed as a defilement of her (v 4).<\/p>\nAlthough the Mosaic dispositions on divorce were granted as a divine concession to Israel’s hardness of heart, the OT emphatically states that God hates divorce (Mal 2:16). The right of divorce was grudgingly granted as an accommodation to the principle of male rulership that had resulted from the fall. But God’s original design, reflected in the “one flesh” marital relation, remained the standard for the union of man and woman in marriage.<\/p>\nJesus’ Teaching on Divorce<\/p>\nInasmuch as Christ’s ministry of redemption signaled a return to God’s original purposes in Creation, the old covenant regulations on divorce were abrogated in the Christian community. In order to justify the inviolability of the marriage bond among his followers, Jesus directed them to the creational model. Referring negatively to the intervening Mosaic allowance for divorce, Jesus upheld God’s original creation order by stating that “from the beginning it was not so” (Mt 19:8). Christ repudiated the fall and affirmed the Creation design.<\/p>\nIn Matthew 5:31-32 Jesus explicitly abrogated the Mosaic legislation that allowed men to divorce their wives. He viewed the practice as a violation of the integrity of women. Adulterous men who divorce their wives reduce them to the status of whores, using them as commodities to be passed around through the expediency of easy divorce. By divorcing their wives, men treat them as adulteresses. By marrying a woman discarded from a previous marriage, a man perpetuates the demeaning process and becomes guilty of adultery.<\/p>\nJesus deliberately withdrew from men the ruler’s right of discarding a wife at will and reinstated the creational pattern of the lifelong “one flesh” union. His disciples understood his intent accurately. But the principle of male privilege was so deeply ingrained in their mentality that they declared the freedom available in celibacy preferable to a commitment to lifelong monogamous marriage (Mt 19:10).<\/p>\nNot only did Jesus reaffirm the validity of the “one flesh” union for the community of redemption, but the NT reinforced the inviolability of the marriage bond by defining it as an earthly copy of the relationship between Christ and the church (Eph 5:25).<\/p>\nDespite such strong sanctions for the permanency of the marriage bond, the NT permits divorce as an exception intended to protect the innocent spouse in the case of immorality and desertion. Jesus made exceptions that established the right of a spouse wronged by an unfaithful mate to press for divorce (Mt 5:32; 19:9). Obviously, the wronged spouse has the option of maintaining the marriage bond despite the breach of commitment by the unfaithful mate. But in view of the exception allowed by Scripture, the obligation to maintain or reinstate the disrupted marriage may not be imposed upon the innocent spouse.<\/p>\nThe other exception that justifies divorce, according to the NT, is desertion. Although the provisions of 1 Corinthians 7:15 refer primarily to desertion by an unbelieving spouse, it should be noted that a believer guilty of desertion is to be treated as an unbeliever (1 Tm 5:8). Behavior equivalent to the abandonment of the marriage relationship constitutes a breach of conjugal commitment and becomes subject to the provision stated in 1 Corinthians 7:15.<\/p>\nIn either case, adultery or desertion, the aggrieved party has the right to seek divorce from the offending spouse and, having obtained it, becomes again a single person. Should repentance and reconciliation fail to restore the violated union, the aggrieved spouse is not bound to the marriage. According to Scripture, a person who is not bound is free to remarry, but only “in the Lord,” meaning to another Christian (1 Cor 7:39). The injunction for a single person who does not have the gift of celibacy to marry (v 9) applies to a person formerly married but who has become single by a scripturally legitimate divorce. In keeping with Christ’s teaching in Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18, the remarriage of believers may not be approved when the divorce has been used as a means of changing mates, since such intent makes the divorce adulterous.<\/p>\nMany factors usually combine to destroy a marriage; therefore, the church must deal with each case of divorce and remarriage on an individual basis, taking into account God’s inexhaustible capacity to forgive sin and to restore broken lives. Obviously, the scriptural restrictions on divorce do not apply to believers whose broken marriages predate their conversion, since God’s forgiveness wipes clean the sin of their pre-Christian past and makes them new creatures in Christ.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Adultery; Civil Law and Justice; Marriage, Marriage Customs; Sex, Sexuality.<\/p>","summary_ro":"DIVORCE Biblical provisions regulating divorce are closely bound up with the various definitions given to marriage within the successive phases of God’s progressive revelation in history. In the Genesis Creation account, marriage is defined as the “one flesh” union established by God in the context of a sinless environment (Gn 2:24). Given such conditions, the dissolution of the marriage relationship was inconceivable. During his ministry, Jesus affirmed this aspect of God’s original design f...","summary_en":"DIVORCE Biblical provisions regulating divorce are closely bound up with the various definitions given to marriage within the successive phases of God’s progressive revelation in history. In the Genesis Creation account, marriage is defined as the “one flesh” union established by God in the context of a sinless environment (Gn 2:24). Given such conditions, the dissolution of the marriage relationship was inconceivable. During his ministry, Jesus affirmed this aspect of God’s original design f...","source":"Articles\/D.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":9905,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Earth","title_en":"Earth","content_ro":"<h3>EARTH<\/h3>\nTerm used for our inhabited planet; the world, as distinguished from heaven and hell; land; soil; and in several other ways. Biblical usage is as broad as modern usage.<\/p>\nOne Hebrew word translated “earth” is also used generically for “man,” or Adam (Gn 2:7, 19). That word refers to reddish soil from which Adam’s body was made. Another Hebrew word translated “earth” or “land” can refer to a country (21:21). A word translated “dust” can mean simply earth or dry ground (3:19). In the NT one Greek word translated “earth” can refer to a land or country (Mt 27:45). The Greek word from which “ecumenical” is derived refers to the whole inhabited earth (Lk 21:26) or the Roman Empire of those days (2:1).<\/p>\nIn the beginning “God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. . . . And God said, ‘Let the earth put forth vegetation’” (Gn 1:10-11, rsv<\/span>). In some passages “the earth” is used in essentially the modern sense for the whole planet (Jb 1:7), hanging in empty space (26:7). References to the earth’s four corners (Is 11:12; Ez 7:2) allude to the points of a compass, not to the earth’s shape. The circle of the earth probably refers to the circumference of the horizon (Is 40:22; cf. Jb 38:13). The earth is sometimes pictured as supported on pillars (Jb 9:6; Ps 75:3) or foundations (Ps 104:5; Prv 8:29; Is 24:18; Jer 31:37). Since many of the biblical usages are found in figurative passages of poetry or prophecy, they reveal little about the Hebrews’ cosmological understanding.<\/p>\n“Earth” sometimes refers to the soil or ground that a farmer works (cf. 2 Kgs 5:17). According to the Bible, the original condition of the earth (Gn 2:6) was affected by the curse of human sinfulness (3:17-19). (Modern ecologists seem to agree that the earth suffers because of human greed and arrogance.) After Abel’s blood was spilled on the ground, Cain’s difficulty in making the soil produce for him was a constant reminder that he had murdered his brother (4:8-12).<\/p>\nThe Israelites were instructed to let the land rest every seventh year (Ex 23:10-12; Lv 25:4-5), allowing the soil to replenish nutrients used up by crops. After seven such “sabbath years,” in the 50th “jubilee year” the land reverted back to original family holdings (Lv 25:10-17). That provision not only reminded the people of God’s ultimate ownership but kept potential “land barons” from amassing huge estates.<\/p>\nThe Mosaic law instructed the Israelites that the land’s condition would be a spiritual barometer of their relationship with God. Drought or lack of productivity was a sign that the relationship had been broken (Lv 26; Dt 28). Israel was warned that their wickedness could become so great that the Lord would evict them from his land (cf. Lv 26:37; Dt 28:64). Even if that happened, however, God would eventually restore his people so they could again be “wedded” to the land (Is 62:4).<\/p>\nMany passages point to a “coming age,” when the earth will be set free from its “bondage to decay,” a deliverance for which the whole creation is said to be “groaning” in anticipation (Rom 8:19-23). The Bible pictures a period of prodigious renewal of the earth’s fertility (Ez 47; Jl 3:18; Am 9:13-15; Zec 14:6-9). One day, however, “the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and the works that are upon it will be burned up” (2 Pt 3:10, rsv<\/span>). Yet in the apostle John’s apocalyptic vision, he saw “a new heaven and a new earth, for the old heaven and the old earth had disappeared” (Rv 21:1, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> New Heavens and New Earth.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>EARTH<\/h3>\nTerm used for our inhabited planet; the world, as distinguished from heaven and hell; land; soil; and in several other ways. Biblical usage is as broad as modern usage.<\/p>\nOne Hebrew word translated “earth” is also used generically for “man,” or Adam (Gn 2:7, 19). That word refers to reddish soil from which Adam’s body was made. Another Hebrew word translated “earth” or “land” can refer to a country (21:21). A word translated “dust” can mean simply earth or dry ground (3:19). In the NT one Greek word translated “earth” can refer to a land or country (Mt 27:45). The Greek word from which “ecumenical” is derived refers to the whole inhabited earth (Lk 21:26) or the Roman Empire of those days (2:1).<\/p>\nIn the beginning “God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. . . . And God said, ‘Let the earth put forth vegetation’” (Gn 1:10-11, rsv<\/span>). In some passages “the earth” is used in essentially the modern sense for the whole planet (Jb 1:7), hanging in empty space (26:7). References to the earth’s four corners (Is 11:12; Ez 7:2) allude to the points of a compass, not to the earth’s shape. The circle of the earth probably refers to the circumference of the horizon (Is 40:22; cf. Jb 38:13). The earth is sometimes pictured as supported on pillars (Jb 9:6; Ps 75:3) or foundations (Ps 104:5; Prv 8:29; Is 24:18; Jer 31:37). Since many of the biblical usages are found in figurative passages of poetry or prophecy, they reveal little about the Hebrews’ cosmological understanding.<\/p>\n“Earth” sometimes refers to the soil or ground that a farmer works (cf. 2 Kgs 5:17). According to the Bible, the original condition of the earth (Gn 2:6) was affected by the curse of human sinfulness (3:17-19). (Modern ecologists seem to agree that the earth suffers because of human greed and arrogance.) After Abel’s blood was spilled on the ground, Cain’s difficulty in making the soil produce for him was a constant reminder that he had murdered his brother (4:8-12).<\/p>\nThe Israelites were instructed to let the land rest every seventh year (Ex 23:10-12; Lv 25:4-5), allowing the soil to replenish nutrients used up by crops. After seven such “sabbath years,” in the 50th “jubilee year” the land reverted back to original family holdings (Lv 25:10-17). That provision not only reminded the people of God’s ultimate ownership but kept potential “land barons” from amassing huge estates.<\/p>\nThe Mosaic law instructed the Israelites that the land’s condition would be a spiritual barometer of their relationship with God. Drought or lack of productivity was a sign that the relationship had been broken (Lv 26; Dt 28). Israel was warned that their wickedness could become so great that the Lord would evict them from his land (cf. Lv 26:37; Dt 28:64). Even if that happened, however, God would eventually restore his people so they could again be “wedded” to the land (Is 62:4).<\/p>\nMany passages point to a “coming age,” when the earth will be set free from its “bondage to decay,” a deliverance for which the whole creation is said to be “groaning” in anticipation (Rom 8:19-23). The Bible pictures a period of prodigious renewal of the earth’s fertility (Ez 47; Jl 3:18; Am 9:13-15; Zec 14:6-9). One day, however, “the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and the works that are upon it will be burned up” (2 Pt 3:10, rsv<\/span>). Yet in the apostle John’s apocalyptic vision, he saw “a new heaven and a new earth, for the old heaven and the old earth had disappeared” (Rv 21:1, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> New Heavens and New Earth.<\/p>","summary_ro":"EARTH Term used for our inhabited planet; the world, as distinguished from heaven and hell; land; soil; and in several other ways. Biblical usage is as broad as modern usage. One Hebrew word translated “earth” is also used generically for “man,” or Adam (Gn 2:7, 19). That word refers to reddish soil from which Adam’s body was made. Another Hebrew word translated “earth” or “land” can refer to a country (21:21). A word translated “dust” can mean simply earth or dry ground (3:19). In the NT one...","summary_en":"EARTH Term used for our inhabited planet; the world, as distinguished from heaven and hell; land; soil; and in several other ways. Biblical usage is as broad as modern usage. One Hebrew word translated “earth” is also used generically for “man,” or Adam (Gn 2:7, 19). That word refers to reddish soil from which Adam’s body was made. Another Hebrew word translated “earth” or “land” can refer to a country (21:21). A word translated “dust” can mean simply earth or dry ground (3:19). In the NT one...","source":"Articles\/E.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":12392,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Flesh","title_en":"Flesh","content_ro":"<h3>FLESH<\/h3>\nThe body; the physical being of humans; the human person and human existence; the carnal nature of humans.<\/p>\nIn the Old Testament<\/p>\nTerm commonly used to designate the material stuff of the body, whether of people (Gn 40:19) or of animals (Lv 6:27). However, “flesh” is used in the OT with a variety of meanings. Sometimes it is used as equivalent for the whole body (Prv 14:30), and the meaning is extended to designate the whole person (“my flesh also shall rest in hope,” Ps 16:9, kjv<\/span>). This idea leads to the union of two different persons, man and wife as “one flesh” (Gn 2:24), and a man can say of his relatives, “I am your bone and your flesh” (Jgs 9:2). The idea of flesh as the whole person leads to the expression “all flesh,” denoting the totality of humankind, sometimes including also the animal world.<\/p>\nPerhaps the most distinctive use of “flesh” in the OT is found in those passages where it designates human weakness and frailty over against God. “My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for he is flesh” (Gn 6:3, rsv<\/span>). In Psalm 78:39, God attributes sin to the fact that men are but flesh. In 2 Chronicles 32:8 the arm of flesh of the king of Assyria (i.e., his weakness) is contrasted with the all-powerful God. The one who puts trust in God need not fear what “flesh” can do (Ps 56:4), but the one who puts trust in human flesh instead of in God is under a curse (Jer 17:5). In Isaiah 31:3 flesh is contrasted with spirit, as weakness is with strength.<\/p>\nHowever, nowhere in the OT is flesh viewed as sinful. Flesh is conceived as being created by God of the dust of the earth (Gn 2:7), and as God’s creation, it is good.<\/p>\nIn the New Testament<\/p>\nPaul ascribes many—often unique—definitions to the word “flesh” (Greek sarx<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h5>Flesh as the Stuff of the Body<\/h5>\n“Flesh” is frequently used to describe the tissues that constitute the body. There are different kinds of flesh—“of men,” “of animals,” “of birds,” “of fish” (1 Cor 15:39). Pain and suffering may be experienced in the flesh (2 Cor 12:7). Circumcision is done in the flesh (Rom 2:28). While “flesh” in such references is not sinful, it is corruptible and cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor 15:50). Jesus’ body was also a body of flesh (Col 1:22).<\/p>\n<h5>Flesh as the Body Itself<\/h5>\nBy a natural transition, the part is used for the whole, and in many places “flesh” is synonymous with the body as a whole rather than designating the fleshy part of the body. Paul may thus speak either of being absent in the body (1 Cor 5:3) or in the flesh (Col 2:5). Paul can say that the life of Jesus may be manifested in our body or in our mortal flesh (2 Cor 4:10-11). “He who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her. For, as it is written, ‘The two shall become one flesh’ ” (1 Cor 6:16, rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h5>Flesh as Person with Reference to Origin<\/h5>\nFollowing OT usage, “flesh” was used by Paul to refer not merely to the stuff of the body or to the body itself, but concretely to the person as constituted by flesh. In this usage the word may refer to the person’s human relationship, the physical origin and the natural ties that bind one to other humans. Paul speaks of his kinsmen “according to the flesh,” his fellow Jews (Rom 9:3, kjv<\/span>), and even uses “my flesh” (11:14, kjv<\/span>) as a synonym for these kinsmen. The “children of the flesh” (9:8) are those born by natural generation in contrast to those born as a result of divine intervention. Christ was descended from David according to the flesh (1:3). The phrase does not designate the source merely of his bodily life but of his entire human existence, including both his body and his human spirit.<\/p>\n<h5>Flesh as Human Existence<\/h5>\nAnother use of “flesh” simply designates human existence. As long as a person lives in the body, that one is “in the flesh.” Thus, Paul can speak of the life that he lives “in the flesh” as lived by faith in the Son of God (Gal 2:20, rsv<\/span>). Referring to Jesus’ earthly ministry, Paul says that he abolished “in the flesh” the enmity between Jew and Gentile (Eph 2:15). Peter has the same meaning when he speaks of Jesus having been put to death “in the flesh” (1 Pt 3:18). So also John: “Jesus Christ is come in the flesh” (1 Jn 4:2). This usage is reflected most notably in the Johannine saying “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (Jn 1:14).<\/p>\n<h5>Flesh as Human Existence in Terms of Outward Presentation<\/h5>\n“Flesh” also extends beyond humans in their bodily life to include other factors crucial to human existence. Thus, “confidence in the flesh” (Phil 3:3, rsv<\/span>) does not mean confidence in the body but confidence in the whole complex of the outward realm of human existence. It includes Paul’s Jewish ancestry, his strict religious training, his zeal, and his prominence in Jewish religious circles. The phrase to “glory after the flesh” (2 Cor 11:18, kjv<\/span>) is rendered “boast about their human achievements” in the nlt<\/span>. A good showing “in the flesh” is practically synonymous with worldly prominence (Gal 6:11-14). The Judaizers insisted upon circumcision to promote a sense of prideful attainment in the religious life so that they might have a ground of glorying. But these external distinctions and grounds for glorying no longer appealed to Paul, because the world had been crucified to him and he to the world.<\/p>\n“Flesh” is also used of outward relationships, as when describing the social ties existing between slave and master (Eph 6:5; Col 3:22; Phlm 1:16). “In the flesh” also describes the realm of marital relationships, which entails certain troublesome problems (1 Cor 7:28).<\/p>\nThis usage illuminates an otherwise difficult saying, “Henceforth know we no man after the flesh; yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more” (2 Cor 5:16, kjv<\/span>). The rsv<\/span> correctly renders the phrase “from a human point of view.” The verse does not mean that Paul had heard and seen Jesus in Jerusalem at some previous time and had gained some acquaintance with Christ “after the flesh.” “After the flesh” modifies the verb “to know,” not the noun “Christ.” Before his conversion, Paul knew all people “after the flesh”; that is, he judged them by worldly, human standards. To know Christ “after the flesh” means to look at him through merely human eyes. As a Jew, Paul had felt that Jesus was a deluded messianic pretender. According to the Jewish understanding, the Messiah was to reign over the earth as a Davidic king, save his people Israel, and punish the hated Gentiles. But Paul surrendered this false human view and came to know Christ as he really is—the incarnate Son of God, the Savior of all who believe. As a Christian, Paul no longer judged others according to the flesh.<\/p>\n<h5>Flesh as Fallen Humanity<\/h5>\nWhen Paul says that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor 15:50, rsv<\/span>), he does not mean that humans cannot inherit the kingdom of God but rather that human fallenness cannot; as the next clause shows, “neither does corruption inherit incorruption.” The weak, fallen, corruptible body cannot inherit the kingdom of God; there must be a change; the “corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality” (1 Cor 15:53, kjv<\/span>). This is not the salvation of the soul or spirit but the exchange of one kind of body for another that is suited to the final glorious kingdom of God.<\/p>\nWhen Peter confessed the messiahship of Jesus, Jesus replied, “Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven” (Mt 16:17, rsv<\/span>). The meaning of this verse is obvious. This knowledge of Jesus’ messiahship was not a human deduction; it could be achieved only by divine revelation.<\/p>\n<h5>Flesh as Sinful Humanity<\/h5>\nThere remains a group of ethical references that are distinctly Pauline. The most important feature of this usage is that man is seen not only as fallen and weak before God, but as fallen and sinful. Flesh is contrasted with human spirit regenerated by the divine Spirit, and without the aid of the Spirit, one cannot please God. The most vivid passage is the first part of Romans 8, where Paul sharply contrasts those who are “in the flesh” with those who are “in the Spirit.” To be “in the Spirit” in this sense does not mean to be in a state of ecstasy but to be living one’s life in that spiritual realm that is controlled by the Spirit of God. Those who are “in the flesh,” that is, unregenerate, cannot please God. There are two contrasting and mutually exclusive realms: “in the flesh” and “in the Spirit.” To be “in the Spirit” means to be indwelt by God’s Holy Spirit, that is, to be a regenerate person.<\/p>\nIn Romans 7–8 Paul makes it clear that the unregenerate person cannot please God by loving and serving him as God requires. Thus, the Law was unable to make mankind truly righteous, because the flesh is weak (8:2). To live after the flesh is death; to live after the Spirit is life (8:6). Elsewhere Paul says, “For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing” (7:18, kjv<\/span>). Flesh here cannot be the physical flesh, for the body of flesh is the temple of the Spirit (1 Cor 6:19) and a member of Christ (6:15) and is to be the means of glorifying God (6:20). Paul, therefore, means that in his unregenerate nature there dwells none of the goodness that God demands.<\/p>\nWhile Paul makes a sharp and absolute contrast between being “in the flesh” (unregenerate) and “in the Spirit” (regenerate), when one becomes regenerate and comes to be “in the Spirit,” that person is no longer in the flesh, but the flesh is still in him. In fact, there remains in the believer a struggle between the flesh and the Spirit. Writing to people who are “in the Spirit,” Paul says, “For the flesh lusteth [strives] against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would” (Gal 5:17, kjv<\/span>). Because the Christian life is the battleground of these two opposing principles, it is impossible to be the perfect person that one would wish to be.<\/p>\nThe same situation is reflected in 1 Corinthians 2:14–3:3 where Paul describes three classes of people: the “natural” (2:14, kjv<\/span>); the “carnal,” that is, fleshly man (3:1, 3, kjv<\/span>); and the “spiritual man” (3:1, kjv<\/span>). The “natural man” is unregenerate. Those who are “in the flesh” (Rom 8:9) have devoted the whole of their life to the human level and hence are unable to know the things of God. “Spiritual man” refers to those whose life is ruled by the Spirit of God, so that the fruits of the Spirit (Gal 5:22-23) are evident in their life. Between these two there is a third class—those who are “fleshly” yet who are babes in Christ. Therefore, they must be “in the Spirit,” yet they do not walk “according to the Spirit.” Because they are “babes in Christ,” the Spirit of God dwells in them, yet the Holy Spirit is not allowed to have full control over them, and they are still walking “like men” (1 Cor 3:3), manifesting the works of the flesh in jealousy and strife.<\/p>\n<h5>Works of the Flesh<\/h5>\nIn Galatians 5:19-23 Paul contrasts the life in the flesh and the life in the Spirit: “Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like” (Gal 5:19-21, kjv<\/span>). The important thing to note about this list is that while some of these are sins of bodily and sexual appetite, others are religious sins—idolatry, witchcraft—and several are sins “of the spirit,” that is, of the disposition—hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife. The words “seditions” and “heresies” refer not to theological heresies but to a factious, divisive spirit. This proves conclusively that for Paul the “flesh” is not synonymous with the body but includes the whole person, with all the inner attitudes and disposition.<\/p>\n<h5>Victory over the Flesh<\/h5>\nWhile a struggle remains in the Christian between the Spirit and the flesh, Paul knows of a way of victory for the Spirit. The flesh of the body comes within the sphere of sanctification (1 Thes 5:23), but the flesh as the unregenerate human nature can only be put to death.<\/p>\nThis is called the tension between the objective and the subjective. Because certain things have happened in Christ (objective), certain inevitable results should accrue (subjective). In Paul’s view, the flesh has already been put to death in the death of Christ. Those who belong to Christ have already crucified the flesh with its passions and desires (Gal 5:24). Paul elsewhere says, “I have been crucified with Christ” (2:20) and “our old self was crucified with him” (Rom 6:6). Such references make it clear that “flesh” and the “self” are in some ways to be identified. This identity is further supported in the teaching about crucifixion, for Paul means the same thing by the crucifixion of the flesh that he means when he says, “How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? We were baptized into his death. We are buried with him by baptism into death” (vv 1-4). It is I myself who have died with Christ.<\/p>\nThis crucifixion and death of the flesh does not, however, work automatically. It is an event that must be appropriated by faith. This involves two aspects. First, believers are to recognize that the flesh has been crucified with Christ. “Reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom 6:11, kjv<\/span>). One cannot consider the self dead with Christ to sin unless that person has actually died and been crucified with Christ, but because this has already happened at the moment of saving faith, it can be put into daily practice. Those who have died with Christ are to “mortify [put to death] the deeds of the body” (8:13, kjv<\/span>). “Body” is here used as a vehicle for the works of the “flesh”—the sensual life of the unregenerate nature. Those who have been brought from death into life are to yield their members to God as instruments of righteousness (6:13). One who has died with Christ is to “mortify” (kjv<\/span>), that is, put to death what is earthly—fornication, uncleanness, covetousness (Col 3:5). Having already put off the old nature and put on the new, the believer is to put on compassion, kindness, lowliness and the like.<\/p>\nVictory over the flesh is sometimes described as walking in the Spirit. “Walk by the Spirit, and do not gratify the desires of the flesh” (Gal 5:16, rsv<\/span>; cf. Rom 8:4). Walking in the Spirit means to live each moment under the control of the Holy Spirit.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Body; Sin.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>FLESH<\/h3>\nThe body; the physical being of humans; the human person and human existence; the carnal nature of humans.<\/p>\nIn the Old Testament<\/p>\nTerm commonly used to designate the material stuff of the body, whether of people (Gn 40:19) or of animals (Lv 6:27). However, “flesh” is used in the OT with a variety of meanings. Sometimes it is used as equivalent for the whole body (Prv 14:30), and the meaning is extended to designate the whole person (“my flesh also shall rest in hope,” Ps 16:9, kjv<\/span>). This idea leads to the union of two different persons, man and wife as “one flesh” (Gn 2:24), and a man can say of his relatives, “I am your bone and your flesh” (Jgs 9:2). The idea of flesh as the whole person leads to the expression “all flesh,” denoting the totality of humankind, sometimes including also the animal world.<\/p>\nPerhaps the most distinctive use of “flesh” in the OT is found in those passages where it designates human weakness and frailty over against God. “My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for he is flesh” (Gn 6:3, rsv<\/span>). In Psalm 78:39, God attributes sin to the fact that men are but flesh. In 2 Chronicles 32:8 the arm of flesh of the king of Assyria (i.e., his weakness) is contrasted with the all-powerful God. The one who puts trust in God need not fear what “flesh” can do (Ps 56:4), but the one who puts trust in human flesh instead of in God is under a curse (Jer 17:5). In Isaiah 31:3 flesh is contrasted with spirit, as weakness is with strength.<\/p>\nHowever, nowhere in the OT is flesh viewed as sinful. Flesh is conceived as being created by God of the dust of the earth (Gn 2:7), and as God’s creation, it is good.<\/p>\nIn the New Testament<\/p>\nPaul ascribes many—often unique—definitions to the word “flesh” (Greek sarx<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h5>Flesh as the Stuff of the Body<\/h5>\n“Flesh” is frequently used to describe the tissues that constitute the body. There are different kinds of flesh—“of men,” “of animals,” “of birds,” “of fish” (1 Cor 15:39). Pain and suffering may be experienced in the flesh (2 Cor 12:7). Circumcision is done in the flesh (Rom 2:28). While “flesh” in such references is not sinful, it is corruptible and cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor 15:50). Jesus’ body was also a body of flesh (Col 1:22).<\/p>\n<h5>Flesh as the Body Itself<\/h5>\nBy a natural transition, the part is used for the whole, and in many places “flesh” is synonymous with the body as a whole rather than designating the fleshy part of the body. Paul may thus speak either of being absent in the body (1 Cor 5:3) or in the flesh (Col 2:5). Paul can say that the life of Jesus may be manifested in our body or in our mortal flesh (2 Cor 4:10-11). “He who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her. For, as it is written, ‘The two shall become one flesh’ ” (1 Cor 6:16, rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h5>Flesh as Person with Reference to Origin<\/h5>\nFollowing OT usage, “flesh” was used by Paul to refer not merely to the stuff of the body or to the body itself, but concretely to the person as constituted by flesh. In this usage the word may refer to the person’s human relationship, the physical origin and the natural ties that bind one to other humans. Paul speaks of his kinsmen “according to the flesh,” his fellow Jews (Rom 9:3, kjv<\/span>), and even uses “my flesh” (11:14, kjv<\/span>) as a synonym for these kinsmen. The “children of the flesh” (9:8) are those born by natural generation in contrast to those born as a result of divine intervention. Christ was descended from David according to the flesh (1:3). The phrase does not designate the source merely of his bodily life but of his entire human existence, including both his body and his human spirit.<\/p>\n<h5>Flesh as Human Existence<\/h5>\nAnother use of “flesh” simply designates human existence. As long as a person lives in the body, that one is “in the flesh.” Thus, Paul can speak of the life that he lives “in the flesh” as lived by faith in the Son of God (Gal 2:20, rsv<\/span>). Referring to Jesus’ earthly ministry, Paul says that he abolished “in the flesh” the enmity between Jew and Gentile (Eph 2:15). Peter has the same meaning when he speaks of Jesus having been put to death “in the flesh” (1 Pt 3:18). So also John: “Jesus Christ is come in the flesh” (1 Jn 4:2). This usage is reflected most notably in the Johannine saying “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (Jn 1:14).<\/p>\n<h5>Flesh as Human Existence in Terms of Outward Presentation<\/h5>\n“Flesh” also extends beyond humans in their bodily life to include other factors crucial to human existence. Thus, “confidence in the flesh” (Phil 3:3, rsv<\/span>) does not mean confidence in the body but confidence in the whole complex of the outward realm of human existence. It includes Paul’s Jewish ancestry, his strict religious training, his zeal, and his prominence in Jewish religious circles. The phrase to “glory after the flesh” (2 Cor 11:18, kjv<\/span>) is rendered “boast about their human achievements” in the nlt<\/span>. A good showing “in the flesh” is practically synonymous with worldly prominence (Gal 6:11-14). The Judaizers insisted upon circumcision to promote a sense of prideful attainment in the religious life so that they might have a ground of glorying. But these external distinctions and grounds for glorying no longer appealed to Paul, because the world had been crucified to him and he to the world.<\/p>\n“Flesh” is also used of outward relationships, as when describing the social ties existing between slave and master (Eph 6:5; Col 3:22; Phlm 1:16). “In the flesh” also describes the realm of marital relationships, which entails certain troublesome problems (1 Cor 7:28).<\/p>\nThis usage illuminates an otherwise difficult saying, “Henceforth know we no man after the flesh; yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more” (2 Cor 5:16, kjv<\/span>). The rsv<\/span> correctly renders the phrase “from a human point of view.” The verse does not mean that Paul had heard and seen Jesus in Jerusalem at some previous time and had gained some acquaintance with Christ “after the flesh.” “After the flesh” modifies the verb “to know,” not the noun “Christ.” Before his conversion, Paul knew all people “after the flesh”; that is, he judged them by worldly, human standards. To know Christ “after the flesh” means to look at him through merely human eyes. As a Jew, Paul had felt that Jesus was a deluded messianic pretender. According to the Jewish understanding, the Messiah was to reign over the earth as a Davidic king, save his people Israel, and punish the hated Gentiles. But Paul surrendered this false human view and came to know Christ as he really is—the incarnate Son of God, the Savior of all who believe. As a Christian, Paul no longer judged others according to the flesh.<\/p>\n<h5>Flesh as Fallen Humanity<\/h5>\nWhen Paul says that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor 15:50, rsv<\/span>), he does not mean that humans cannot inherit the kingdom of God but rather that human fallenness cannot; as the next clause shows, “neither does corruption inherit incorruption.” The weak, fallen, corruptible body cannot inherit the kingdom of God; there must be a change; the “corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality” (1 Cor 15:53, kjv<\/span>). This is not the salvation of the soul or spirit but the exchange of one kind of body for another that is suited to the final glorious kingdom of God.<\/p>\nWhen Peter confessed the messiahship of Jesus, Jesus replied, “Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven” (Mt 16:17, rsv<\/span>). The meaning of this verse is obvious. This knowledge of Jesus’ messiahship was not a human deduction; it could be achieved only by divine revelation.<\/p>\n<h5>Flesh as Sinful Humanity<\/h5>\nThere remains a group of ethical references that are distinctly Pauline. The most important feature of this usage is that man is seen not only as fallen and weak before God, but as fallen and sinful. Flesh is contrasted with human spirit regenerated by the divine Spirit, and without the aid of the Spirit, one cannot please God. The most vivid passage is the first part of Romans 8, where Paul sharply contrasts those who are “in the flesh” with those who are “in the Spirit.” To be “in the Spirit” in this sense does not mean to be in a state of ecstasy but to be living one’s life in that spiritual realm that is controlled by the Spirit of God. Those who are “in the flesh,” that is, unregenerate, cannot please God. There are two contrasting and mutually exclusive realms: “in the flesh” and “in the Spirit.” To be “in the Spirit” means to be indwelt by God’s Holy Spirit, that is, to be a regenerate person.<\/p>\nIn Romans 7–8 Paul makes it clear that the unregenerate person cannot please God by loving and serving him as God requires. Thus, the Law was unable to make mankind truly righteous, because the flesh is weak (8:2). To live after the flesh is death; to live after the Spirit is life (8:6). Elsewhere Paul says, “For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing” (7:18, kjv<\/span>). Flesh here cannot be the physical flesh, for the body of flesh is the temple of the Spirit (1 Cor 6:19) and a member of Christ (6:15) and is to be the means of glorifying God (6:20). Paul, therefore, means that in his unregenerate nature there dwells none of the goodness that God demands.<\/p>\nWhile Paul makes a sharp and absolute contrast between being “in the flesh” (unregenerate) and “in the Spirit” (regenerate), when one becomes regenerate and comes to be “in the Spirit,” that person is no longer in the flesh, but the flesh is still in him. In fact, there remains in the believer a struggle between the flesh and the Spirit. Writing to people who are “in the Spirit,” Paul says, “For the flesh lusteth [strives] against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would” (Gal 5:17, kjv<\/span>). Because the Christian life is the battleground of these two opposing principles, it is impossible to be the perfect person that one would wish to be.<\/p>\nThe same situation is reflected in 1 Corinthians 2:14–3:3 where Paul describes three classes of people: the “natural” (2:14, kjv<\/span>); the “carnal,” that is, fleshly man (3:1, 3, kjv<\/span>); and the “spiritual man” (3:1, kjv<\/span>). The “natural man” is unregenerate. Those who are “in the flesh” (Rom 8:9) have devoted the whole of their life to the human level and hence are unable to know the things of God. “Spiritual man” refers to those whose life is ruled by the Spirit of God, so that the fruits of the Spirit (Gal 5:22-23) are evident in their life. Between these two there is a third class—those who are “fleshly” yet who are babes in Christ. Therefore, they must be “in the Spirit,” yet they do not walk “according to the Spirit.” Because they are “babes in Christ,” the Spirit of God dwells in them, yet the Holy Spirit is not allowed to have full control over them, and they are still walking “like men” (1 Cor 3:3), manifesting the works of the flesh in jealousy and strife.<\/p>\n<h5>Works of the Flesh<\/h5>\nIn Galatians 5:19-23 Paul contrasts the life in the flesh and the life in the Spirit: “Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like” (Gal 5:19-21, kjv<\/span>). The important thing to note about this list is that while some of these are sins of bodily and sexual appetite, others are religious sins—idolatry, witchcraft—and several are sins “of the spirit,” that is, of the disposition—hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife. The words “seditions” and “heresies” refer not to theological heresies but to a factious, divisive spirit. This proves conclusively that for Paul the “flesh” is not synonymous with the body but includes the whole person, with all the inner attitudes and disposition.<\/p>\n<h5>Victory over the Flesh<\/h5>\nWhile a struggle remains in the Christian between the Spirit and the flesh, Paul knows of a way of victory for the Spirit. The flesh of the body comes within the sphere of sanctification (1 Thes 5:23), but the flesh as the unregenerate human nature can only be put to death.<\/p>\nThis is called the tension between the objective and the subjective. Because certain things have happened in Christ (objective), certain inevitable results should accrue (subjective). In Paul’s view, the flesh has already been put to death in the death of Christ. Those who belong to Christ have already crucified the flesh with its passions and desires (Gal 5:24). Paul elsewhere says, “I have been crucified with Christ” (2:20) and “our old self was crucified with him” (Rom 6:6). Such references make it clear that “flesh” and the “self” are in some ways to be identified. This identity is further supported in the teaching about crucifixion, for Paul means the same thing by the crucifixion of the flesh that he means when he says, “How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? We were baptized into his death. We are buried with him by baptism into death” (vv 1-4). It is I myself who have died with Christ.<\/p>\nThis crucifixion and death of the flesh does not, however, work automatically. It is an event that must be appropriated by faith. This involves two aspects. First, believers are to recognize that the flesh has been crucified with Christ. “Reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom 6:11, kjv<\/span>). One cannot consider the self dead with Christ to sin unless that person has actually died and been crucified with Christ, but because this has already happened at the moment of saving faith, it can be put into daily practice. Those who have died with Christ are to “mortify [put to death] the deeds of the body” (8:13, kjv<\/span>). “Body” is here used as a vehicle for the works of the “flesh”—the sensual life of the unregenerate nature. Those who have been brought from death into life are to yield their members to God as instruments of righteousness (6:13). One who has died with Christ is to “mortify” (kjv<\/span>), that is, put to death what is earthly—fornication, uncleanness, covetousness (Col 3:5). Having already put off the old nature and put on the new, the believer is to put on compassion, kindness, lowliness and the like.<\/p>\nVictory over the flesh is sometimes described as walking in the Spirit. “Walk by the Spirit, and do not gratify the desires of the flesh” (Gal 5:16, rsv<\/span>; cf. Rom 8:4). Walking in the Spirit means to live each moment under the control of the Holy Spirit.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Body; Sin.<\/p>","summary_ro":"FLESH The body; the physical being of humans; the human person and human existence; the carnal nature of humans. In the Old Testament Term commonly used to designate the material stuff of the body, whether of people (Gn 40:19) or of animals (Lv 6:27). However, “flesh” is used in the OT with a variety of meanings. Sometimes it is used as equivalent for the whole body (Prv 14:30), and the meaning is extended to designate the whole person (“my flesh also shall rest in hope,” Ps 16:9, kjv). This ...","summary_en":"FLESH The body; the physical being of humans; the human person and human existence; the carnal nature of humans. In the Old Testament Term commonly used to designate the material stuff of the body, whether of people (Gn 40:19) or of animals (Lv 6:27). However, “flesh” is used in the OT with a variety of meanings. Sometimes it is used as equivalent for the whole body (Prv 14:30), and the meaning is extended to designate the whole person (“my flesh also shall rest in hope,” Ps 16:9, kjv). This ...","source":"Articles\/F.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":13526,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Book of Genesis","title_en":"Book of Genesis","content_ro":"<h3>GENESIS, Book of<\/h3>\nFirst book of the Bible.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Name<\/p>\n• Author<\/p>\n• Date<\/p>\n• Purpose<\/p>\n• Structure<\/p>\n• Content<\/p>\nName<\/p>\nThe name Genesis comes into English as a transliteration of the Greek word meaning “origin” or “beginning.” This name was given to the book in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, known as the Septuagint. Genesis reflects both the content of the book and the Hebrew name for it, which is taken from its first word, bere’shith<\/span>,<\/em> “in the beginning.”<\/p>\nAuthor<\/p>\nThe authorship of Genesis is closely related to the authorship of the entire Pentateuch (lit. “five-volumed,” the first five books of the Bible, which in Hebrew are called the Torah). It is clear that the Bible regards the human author of these books as Moses. On several occasions the Lord commanded Moses to write down various things: “in a book” (Ex 17:14) “write these words” (34:27). The Pentateuch reports that “Moses wrote all the words of the Lord<\/span>” (24:4); he wrote the itinerary of the exodus wanderings (Nm 33:2); “Moses wrote this law” (Dt 31:9). (Here it is not certain that all five books are meant, but it must refer to at least the greater part of Deuteronomy.) In Exodus 24:7 it is said that Moses read the Book of the Covenant, which he must have just completed.<\/p>\nThe rest of the OT bears witness to the writing of the Pentateuch by Moses. David referred to “the law of Moses” (1 Kgs 2:3). In the time of Josiah, there was found in the temple the “Book of the Law of the Lord<\/span> . . . given through Moses” (2 Chr 34:14, nlt<\/span>). Day by day Ezra read from “the Book of the Law of God” (Neh 8:18, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nIn the NT, Jesus refers to “the book of Moses” (Mk 12:26; Lk 20:37) and otherwise mentions the commands or statements of Moses (Mt 8:4; 19:8; Mk 7:10; cf. Lk 16:31; 24:44). The Jews also quoted from the Torah as coming from Moses, and Jesus did not contradict them.<\/p>\nOf Genesis in particular, it may be said that Moses had the opportunity and ability to write the book. He could have written it during his years in Egypt or while exiled with the Kenites. As the recognized leader of the Israelites, he would have had access to, or perhaps even custody of, the records that Jacob brought from Canaan. He was “instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians” (Acts 7:22) and probably could have written in several languages and in several scripts (hieroglyphic, cuneiform, Old Hebrew). Although Moses was admirably fitted for the task of writing, one must remember that he was not putting together a human composition but was writing under the inspiration of God (2 Pt 1:21). We may with confidence conclude that Moses was the human author of Genesis.<\/p>\nThe liberal view of the authorship of Genesis is that the book is an editorial composite—a view first put forward by a French physician, Jean Astruc, who suggested that the different names for God indicated different documents or sources for the writing of the book. The German higher critics expanded the view of the use of documents in the writing of Genesis and developed it into the Graf-Wellhausen-Kuenen, or Documentary, Hypothesis, which may also be called the JEDP theory of the authorship of the book. This view holds that there were four basic documents: (1) J, which uses the name YHWH (Jehovah or Yahweh) for God, dates from about the ninth century BC<\/span> and comes from Judah; (2) E uses the name Elohim, dates from the eighth century, and comes from the northern kingdom; (3) D is Deuteronomy and is supposed to come from the time of Josiah, about 621 BC<\/span>; and (4) P is the priestly element, which deals with matters of the priesthood and ritual, dating to the fifth century BC<\/span> or later. Some may date portions of Genesis as late as the Hellenistic period. According to this theory, the various documents were blended together by editors, so that there was a JE, JED, and so on.<\/p>\nThe science of archaeology discredited many of the extreme postulations of these critics, and the work of W. F. Albright and his followers did much to restore confidence in the historicity of Genesis. Within the last several decades, the patriarchal narratives and the account of Joseph have again come under strong attack, but these views are extreme, and much of the evidence adduced by Albright and earlier scholars like R. D. Wilson, W. H. Green, and others still has validity.<\/p>\nDate<\/p>\nThe date of the book is also a matter of debate. Even among those who accept Mosaic authorship there is debate as to when Moses lived. Based on the biblical data, Moses should have lived in the 15th century BC<\/span> (cf. Jgs 11:26; 1 Kgs 6:1), but many scholars incline toward a 13th-century date. As outlined above, the liberal view of the date of Genesis would be from the ninth to the fifth centuries BC<\/span>, with the final editing coming around the fifth century or perhaps even later.<\/p>\nPurpose<\/p>\nGenesis sketches the origin of many things: the universe, the earth, plants, animals, and mankind. It gives the beginnings of human institutions, professions, and crafts. It describes the origin of sin and death, and illustrates the insidious working of Satan in human life. Above all, Genesis relates the beginning of the history of redemption with the announcement of a Redeemer who was to come (Gn 3:15). It names the early progenitors in the lineage of the Messiah and the beginning of the Hebrew people through whom the Bible and the Savior came. Genesis also gives a selective history of people and events as viewed from the perspective of the purposes of God.<\/p>\nStructure<\/p>\nThe book is divided into 11 parts of uneven length, each set off by the expression “these are the generations [descendants, history] of” (2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1; 37:2). Only three times does the formula coincide with the first verse of a chapter. Usually called a heading or superscription, the expression serves as a kind of link between what precedes and what follows.<\/p>\n\nContent<\/p>\n<h5>The Creation (1:1–2:25)<\/h5>\nThese two chapters have been a scientific-theological battleground for many years, as researchers and students have tried to probe the origins of the universe and of life. Much of the evidence is not subject to scientific scrutiny, for science by definition requires that the evidence must be reproducible by experiment.<\/p>\nThe statement of Genesis 1:1 remains the grandest, most precise, and most accurate statement of origins: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” He did this ex nihilo<\/em> (“out of nothing”) by his word (Heb 11:3); he spoke the word of command and it was done (Gn 1:3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20; Ps 33:6, 9).<\/p>\nThe date of the beginning is unknown. Uniformitarian cosmogonists (students of the origins of the universe who believe that natural events have always followed a uniform pattern; cf. 2 Pt 3:3-7) have speculated that the beginning of the universe was billions of years ago. But some creationists posit a world thousands of years old.<\/p>\nTo accommodate geological ages and the existence of extinct animals, some interpreters have proposed a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, with Genesis 1:2–2:3 representing a second or new creation. But this is conjecture. So is the idea that each day represents a geological age.<\/p>\nAs the text stands, there is a correlation between the first three days and the second three days. Day one saw the creation of light; day four, the light bearers. Day two was the time of the creation of the firmament (better, “expanse”), which divided the waters; day five, birds and swarming water creatures. On day three, God made the dry land and plants; on day six he created the land animals and man. He made man in the image of God (Gn 1:26), “a little less than God” (Ps 8:5), and gave him dominion over the earth. He made everything “according to their kinds,” so that each kind is distinct and unique. The perfection of his work is affirmed in that “God saw that it was good” (Gn 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21; “very good,” v 31). The seventh day was a time of cessation from the activity of creating and served as a type for mankind’s day of rest (2:1-3).<\/p>\nCritical scholarship eyes 2:4-25 as a doublet in conflict with Genesis 1:1–2:3. To conservative scholars, the second chapter is the same account from a different perspective. Chapter 1 gives the Creation from the standpoint of sequence; chapter 2 shows it in view of the centrality of mankind in God’s creative work.<\/p>\nChapter 2 gives details of the creation of man of “dust from the ground” (v 7) and woman from a rib of the man (vv 21-22). She was created to be “a companion who will help him” (vv 18-20). They were created as mature adults, with the gift of speech and with great intelligence. Adam had imagination and vocabulary sufficient for naming all of the animal species (v 19).<\/p>\nThe location of the Garden of Eden is given (vv 10-14). Two of the four rivers, the Tigris and the Euphrates, can be identified with certainty. So man lived in this beautiful garden in the bliss of innocence.<\/p>\n<h5>The History of Humankind from Eden to Babel (3:1–11:26)<\/h5>\n<h6>The Fall<\/h6>\nThe loss of Eden and the break in fellowship with God is the saddest chapter in human history. The serpent, the devil, approached Eve with the same philosophy he always uses: doubt of God’s word (Gn 3:1), denial of death (v 4), and the suggestion of equality with God (v 5). He gained access to her will by deceiving her with the promise that the fruit would make her as wise as God is (Gn 3:5; cf. 1 Jn 2:16). Eve was deceived, but when she offered the fruit to Adam, he took it willingly, knowing what he was doing (Gn 3:6; cf. 1 Tm 2:14). Later, he tried to blame God for giving him the wife who gave him the fruit (Gn 3:12). Fellowship with God was broken (v 8), yet God came seeking Adam and found him.<\/p>\nWith sin came judgment, and the Lord pronounced righteous judgment on the serpent, the woman, and the man. The earth was also “subjected to frustration” and now groans as it awaits renewal (Rom 8:21-22). God gave hope to man and a promise of a Redeemer (Gn 3:15), who was to bruise the serpent’s head. Adam and Eve were forced out of the Garden, and it was made inaccessible to them.<\/p>\nThe impatience of humankind is shown in Eve’s expectation that her son Cain was the promised Deliverer. Instead, he developed a wrong-hearted attitude toward God and became so jealous of his younger brother that he murdered him. Apprehended by God and confronted with his crime, Cain showed only self-pity and went east from Eden, where he built a city (4:1-16). Chapter 4 closes with another contrast: the brazen Lamech, who called for vengeance, while others began to call upon the name of the Lord.<\/p>\n<h6>The Generations of Adam<\/h6>\nThis genealogical table (5:1-32) brings humankind to the time of Noah and the Flood. The longevity of the antediluvian patriarchs seems very striking to us, but one must remember that the earth had not yet been subjected to pollution and that the effects of sin on the human race were still nominal. The refrain “and he died” reminds us of man’s mortality. For Enoch, however, there was something better: “He enjoyed a close relationship with God throughout his life. Then, suddenly, he disappeared because God took him” (5:24, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h6>The Flood<\/h6>\nWith increased population came an eruption of sin (6:1-5). As men multiplied, so did their corruption. The universal condemnation of verse 5 shows a world ripe for judgment. Noah, however, “found favor with the Lord<\/span>,” for he was a righteous and blameless man who walked with God (6:8-9).<\/p>\nThe Lord planned to annihilate the human race, but he determined to save Noah and his family. Intending to flood the earth, God instructed Noah to build an ark. Noah was directed to take animals aboard the ark, two by two, male and female, for the preservation of each species. When all was in readiness, the Flood came: “the underground waters burst forth on the earth, and the rain fell in mighty torrents from the sky” (7:11, nlt<\/span>). It rained for 40 days and 40 nights. The highest mountains were covered, and life outside the ark perished. “But God remembered Noah” and sent a wind to evaporate the waters (8:1). Eventually the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat (v 4). Noah made a sacrifice to the Lord, and the Lord determined that he would never again bring such destruction upon the earth.<\/p>\nThe Flood is another of God’s acts that has been much debated. Many have argued for a local flood, which affected only part of Mesopotamia. Archaeologists have pointed to various flood strata in the excavation of Mesopotamian city-mounds as evidence for the account of the flood and have cited the various flood stories from that area as the source of the Genesis record. The epic of Gilgamesh gives an interesting tale of this hero, who went on a mission to visit Utnapishtim, the cuneiform Noah, in quest of eternal life. The flood story told by Utnapishtim has many parallels to Genesis, but there are greater contrasts, which demonstrate that the Bible preserves the true account.<\/p>\nBoth the Genesis account and the references to it in the NT (cf. 2 Pt 3:6) favor the view that the deluge was not a minor episode in the Tigris-Euphrates area but was an unprecedented worldwide catastrophe. Christian geologists affirm that the Flood had far-reaching effects on the earth itself. Flood stories are almost universally known, lending support to the conclusion that the Flood covered the whole earth. Following the Flood, God blessed Noah and his sons, Ham, Shem, and Japheth. God made a covenant with Noah, promising that he would never again send a worldwide flood. As a sign of this, he established the rainbow.<\/p>\nNoah was the first tiller of the soil, and he planted a vineyard (9:20). Noah became drunk from wine he made and lay uncovered in his tent. Ham saw him and reported this to his brothers, who discreetly covered him. Ham and his son Canaan were cursed; Shem and Japheth were blessed.<\/p>\n<h6>The History of the Nations<\/h6>\n“This is the history of the families of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, the three sons of Noah. Many children were born to them after the Flood” (10:1, nlt<\/span>). This chapter lists the descendants of Noah’s three sons, in the order of Japheth (vv 2-5), Ham (vv 6-20), and Shem (vv 21-31). Many of the names of their descendants are preserved in tribes and nations of the world.<\/p>\n<h6>The Tower of Babel<\/h6>\nThe building of the Tower of Babel (“Gate of God”) illustrates man’s perversity and his tendency to want independence from God. The desire of man to displace God follows the fateful example of Lucifer and is a basic tenet of many cults. God thwarted the designs of the builders of Babel by confusing their languages, so that the project came to a halt (11:1-9). The site of this tower is not known with certainty. Some associate it with Birs Nimrud, not far from the ruins of the city of Babylon. Genesis 11:10-25 picks up the line of Shem and carries it down to Terah, the father of Abram.<\/p>\n<h5>The History of Abraham (11:27–25:10) and Isaac (21:1–28:5)<\/h5>\nAbram came from Ur of the Chaldees, a prosperous city. The city had an imposing ziggurat (temple-tower), with many temples, storehouses, and residences. Abram and Sarai, his half sister and wife, went with his father to Haran in Syria, which like Ur was a center of the worship of the moon god, Sin (or Annar).<\/p>\n<h6>Abram’s Call<\/h6>\nThe call of God came to Abram directing him to leave his relatives and move to a land that the Lord would show him (12:1; cf. Acts 7:2-3). Abram obeyed. At the age of 75, he, Sarai, and his nephew Lot left Haran and went to Shechem, where the Lord appeared to him and promised that land to his descendants.<\/p>\nFamine drove Abram down to Egypt (Gn 12:10-20). Because of Sarai’s beauty, he feared that someone might kill him to get her, so he passed her off as his sister. She was taken into the pharaoh’s harem. When the Lord plagued Pharaoh because of this, Abram’s lie was discovered and Sarai was returned to him.<\/p>\n<h6>Abram and Lot<\/h6>\nAbram and Lot returned to Canaan, where strife broke out between Abram’s herdsmen and those of Lot. Abram suggested that they should separate, and he gave Lot the choice of territory. Lot chose the well-watered Jordan Valley and the cities of the plain, Sodom and Gomorrah (ch 13).<\/p>\n<h6>The Invasion of the Four Kings from the East<\/h6>\nThe four kings who invaded along the King’s Highway in Transjordan cannot be identified with certainty. Those kings were successful in their attack against the five cities of the plain, and they moved off with much booty and many captives, including Lot. Abram took 318 retainers, born in his household, and set off after them. By surprise attack, Abram recovered both Lot and the loot. On his return he was met by Melchizedek, king of Jerusalem, to whom Abram paid tithes (ch 14).<\/p>\n<h6>The Covenant<\/h6>\nThe Lord promised Abram a son as heir, and in an impressive nighttime ceremony, God made a covenant with Abram and promised him the land from the River of Egypt (Wadi el Arish) to the Euphrates (ch 15). Because of her own barrenness, Sarai gave her Egyptian maid, Hagar, to Abram. Hagar gave birth to Ishmael, the progenitor of the Arab peoples. When trouble arose between the women, Sarai sent Hagar away, which was her right according to Near Eastern customs (as illustrated by the Nuzi tablets). God showed mercy to Hagar and promised that she would have a great posterity (ch 16).<\/p>\nGod repeated his promise to Abram concerning his descendants and changed the names of Abram (“exalted father”) and Sarai to Abraham (“father of many”) and Sarah (“princess”). A covenant sign of circumcision was given to Abraham (ch 17). This operation had already been practiced among the Egyptians for several centuries.<\/p>\n<h6>The Destruction of the Cities of the Plain<\/h6>\nThe Lord and two angels appeared to Abraham and announced the birth of the promised heir within a year, as well as proclaimed the impending destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, concerning which Abraham bargained with God (18:22-33). Lot and his immediate family were rescued from Sodom, and the cities were destroyed by God with brimstone and fire (19:24-25). Lot’s two daughters, wishing to preserve their family line, got their father drunk and had sexual relations with him. Moab and Ammon, enemies of Israel in later times, were the result.<\/p>\nIn Genesis 20:1-18, Abraham again represented Sarah as his sister and got into trouble with Abimelech, king of Gerar.<\/p>\n<h6>Isaac<\/h6>\nWhen Isaac was born (21:1-3), trouble again broke out between Sarah and Hagar. Hagar was driven out a second time, and once more was befriended by the Lord.<\/p>\nA disagreement arose between Abraham and Abimelech concerning a well, but they made a covenant of peace at Beersheba (21:25-34).<\/p>\nGod tested Abraham’s faith by asking him to sacrifice Isaac on Mt Moriah, which probably is the same site David later bought from Araunah the Jebusite (2 Sm 24:16-25), the place where the temple was to stand. As Abraham was about to use the knife, God called to him and showed him a ram caught in a thicket. Isaac was freed and the animal was sacrificed in his stead.<\/p>\nSarah died at Hebron, and Abraham purchased the cave of Machpelah as a burial place from Ephron the Hittite (ch 23), in a transaction typical of Near Eastern business dealings. To find a wife for Isaac, Abraham sent his servant Eliezer back to the area of Haran, and the Lord directed Eliezer to Rebekah (ch 24).<\/p>\nChapter 25 records the marriage of Abraham to Keturah, who bore him a number of children. Abraham died at the age of 175 years and was buried in the cave of Machpelah by his two sons, Isaac and Ishmael.<\/p>\n<h5>The History of Jacob and Esau (25:19–37:1)<\/h5>\nRebekah gave birth to twin sons, Esau and Jacob. When the boys were grown, Esau sold his birthright to Jacob for a meal of red pottage (25:27-34).<\/p>\nWhen famine came to the land, Isaac went to Gerar, as his father had done (ch 20), and repeated his father’s lie by calling his wife his sister (26:1-11). Trouble arose with the Philistines over wells, but Isaac was a peaceable man and preferred digging new wells rather than fighting over old ones (vv 17-33).<\/p>\nIn Isaac’s old age, when his sight had failed, Rebekah connived with Jacob to trick Isaac into giving to Jacob the blessing of the firstborn, which was rightfully Esau’s. This oral blessing had legal validity and was irrevocable, according to the ancient Nuzi tablets. Fearing for Jacob’s life at the hands of Esau, Rebekah arranged to send Jacob to Haran to find a wife from among her own people. At Bethel, God appeared to Jacob in a dream of a ladder leading up to heaven; God renewed with Jacob the promise made to Abraham and Isaac (28:10-22).<\/p>\nJacob reached Haran, found his uncle Laban, and was employed by him (ch 29). His wages for seven years of labor were to be Laban’s younger daughter, Rachel, as his wife. But Laban substituted Leah, so that Jacob had to work another seven years for Rachel. The Lord prospered Jacob, but he continually had difficulties with Laban. The Lord directed Jacob back to Canaan (31:3), so he left secretly with his wives, children, and property. Laban pursued them because his household gods were missing (possession of these “gods” made the holder heir to the owner’s estate, according to Nuzi custom). Rachel had taken them but successfully concealed them from her father, and Laban went back to Haran.<\/p>\nFearing a meeting with Esau as they passed through Edom, Jacob sent gifts to his brother and divided his own party into two camps for security. On this return journey, Jacob had an unexpected wrestling bout with the Angel of the Lord, and he was left with a limp and a new name, Israel (ch 32).<\/p>\nThe meeting with Esau was friendly, and Jacob went on to Shechem (ch 33), where his sons killed the male Shechemites because of the rape of their sister Dinah (ch 34). God told Jacob to go to Bethel and build an altar to the Lord. All idols of foreign gods were buried (35:1-4). At Bethel, God reaffirmed his promise of a posterity and the land (vv 9-15). Rachel died on the way to Bethlehem, while giving birth to Benjamin, Jacob’s 12th and last son. Isaac died at Hebron at age 180 and was buried in the cave of Machpelah by Esau and Jacob.<\/p>\nGenesis 36 records “the generations of Esau” (v 1). Here Esau is also named Edom (“Red”; cf. 25:30).<\/p>\n<h5>The History of Joseph (37:2–50:26)<\/h5>\nJoseph was Jacob’s favorite son and thus incurred the jealousy of his brothers. This was heightened by Joseph’s dreams of lordship over them. Their resentment of Joseph came to a climax when Jacob gave Joseph a beautiful coat. The brothers determined to kill Joseph, but they compromised by selling him to a caravan of merchants, who took him to Egypt and sold him as a slave to Potiphar, an Egyptian captain of the guard (37:36; 39:1).<\/p>\nChapter 38 relates a historic case of levirate marriage. Judah failed to give his widowed daughter-in-law to his third son. She deceived him into fathering twin sons and forced him to acknowledge his faults. The elder son, Perez, is named in Luke’s genealogy of Jesus (Lk 3:33).<\/p>\nThe Lord blessed Joseph, who soon was put in charge of Potiphar’s household (Gn 39). The young man attracted the attention of Potiphar’s wife, who, after many attempts to seduce him, at last accused him of attempted rape. Sentenced on this charge, Joseph met with favor in prison, where he had opportunity to interpret dreams for two of the pharaoh’s servants (ch 40). When the king had dreams that his magicians and wise men could not interpret, Joseph was summoned from jail. Joseph told Pharaoh that the dreams meant seven years of plenty, followed by seven years of famine. Joseph was then exalted to the office of vizier, or prime minister, second only to the king, and put in charge of the administration of the land (41:37-44).<\/p>\nWhen the famine came to Palestine, Jacob sent his sons to Egypt to purchase grain. Joseph recognized his brothers but did not reveal his identity to them. Joseph put them to the test by accusing them of being spies (42:9), by keeping one of the brothers (Simeon) hostage (v 19), and by demanding that if they came to Egypt again, they must bring their youngest brother with them (42:20; 43:3). The famine became so severe in Canaan (43:1) that Jacob at last allowed Benjamin to go with his brothers to Egypt. The brothers were again set up by Joseph, who had his silver cup put into Benjamin’s grain sack and then had him apprehended as a thief (ch 44).<\/p>\nAt this point Joseph revealed his identity to his brothers (45:4-15) and there was much rejoicing. Joseph pointed out that it was God who had sent him to Egypt (vv 7-8), in order to preserve the lives of all the family. Jacob was then sent for (46:1), and Joseph met him in the land of Goshen (46:28-29). The Israelites were assigned land in the region of Goshen, where they prospered (47:27).<\/p>\nIn Jacob’s final illness, Joseph brought his two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, to his father for his blessing. Jacob gave the primary blessing to the second-born, Ephraim (48:13-20). Jacob blessed each of his own sons and then died at the age of at least 130 years. Joseph arranged for Jacob’s body to be prepared for burial according to Egyptian custom (50:2-3). After the burial of their father in the cave of Machpelah at Hebron, Joseph’s brothers worried about vengeance, but Joseph declared, “As far as I am concerned, God turned into good what you meant for evil. He brought me to the high position I have today so I could save the lives of many people” (v 20, nlt<\/span>). Joseph died at age 110 with the prophetic request that when the Israelites went up from Egypt they would take his bones with them (50:25; cf. Ex 13:19; Jos 24:32).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Abraham; Adam (Person); Covenant; Creation; Eve; Fall of Man; Flood, The; Isaac; Jacob #1; Joseph #1; Nations; Noah #1; Patriarchs, Period of the.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>GENESIS, Book of<\/h3>\nFirst book of the Bible.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Name<\/p>\n• Author<\/p>\n• Date<\/p>\n• Purpose<\/p>\n• Structure<\/p>\n• Content<\/p>\nName<\/p>\nThe name Genesis comes into English as a transliteration of the Greek word meaning “origin” or “beginning.” This name was given to the book in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, known as the Septuagint. Genesis reflects both the content of the book and the Hebrew name for it, which is taken from its first word, bere’shith<\/span>,<\/em> “in the beginning.”<\/p>\nAuthor<\/p>\nThe authorship of Genesis is closely related to the authorship of the entire Pentateuch (lit. “five-volumed,” the first five books of the Bible, which in Hebrew are called the Torah). It is clear that the Bible regards the human author of these books as Moses. On several occasions the Lord commanded Moses to write down various things: “in a book” (Ex 17:14) “write these words” (34:27). The Pentateuch reports that “Moses wrote all the words of the Lord<\/span>” (24:4); he wrote the itinerary of the exodus wanderings (Nm 33:2); “Moses wrote this law” (Dt 31:9). (Here it is not certain that all five books are meant, but it must refer to at least the greater part of Deuteronomy.) In Exodus 24:7 it is said that Moses read the Book of the Covenant, which he must have just completed.<\/p>\nThe rest of the OT bears witness to the writing of the Pentateuch by Moses. David referred to “the law of Moses” (1 Kgs 2:3). In the time of Josiah, there was found in the temple the “Book of the Law of the Lord<\/span> . . . given through Moses” (2 Chr 34:14, nlt<\/span>). Day by day Ezra read from “the Book of the Law of God” (Neh 8:18, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nIn the NT, Jesus refers to “the book of Moses” (Mk 12:26; Lk 20:37) and otherwise mentions the commands or statements of Moses (Mt 8:4; 19:8; Mk 7:10; cf. Lk 16:31; 24:44). The Jews also quoted from the Torah as coming from Moses, and Jesus did not contradict them.<\/p>\nOf Genesis in particular, it may be said that Moses had the opportunity and ability to write the book. He could have written it during his years in Egypt or while exiled with the Kenites. As the recognized leader of the Israelites, he would have had access to, or perhaps even custody of, the records that Jacob brought from Canaan. He was “instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians” (Acts 7:22) and probably could have written in several languages and in several scripts (hieroglyphic, cuneiform, Old Hebrew). Although Moses was admirably fitted for the task of writing, one must remember that he was not putting together a human composition but was writing under the inspiration of God (2 Pt 1:21). We may with confidence conclude that Moses was the human author of Genesis.<\/p>\nThe liberal view of the authorship of Genesis is that the book is an editorial composite—a view first put forward by a French physician, Jean Astruc, who suggested that the different names for God indicated different documents or sources for the writing of the book. The German higher critics expanded the view of the use of documents in the writing of Genesis and developed it into the Graf-Wellhausen-Kuenen, or Documentary, Hypothesis, which may also be called the JEDP theory of the authorship of the book. This view holds that there were four basic documents: (1) J, which uses the name YHWH (Jehovah or Yahweh) for God, dates from about the ninth century BC<\/span> and comes from Judah; (2) E uses the name Elohim, dates from the eighth century, and comes from the northern kingdom; (3) D is Deuteronomy and is supposed to come from the time of Josiah, about 621 BC<\/span>; and (4) P is the priestly element, which deals with matters of the priesthood and ritual, dating to the fifth century BC<\/span> or later. Some may date portions of Genesis as late as the Hellenistic period. According to this theory, the various documents were blended together by editors, so that there was a JE, JED, and so on.<\/p>\nThe science of archaeology discredited many of the extreme postulations of these critics, and the work of W. F. Albright and his followers did much to restore confidence in the historicity of Genesis. Within the last several decades, the patriarchal narratives and the account of Joseph have again come under strong attack, but these views are extreme, and much of the evidence adduced by Albright and earlier scholars like R. D. Wilson, W. H. Green, and others still has validity.<\/p>\nDate<\/p>\nThe date of the book is also a matter of debate. Even among those who accept Mosaic authorship there is debate as to when Moses lived. Based on the biblical data, Moses should have lived in the 15th century BC<\/span> (cf. Jgs 11:26; 1 Kgs 6:1), but many scholars incline toward a 13th-century date. As outlined above, the liberal view of the date of Genesis would be from the ninth to the fifth centuries BC<\/span>, with the final editing coming around the fifth century or perhaps even later.<\/p>\nPurpose<\/p>\nGenesis sketches the origin of many things: the universe, the earth, plants, animals, and mankind. It gives the beginnings of human institutions, professions, and crafts. It describes the origin of sin and death, and illustrates the insidious working of Satan in human life. Above all, Genesis relates the beginning of the history of redemption with the announcement of a Redeemer who was to come (Gn 3:15). It names the early progenitors in the lineage of the Messiah and the beginning of the Hebrew people through whom the Bible and the Savior came. Genesis also gives a selective history of people and events as viewed from the perspective of the purposes of God.<\/p>\nStructure<\/p>\nThe book is divided into 11 parts of uneven length, each set off by the expression “these are the generations [descendants, history] of” (2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1; 37:2). Only three times does the formula coincide with the first verse of a chapter. Usually called a heading or superscription, the expression serves as a kind of link between what precedes and what follows.<\/p>\n\nContent<\/p>\n<h5>The Creation (1:1–2:25)<\/h5>\nThese two chapters have been a scientific-theological battleground for many years, as researchers and students have tried to probe the origins of the universe and of life. Much of the evidence is not subject to scientific scrutiny, for science by definition requires that the evidence must be reproducible by experiment.<\/p>\nThe statement of Genesis 1:1 remains the grandest, most precise, and most accurate statement of origins: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” He did this ex nihilo<\/em> (“out of nothing”) by his word (Heb 11:3); he spoke the word of command and it was done (Gn 1:3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20; Ps 33:6, 9).<\/p>\nThe date of the beginning is unknown. Uniformitarian cosmogonists (students of the origins of the universe who believe that natural events have always followed a uniform pattern; cf. 2 Pt 3:3-7) have speculated that the beginning of the universe was billions of years ago. But some creationists posit a world thousands of years old.<\/p>\nTo accommodate geological ages and the existence of extinct animals, some interpreters have proposed a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, with Genesis 1:2–2:3 representing a second or new creation. But this is conjecture. So is the idea that each day represents a geological age.<\/p>\nAs the text stands, there is a correlation between the first three days and the second three days. Day one saw the creation of light; day four, the light bearers. Day two was the time of the creation of the firmament (better, “expanse”), which divided the waters; day five, birds and swarming water creatures. On day three, God made the dry land and plants; on day six he created the land animals and man. He made man in the image of God (Gn 1:26), “a little less than God” (Ps 8:5), and gave him dominion over the earth. He made everything “according to their kinds,” so that each kind is distinct and unique. The perfection of his work is affirmed in that “God saw that it was good” (Gn 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21; “very good,” v 31). The seventh day was a time of cessation from the activity of creating and served as a type for mankind’s day of rest (2:1-3).<\/p>\nCritical scholarship eyes 2:4-25 as a doublet in conflict with Genesis 1:1–2:3. To conservative scholars, the second chapter is the same account from a different perspective. Chapter 1 gives the Creation from the standpoint of sequence; chapter 2 shows it in view of the centrality of mankind in God’s creative work.<\/p>\nChapter 2 gives details of the creation of man of “dust from the ground” (v 7) and woman from a rib of the man (vv 21-22). She was created to be “a companion who will help him” (vv 18-20). They were created as mature adults, with the gift of speech and with great intelligence. Adam had imagination and vocabulary sufficient for naming all of the animal species (v 19).<\/p>\nThe location of the Garden of Eden is given (vv 10-14). Two of the four rivers, the Tigris and the Euphrates, can be identified with certainty. So man lived in this beautiful garden in the bliss of innocence.<\/p>\n<h5>The History of Humankind from Eden to Babel (3:1–11:26)<\/h5>\n<h6>The Fall<\/h6>\nThe loss of Eden and the break in fellowship with God is the saddest chapter in human history. The serpent, the devil, approached Eve with the same philosophy he always uses: doubt of God’s word (Gn 3:1), denial of death (v 4), and the suggestion of equality with God (v 5). He gained access to her will by deceiving her with the promise that the fruit would make her as wise as God is (Gn 3:5; cf. 1 Jn 2:16). Eve was deceived, but when she offered the fruit to Adam, he took it willingly, knowing what he was doing (Gn 3:6; cf. 1 Tm 2:14). Later, he tried to blame God for giving him the wife who gave him the fruit (Gn 3:12). Fellowship with God was broken (v 8), yet God came seeking Adam and found him.<\/p>\nWith sin came judgment, and the Lord pronounced righteous judgment on the serpent, the woman, and the man. The earth was also “subjected to frustration” and now groans as it awaits renewal (Rom 8:21-22). God gave hope to man and a promise of a Redeemer (Gn 3:15), who was to bruise the serpent’s head. Adam and Eve were forced out of the Garden, and it was made inaccessible to them.<\/p>\nThe impatience of humankind is shown in Eve’s expectation that her son Cain was the promised Deliverer. Instead, he developed a wrong-hearted attitude toward God and became so jealous of his younger brother that he murdered him. Apprehended by God and confronted with his crime, Cain showed only self-pity and went east from Eden, where he built a city (4:1-16). Chapter 4 closes with another contrast: the brazen Lamech, who called for vengeance, while others began to call upon the name of the Lord.<\/p>\n<h6>The Generations of Adam<\/h6>\nThis genealogical table (5:1-32) brings humankind to the time of Noah and the Flood. The longevity of the antediluvian patriarchs seems very striking to us, but one must remember that the earth had not yet been subjected to pollution and that the effects of sin on the human race were still nominal. The refrain “and he died” reminds us of man’s mortality. For Enoch, however, there was something better: “He enjoyed a close relationship with God throughout his life. Then, suddenly, he disappeared because God took him” (5:24, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h6>The Flood<\/h6>\nWith increased population came an eruption of sin (6:1-5). As men multiplied, so did their corruption. The universal condemnation of verse 5 shows a world ripe for judgment. Noah, however, “found favor with the Lord<\/span>,” for he was a righteous and blameless man who walked with God (6:8-9).<\/p>\nThe Lord planned to annihilate the human race, but he determined to save Noah and his family. Intending to flood the earth, God instructed Noah to build an ark. Noah was directed to take animals aboard the ark, two by two, male and female, for the preservation of each species. When all was in readiness, the Flood came: “the underground waters burst forth on the earth, and the rain fell in mighty torrents from the sky” (7:11, nlt<\/span>). It rained for 40 days and 40 nights. The highest mountains were covered, and life outside the ark perished. “But God remembered Noah” and sent a wind to evaporate the waters (8:1). Eventually the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat (v 4). Noah made a sacrifice to the Lord, and the Lord determined that he would never again bring such destruction upon the earth.<\/p>\nThe Flood is another of God’s acts that has been much debated. Many have argued for a local flood, which affected only part of Mesopotamia. Archaeologists have pointed to various flood strata in the excavation of Mesopotamian city-mounds as evidence for the account of the flood and have cited the various flood stories from that area as the source of the Genesis record. The epic of Gilgamesh gives an interesting tale of this hero, who went on a mission to visit Utnapishtim, the cuneiform Noah, in quest of eternal life. The flood story told by Utnapishtim has many parallels to Genesis, but there are greater contrasts, which demonstrate that the Bible preserves the true account.<\/p>\nBoth the Genesis account and the references to it in the NT (cf. 2 Pt 3:6) favor the view that the deluge was not a minor episode in the Tigris-Euphrates area but was an unprecedented worldwide catastrophe. Christian geologists affirm that the Flood had far-reaching effects on the earth itself. Flood stories are almost universally known, lending support to the conclusion that the Flood covered the whole earth. Following the Flood, God blessed Noah and his sons, Ham, Shem, and Japheth. God made a covenant with Noah, promising that he would never again send a worldwide flood. As a sign of this, he established the rainbow.<\/p>\nNoah was the first tiller of the soil, and he planted a vineyard (9:20). Noah became drunk from wine he made and lay uncovered in his tent. Ham saw him and reported this to his brothers, who discreetly covered him. Ham and his son Canaan were cursed; Shem and Japheth were blessed.<\/p>\n<h6>The History of the Nations<\/h6>\n“This is the history of the families of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, the three sons of Noah. Many children were born to them after the Flood” (10:1, nlt<\/span>). This chapter lists the descendants of Noah’s three sons, in the order of Japheth (vv 2-5), Ham (vv 6-20), and Shem (vv 21-31). Many of the names of their descendants are preserved in tribes and nations of the world.<\/p>\n<h6>The Tower of Babel<\/h6>\nThe building of the Tower of Babel (“Gate of God”) illustrates man’s perversity and his tendency to want independence from God. The desire of man to displace God follows the fateful example of Lucifer and is a basic tenet of many cults. God thwarted the designs of the builders of Babel by confusing their languages, so that the project came to a halt (11:1-9). The site of this tower is not known with certainty. Some associate it with Birs Nimrud, not far from the ruins of the city of Babylon. Genesis 11:10-25 picks up the line of Shem and carries it down to Terah, the father of Abram.<\/p>\n<h5>The History of Abraham (11:27–25:10) and Isaac (21:1–28:5)<\/h5>\nAbram came from Ur of the Chaldees, a prosperous city. The city had an imposing ziggurat (temple-tower), with many temples, storehouses, and residences. Abram and Sarai, his half sister and wife, went with his father to Haran in Syria, which like Ur was a center of the worship of the moon god, Sin (or Annar).<\/p>\n<h6>Abram’s Call<\/h6>\nThe call of God came to Abram directing him to leave his relatives and move to a land that the Lord would show him (12:1; cf. Acts 7:2-3). Abram obeyed. At the age of 75, he, Sarai, and his nephew Lot left Haran and went to Shechem, where the Lord appeared to him and promised that land to his descendants.<\/p>\nFamine drove Abram down to Egypt (Gn 12:10-20). Because of Sarai’s beauty, he feared that someone might kill him to get her, so he passed her off as his sister. She was taken into the pharaoh’s harem. When the Lord plagued Pharaoh because of this, Abram’s lie was discovered and Sarai was returned to him.<\/p>\n<h6>Abram and Lot<\/h6>\nAbram and Lot returned to Canaan, where strife broke out between Abram’s herdsmen and those of Lot. Abram suggested that they should separate, and he gave Lot the choice of territory. Lot chose the well-watered Jordan Valley and the cities of the plain, Sodom and Gomorrah (ch 13).<\/p>\n<h6>The Invasion of the Four Kings from the East<\/h6>\nThe four kings who invaded along the King’s Highway in Transjordan cannot be identified with certainty. Those kings were successful in their attack against the five cities of the plain, and they moved off with much booty and many captives, including Lot. Abram took 318 retainers, born in his household, and set off after them. By surprise attack, Abram recovered both Lot and the loot. On his return he was met by Melchizedek, king of Jerusalem, to whom Abram paid tithes (ch 14).<\/p>\n<h6>The Covenant<\/h6>\nThe Lord promised Abram a son as heir, and in an impressive nighttime ceremony, God made a covenant with Abram and promised him the land from the River of Egypt (Wadi el Arish) to the Euphrates (ch 15). Because of her own barrenness, Sarai gave her Egyptian maid, Hagar, to Abram. Hagar gave birth to Ishmael, the progenitor of the Arab peoples. When trouble arose between the women, Sarai sent Hagar away, which was her right according to Near Eastern customs (as illustrated by the Nuzi tablets). God showed mercy to Hagar and promised that she would have a great posterity (ch 16).<\/p>\nGod repeated his promise to Abram concerning his descendants and changed the names of Abram (“exalted father”) and Sarai to Abraham (“father of many”) and Sarah (“princess”). A covenant sign of circumcision was given to Abraham (ch 17). This operation had already been practiced among the Egyptians for several centuries.<\/p>\n<h6>The Destruction of the Cities of the Plain<\/h6>\nThe Lord and two angels appeared to Abraham and announced the birth of the promised heir within a year, as well as proclaimed the impending destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, concerning which Abraham bargained with God (18:22-33). Lot and his immediate family were rescued from Sodom, and the cities were destroyed by God with brimstone and fire (19:24-25). Lot’s two daughters, wishing to preserve their family line, got their father drunk and had sexual relations with him. Moab and Ammon, enemies of Israel in later times, were the result.<\/p>\nIn Genesis 20:1-18, Abraham again represented Sarah as his sister and got into trouble with Abimelech, king of Gerar.<\/p>\n<h6>Isaac<\/h6>\nWhen Isaac was born (21:1-3), trouble again broke out between Sarah and Hagar. Hagar was driven out a second time, and once more was befriended by the Lord.<\/p>\nA disagreement arose between Abraham and Abimelech concerning a well, but they made a covenant of peace at Beersheba (21:25-34).<\/p>\nGod tested Abraham’s faith by asking him to sacrifice Isaac on Mt Moriah, which probably is the same site David later bought from Araunah the Jebusite (2 Sm 24:16-25), the place where the temple was to stand. As Abraham was about to use the knife, God called to him and showed him a ram caught in a thicket. Isaac was freed and the animal was sacrificed in his stead.<\/p>\nSarah died at Hebron, and Abraham purchased the cave of Machpelah as a burial place from Ephron the Hittite (ch 23), in a transaction typical of Near Eastern business dealings. To find a wife for Isaac, Abraham sent his servant Eliezer back to the area of Haran, and the Lord directed Eliezer to Rebekah (ch 24).<\/p>\nChapter 25 records the marriage of Abraham to Keturah, who bore him a number of children. Abraham died at the age of 175 years and was buried in the cave of Machpelah by his two sons, Isaac and Ishmael.<\/p>\n<h5>The History of Jacob and Esau (25:19–37:1)<\/h5>\nRebekah gave birth to twin sons, Esau and Jacob. When the boys were grown, Esau sold his birthright to Jacob for a meal of red pottage (25:27-34).<\/p>\nWhen famine came to the land, Isaac went to Gerar, as his father had done (ch 20), and repeated his father’s lie by calling his wife his sister (26:1-11). Trouble arose with the Philistines over wells, but Isaac was a peaceable man and preferred digging new wells rather than fighting over old ones (vv 17-33).<\/p>\nIn Isaac’s old age, when his sight had failed, Rebekah connived with Jacob to trick Isaac into giving to Jacob the blessing of the firstborn, which was rightfully Esau’s. This oral blessing had legal validity and was irrevocable, according to the ancient Nuzi tablets. Fearing for Jacob’s life at the hands of Esau, Rebekah arranged to send Jacob to Haran to find a wife from among her own people. At Bethel, God appeared to Jacob in a dream of a ladder leading up to heaven; God renewed with Jacob the promise made to Abraham and Isaac (28:10-22).<\/p>\nJacob reached Haran, found his uncle Laban, and was employed by him (ch 29). His wages for seven years of labor were to be Laban’s younger daughter, Rachel, as his wife. But Laban substituted Leah, so that Jacob had to work another seven years for Rachel. The Lord prospered Jacob, but he continually had difficulties with Laban. The Lord directed Jacob back to Canaan (31:3), so he left secretly with his wives, children, and property. Laban pursued them because his household gods were missing (possession of these “gods” made the holder heir to the owner’s estate, according to Nuzi custom). Rachel had taken them but successfully concealed them from her father, and Laban went back to Haran.<\/p>\nFearing a meeting with Esau as they passed through Edom, Jacob sent gifts to his brother and divided his own party into two camps for security. On this return journey, Jacob had an unexpected wrestling bout with the Angel of the Lord, and he was left with a limp and a new name, Israel (ch 32).<\/p>\nThe meeting with Esau was friendly, and Jacob went on to Shechem (ch 33), where his sons killed the male Shechemites because of the rape of their sister Dinah (ch 34). God told Jacob to go to Bethel and build an altar to the Lord. All idols of foreign gods were buried (35:1-4). At Bethel, God reaffirmed his promise of a posterity and the land (vv 9-15). Rachel died on the way to Bethlehem, while giving birth to Benjamin, Jacob’s 12th and last son. Isaac died at Hebron at age 180 and was buried in the cave of Machpelah by Esau and Jacob.<\/p>\nGenesis 36 records “the generations of Esau” (v 1). Here Esau is also named Edom (“Red”; cf. 25:30).<\/p>\n<h5>The History of Joseph (37:2–50:26)<\/h5>\nJoseph was Jacob’s favorite son and thus incurred the jealousy of his brothers. This was heightened by Joseph’s dreams of lordship over them. Their resentment of Joseph came to a climax when Jacob gave Joseph a beautiful coat. The brothers determined to kill Joseph, but they compromised by selling him to a caravan of merchants, who took him to Egypt and sold him as a slave to Potiphar, an Egyptian captain of the guard (37:36; 39:1).<\/p>\nChapter 38 relates a historic case of levirate marriage. Judah failed to give his widowed daughter-in-law to his third son. She deceived him into fathering twin sons and forced him to acknowledge his faults. The elder son, Perez, is named in Luke’s genealogy of Jesus (Lk 3:33).<\/p>\nThe Lord blessed Joseph, who soon was put in charge of Potiphar’s household (Gn 39). The young man attracted the attention of Potiphar’s wife, who, after many attempts to seduce him, at last accused him of attempted rape. Sentenced on this charge, Joseph met with favor in prison, where he had opportunity to interpret dreams for two of the pharaoh’s servants (ch 40). When the king had dreams that his magicians and wise men could not interpret, Joseph was summoned from jail. Joseph told Pharaoh that the dreams meant seven years of plenty, followed by seven years of famine. Joseph was then exalted to the office of vizier, or prime minister, second only to the king, and put in charge of the administration of the land (41:37-44).<\/p>\nWhen the famine came to Palestine, Jacob sent his sons to Egypt to purchase grain. Joseph recognized his brothers but did not reveal his identity to them. Joseph put them to the test by accusing them of being spies (42:9), by keeping one of the brothers (Simeon) hostage (v 19), and by demanding that if they came to Egypt again, they must bring their youngest brother with them (42:20; 43:3). The famine became so severe in Canaan (43:1) that Jacob at last allowed Benjamin to go with his brothers to Egypt. The brothers were again set up by Joseph, who had his silver cup put into Benjamin’s grain sack and then had him apprehended as a thief (ch 44).<\/p>\nAt this point Joseph revealed his identity to his brothers (45:4-15) and there was much rejoicing. Joseph pointed out that it was God who had sent him to Egypt (vv 7-8), in order to preserve the lives of all the family. Jacob was then sent for (46:1), and Joseph met him in the land of Goshen (46:28-29). The Israelites were assigned land in the region of Goshen, where they prospered (47:27).<\/p>\nIn Jacob’s final illness, Joseph brought his two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, to his father for his blessing. Jacob gave the primary blessing to the second-born, Ephraim (48:13-20). Jacob blessed each of his own sons and then died at the age of at least 130 years. Joseph arranged for Jacob’s body to be prepared for burial according to Egyptian custom (50:2-3). After the burial of their father in the cave of Machpelah at Hebron, Joseph’s brothers worried about vengeance, but Joseph declared, “As far as I am concerned, God turned into good what you meant for evil. He brought me to the high position I have today so I could save the lives of many people” (v 20, nlt<\/span>). Joseph died at age 110 with the prophetic request that when the Israelites went up from Egypt they would take his bones with them (50:25; cf. Ex 13:19; Jos 24:32).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Abraham; Adam (Person); Covenant; Creation; Eve; Fall of Man; Flood, The; Isaac; Jacob #1; Joseph #1; Nations; Noah #1; Patriarchs, Period of the.<\/p>","summary_ro":"GENESIS, Book of First book of the Bible. Preview • Name • Author • Date • Purpose • Structure • Content Name The name Genesis comes into English as a transliteration of the Greek word meaning “origin” or “beginning.” This name was given to the book in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, known as the Septuagint. Genesis reflects both the content of the book and the Hebrew name for it, which is taken from its first word, bere’shith, “in the beginning.” Author The authorship of Gene...","summary_en":"GENESIS, Book of First book of the Bible. Preview • Name • Author • Date • Purpose • Structure • Content Name The name Genesis comes into English as a transliteration of the Greek word meaning “origin” or “beginning.” This name was given to the book in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, known as the Septuagint. Genesis reflects both the content of the book and the Hebrew name for it, which is taken from its first word, bere’shith, “in the beginning.” Author The authorship of Gene...","source":"Articles\/G.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":17203,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Image of God","title_en":"Image of God","content_ro":"<h3>IMAGE OF GOD<\/h3>\nLikeness to God, the most basic affirmation to be made concerning the nature of human beings from a Christian perspective. Humans are unique among the creatures in that they are like God and therefore able to have communion and fellowship with God.<\/p>\nGenesis 1:26-27 teaches that God determined to create man and woman in his own “image” and “likeness” and that they would have dominion over the animal creation. The two terms used in the creation account and found also in the NT convey closely related shades of meaning, but the difference between them is no longer thought to be theologically significant.<\/p>\nBecause Genesis 2:7 states unambiguously that man<\/em> became a living being, the Bible does not present the view that a previously living creature developed into a human, nor does it suggest that the image of God evolved from a lower form of life. The moment the man and woman became living creatures, they were the image of God. Both male and female share this likeness to God (Gn 1:27).<\/p>\nOther passages that speak of people being created in the image of God are Genesis 5:1, 9:6, 1 Corinthians 11:7, and James 3:9. Ephesians 4:24 and Colossians 3:10 refer to humanity’s redemptive re-creation, but the passages are generally regarded as directly relevant for an understanding of mankind’s original likeness to God. Although explicit references to humans as expressing the image of God are comparatively infrequent in the Bible, the truth itself underlies the whole relation between God and humans and is therefore the presupposition of the entire biblical account.<\/p>\nThe affirmation in Genesis 1 that man and woman were made in the image of God is not made of any of the other living creatures. The animals, the fish, and the birds do not share this privilege. It is disputed whether the angels are in the image of God, but certain theologians so view them because they find the image to reside in moral righteousness. However, there is no explicit biblical statement to this effect.<\/p>\nBy virtue of his creation from the dust of the ground, mankind has an obvious kinship with the earth. It is not strange, therefore, that the body, both in its constitution and its functions, shows similarities with other earthly creatures. But humans are unique in every aspect of their existence; not some part of a human or some faculty of a human, but a human in his or her wholeness is the image of God. The biblical concept is not that the image is in<\/em> man and woman, but that man and woman are<\/em> the image of God.<\/p>\nHowever, as man’s kinship with the earth is most clearly visible in his body, so the image of God is best seen when humans are viewed from the perspective of their spirituality. Theologians have sought at this point to enumerate those aspects of spirituality that define humans and set them apart from the animal creation. The image of God is then found to reside in some attribute or combination of attributes, such as rationality, will, freedom, responsibility, or the like. Contemporary theologians prefer not to enumerate attributes, and the Bible does not set forth the image of God in this way. Nevertheless, it is the personality of humans that separates them from the animals and is a reflection of the personality of God. The animals have their existence from<\/em> God, but humans have their being in<\/em> God, and they are his offspring (Acts 17:28-29).<\/p>\nAnother major aspect of the image of God doctrine is developed from Ephesians 4:24 and Colossians 3:10. These verses describe the re-creation of the believers in the likeness of God—in righteousness, holiness of the truth, and true knowledge. In other words, Paul declares that the redeemed are re-created into the image of God as they are transformed into the image of Christ, who bears the untainted image of God. Just as the fall into sin was not without its effect on the image of God, so also redemption from sin affects humans as the image of God. Ephesians and Colossians speak of renewal in the image of God the Creator, but other texts become even more specific in view of the mediatorial office of Christ.<\/p>\nJesus Christ is preeminently the image of God (2 Cor 4:4; Col 1:15; Heb 1:3). Frequently this is understood exclusively as a reference to the deity of Christ. To see Christ is to see the Father (Jn 14:9). However, in the passages cited, it is the incarnate Mediator, the last Adam, who is at least all that God intended the first Adam to be. Incarnation means that Jesus is truly human, and because he is truly human, he is truly the image of God.<\/p>\nAs the last Adam and the Mediator of the new covenant, Jesus brings his people into conformity with his own image, the image of the Son of God (Rom 8:29). He who became like his brethren, in the likeness of sinful flesh, destroys sin in order that his brethren might reflect his own glory. They are changed into the same image from glory to glory by the Spirit of the Lord (2 Cor 3:18). The believer is to “put on Christ” (Rom 13:14; Gal 3:27; cf. Eph 4:24; Col 3:10, “the new nature” in the image of God), an action also described as the formation of Christ in the believer (Gal 4:19).<\/p>\nConformity to the image of Jesus Christ is achieved through the process of sanctification that is ultimately completed at the resurrection. Only then is the body changed until it is fashioned like unto the glorious body of Christ (Phil 3:21). Restoration in the image of Christ carries beyond creation in the image of God, for the image of the earthly is then exchanged for the image of the heavenly (1 Cor 15:49).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Man; Woman.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>IMAGE OF GOD<\/h3>\nLikeness to God, the most basic affirmation to be made concerning the nature of human beings from a Christian perspective. Humans are unique among the creatures in that they are like God and therefore able to have communion and fellowship with God.<\/p>\nGenesis 1:26-27 teaches that God determined to create man and woman in his own “image” and “likeness” and that they would have dominion over the animal creation. The two terms used in the creation account and found also in the NT convey closely related shades of meaning, but the difference between them is no longer thought to be theologically significant.<\/p>\nBecause Genesis 2:7 states unambiguously that man<\/em> became a living being, the Bible does not present the view that a previously living creature developed into a human, nor does it suggest that the image of God evolved from a lower form of life. The moment the man and woman became living creatures, they were the image of God. Both male and female share this likeness to God (Gn 1:27).<\/p>\nOther passages that speak of people being created in the image of God are Genesis 5:1, 9:6, 1 Corinthians 11:7, and James 3:9. Ephesians 4:24 and Colossians 3:10 refer to humanity’s redemptive re-creation, but the passages are generally regarded as directly relevant for an understanding of mankind’s original likeness to God. Although explicit references to humans as expressing the image of God are comparatively infrequent in the Bible, the truth itself underlies the whole relation between God and humans and is therefore the presupposition of the entire biblical account.<\/p>\nThe affirmation in Genesis 1 that man and woman were made in the image of God is not made of any of the other living creatures. The animals, the fish, and the birds do not share this privilege. It is disputed whether the angels are in the image of God, but certain theologians so view them because they find the image to reside in moral righteousness. However, there is no explicit biblical statement to this effect.<\/p>\nBy virtue of his creation from the dust of the ground, mankind has an obvious kinship with the earth. It is not strange, therefore, that the body, both in its constitution and its functions, shows similarities with other earthly creatures. But humans are unique in every aspect of their existence; not some part of a human or some faculty of a human, but a human in his or her wholeness is the image of God. The biblical concept is not that the image is in<\/em> man and woman, but that man and woman are<\/em> the image of God.<\/p>\nHowever, as man’s kinship with the earth is most clearly visible in his body, so the image of God is best seen when humans are viewed from the perspective of their spirituality. Theologians have sought at this point to enumerate those aspects of spirituality that define humans and set them apart from the animal creation. The image of God is then found to reside in some attribute or combination of attributes, such as rationality, will, freedom, responsibility, or the like. Contemporary theologians prefer not to enumerate attributes, and the Bible does not set forth the image of God in this way. Nevertheless, it is the personality of humans that separates them from the animals and is a reflection of the personality of God. The animals have their existence from<\/em> God, but humans have their being in<\/em> God, and they are his offspring (Acts 17:28-29).<\/p>\nAnother major aspect of the image of God doctrine is developed from Ephesians 4:24 and Colossians 3:10. These verses describe the re-creation of the believers in the likeness of God—in righteousness, holiness of the truth, and true knowledge. In other words, Paul declares that the redeemed are re-created into the image of God as they are transformed into the image of Christ, who bears the untainted image of God. Just as the fall into sin was not without its effect on the image of God, so also redemption from sin affects humans as the image of God. Ephesians and Colossians speak of renewal in the image of God the Creator, but other texts become even more specific in view of the mediatorial office of Christ.<\/p>\nJesus Christ is preeminently the image of God (2 Cor 4:4; Col 1:15; Heb 1:3). Frequently this is understood exclusively as a reference to the deity of Christ. To see Christ is to see the Father (Jn 14:9). However, in the passages cited, it is the incarnate Mediator, the last Adam, who is at least all that God intended the first Adam to be. Incarnation means that Jesus is truly human, and because he is truly human, he is truly the image of God.<\/p>\nAs the last Adam and the Mediator of the new covenant, Jesus brings his people into conformity with his own image, the image of the Son of God (Rom 8:29). He who became like his brethren, in the likeness of sinful flesh, destroys sin in order that his brethren might reflect his own glory. They are changed into the same image from glory to glory by the Spirit of the Lord (2 Cor 3:18). The believer is to “put on Christ” (Rom 13:14; Gal 3:27; cf. Eph 4:24; Col 3:10, “the new nature” in the image of God), an action also described as the formation of Christ in the believer (Gal 4:19).<\/p>\nConformity to the image of Jesus Christ is achieved through the process of sanctification that is ultimately completed at the resurrection. Only then is the body changed until it is fashioned like unto the glorious body of Christ (Phil 3:21). Restoration in the image of Christ carries beyond creation in the image of God, for the image of the earthly is then exchanged for the image of the heavenly (1 Cor 15:49).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Man; Woman.<\/p>","summary_ro":"IMAGE OF GOD Likeness to God, the most basic affirmation to be made concerning the nature of human beings from a Christian perspective. Humans are unique among the creatures in that they are like God and therefore able to have communion and fellowship with God. Genesis 1:26-27 teaches that God determined to create man and woman in his own “image” and “likeness” and that they would have dominion over the animal creation. The two terms used in the creation account and found also in the NT conve...","summary_en":"IMAGE OF GOD Likeness to God, the most basic affirmation to be made concerning the nature of human beings from a Christian perspective. Humans are unique among the creatures in that they are like God and therefore able to have communion and fellowship with God. Genesis 1:26-27 teaches that God determined to create man and woman in his own “image” and “likeness” and that they would have dominion over the animal creation. The two terms used in the creation account and found also in the NT conve...","source":"Articles\/I.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":17640,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"State*, Intermediate","title_en":"State*, Intermediate","content_ro":"<h3>INTERMEDIATE STATE*<\/h3>\nState of the human person after death and before the final resurrection. Such teaching is more developed in the NT than in the OT, though it is a mistake to think that reference to it is totally absent in the OT (Jb 19:25). According to Christ, the intermediate state is deducible from such texts as Exodus 3:6 (Mt 22:32). Even in the NT, an account of the intermediate state is not given explicitly but may be inferred from teaching about the physical death and resurrection of all people, but especially of believers. This is taught by Christ himself (Mt 22:30-32) and by the apostles, particularly Paul (1 Cor 15). In addition, the biblical teaching that the human being is a unity of soul and body and not simply a soul that happens to be embodied (Gn 2:7) has implications for a person’s state after death. From such data two conclusions regarding the intermediate state may be drawn. The first is that physical death is not the total cessation of the life of the individual but that the person lives on, not merely in the memories of those who survive, but as a distinct personality, and in the case of believers with awareness of the loving presence of God (Phil 1:23). The second conclusion is that such an existence is not a fully human existence but is incomplete or anomalous, since being embodied is essential for an individual to be in God’s image. The individual, surviving death, awaits the resurrection of the body when, in the case of a Christian, he or she will experience complete redemption, a state of complete emancipation from sin in the presence of Christ (1 Cor 15:50-58). The biblical data regarding the character of the intermediate state of those who are outside Christ is less clear, including as it does the difficult reference to Christ’s preaching to the “imprisoned” spirits (1 Pt 3:19-20).<\/p>\nScripture is restrained in its portrayal of what life in the intermediate state is like. Paul says of himself that after his death he will be “with Christ, which is far better” (Phil 1:23) but he gives no details. Nor is it wise to look for such details in such biblical incidents as that of Saul and the medium at Endor (1 Sm 28:7), which is subject to a number of different interpretations. Even Christ’s parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Lk 16:19-31), because of its obviously symbolic character and its avowed purpose of teaching about the importance of the present life for a person’s eternal destiny, must be treated with caution. Perhaps the most that can be said is that the dead in Christ are “immediately with God” and that they rest in his loving presence until the resurrection, while the unsaved are in a comfortless condition awaiting their resurrection to judgment (Jn 5:29).<\/p>\nDiscussion of the intermediate state in the history of Christian thought has focused upon three separate aspects that may help to clarify the biblical data further. First, under the influence of Greek philosophical ideas, there has been a recurring Platonic influence in Christian theology in which the Pauline contrast between the flesh and the spirit has been misinterpreted and the soul has been emphasized at the expense of the body, with the result that the prospective resurrection of the dead and its eschatological setting has either been played down or eliminated altogether because of its allegedly physical (and therefore unspiritual) aspect. The doctrine of the immortality of the disembodied soul is sometimes substituted for the idea of an intermediate state prior to resurrection, but without any warrant from Scripture. In modern theology a tendency to discount the historical has tended to displace the earlier discounting of the physical, but with much the same effect, at best a spiritualizing of postmortem existence, at worst a denial of any such existence. But it is clear from Scripture that the intermediate state is a state between two phases of embodiment, the present state of physical embodiment and that of “spiritual embodiment” (1 Cor 15:44), which is to occur at Christ’s second coming (v 23).<\/p>\nSecond, during the Reformation, a controversy arose between John Calvin and some of the Anabaptists over “soul sleep.” Calvin vehemently maintained that the intermediate state is one of conscious awareness of God’s presence—something his opponents denied. For Calvin such a denial was equivalent to holding that the soul is annihilated at death and to denying that Christ exercises rule over the dead before they are resurrected. Calvin’s view is supported by Paul’s affirmation that nothing separates the believer from the love of God—not even death (Rom 8:35-39). The biblical teaching that upon death the believer “sleeps” (1 Thes 4:14) is interpreted to mean that the dead no longer communicate with the living on earth and no longer engage in labor, but are in repose. To “fall asleep in Jesus” is thus to enjoy the presence of Jesus in a disembodied state, the nearest analogy of which in present experience may be found in dreaming when the awareness of the dreamer does not depend upon the functioning of any of the bodily senses.<\/p>\nA third focus for Christian thought has been on whether or not a person’s eternal state is fixed at the time of death, or whether repentance and spiritual growth and purgation are possible or inevitable after death. It is the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church that death is followed by purgatory for all who are imperfect. In purgatory the soul is freed from the remnants of sin, and the period of purgation may be lessened by the gifts, prayers, and masses of those who survive the deceased. Such a view is rejected by most Protestants as being inconsistent with the biblical teaching on the complete and finished work of Christ (Heb 9:28), on the impossibility of one human being meriting or otherwise gaining grace for another (Lk 17:10), and on the biblical teaching that the eternal state of the soul is determined by its condition at death (Heb 9:27).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Dead, Place of the; Hades; Heaven; Hell; Paradise; Sheol.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>INTERMEDIATE STATE*<\/h3>\nState of the human person after death and before the final resurrection. Such teaching is more developed in the NT than in the OT, though it is a mistake to think that reference to it is totally absent in the OT (Jb 19:25). According to Christ, the intermediate state is deducible from such texts as Exodus 3:6 (Mt 22:32). Even in the NT, an account of the intermediate state is not given explicitly but may be inferred from teaching about the physical death and resurrection of all people, but especially of believers. This is taught by Christ himself (Mt 22:30-32) and by the apostles, particularly Paul (1 Cor 15). In addition, the biblical teaching that the human being is a unity of soul and body and not simply a soul that happens to be embodied (Gn 2:7) has implications for a person’s state after death. From such data two conclusions regarding the intermediate state may be drawn. The first is that physical death is not the total cessation of the life of the individual but that the person lives on, not merely in the memories of those who survive, but as a distinct personality, and in the case of believers with awareness of the loving presence of God (Phil 1:23). The second conclusion is that such an existence is not a fully human existence but is incomplete or anomalous, since being embodied is essential for an individual to be in God’s image. The individual, surviving death, awaits the resurrection of the body when, in the case of a Christian, he or she will experience complete redemption, a state of complete emancipation from sin in the presence of Christ (1 Cor 15:50-58). The biblical data regarding the character of the intermediate state of those who are outside Christ is less clear, including as it does the difficult reference to Christ’s preaching to the “imprisoned” spirits (1 Pt 3:19-20).<\/p>\nScripture is restrained in its portrayal of what life in the intermediate state is like. Paul says of himself that after his death he will be “with Christ, which is far better” (Phil 1:23) but he gives no details. Nor is it wise to look for such details in such biblical incidents as that of Saul and the medium at Endor (1 Sm 28:7), which is subject to a number of different interpretations. Even Christ’s parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Lk 16:19-31), because of its obviously symbolic character and its avowed purpose of teaching about the importance of the present life for a person’s eternal destiny, must be treated with caution. Perhaps the most that can be said is that the dead in Christ are “immediately with God” and that they rest in his loving presence until the resurrection, while the unsaved are in a comfortless condition awaiting their resurrection to judgment (Jn 5:29).<\/p>\nDiscussion of the intermediate state in the history of Christian thought has focused upon three separate aspects that may help to clarify the biblical data further. First, under the influence of Greek philosophical ideas, there has been a recurring Platonic influence in Christian theology in which the Pauline contrast between the flesh and the spirit has been misinterpreted and the soul has been emphasized at the expense of the body, with the result that the prospective resurrection of the dead and its eschatological setting has either been played down or eliminated altogether because of its allegedly physical (and therefore unspiritual) aspect. The doctrine of the immortality of the disembodied soul is sometimes substituted for the idea of an intermediate state prior to resurrection, but without any warrant from Scripture. In modern theology a tendency to discount the historical has tended to displace the earlier discounting of the physical, but with much the same effect, at best a spiritualizing of postmortem existence, at worst a denial of any such existence. But it is clear from Scripture that the intermediate state is a state between two phases of embodiment, the present state of physical embodiment and that of “spiritual embodiment” (1 Cor 15:44), which is to occur at Christ’s second coming (v 23).<\/p>\nSecond, during the Reformation, a controversy arose between John Calvin and some of the Anabaptists over “soul sleep.” Calvin vehemently maintained that the intermediate state is one of conscious awareness of God’s presence—something his opponents denied. For Calvin such a denial was equivalent to holding that the soul is annihilated at death and to denying that Christ exercises rule over the dead before they are resurrected. Calvin’s view is supported by Paul’s affirmation that nothing separates the believer from the love of God—not even death (Rom 8:35-39). The biblical teaching that upon death the believer “sleeps” (1 Thes 4:14) is interpreted to mean that the dead no longer communicate with the living on earth and no longer engage in labor, but are in repose. To “fall asleep in Jesus” is thus to enjoy the presence of Jesus in a disembodied state, the nearest analogy of which in present experience may be found in dreaming when the awareness of the dreamer does not depend upon the functioning of any of the bodily senses.<\/p>\nA third focus for Christian thought has been on whether or not a person’s eternal state is fixed at the time of death, or whether repentance and spiritual growth and purgation are possible or inevitable after death. It is the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church that death is followed by purgatory for all who are imperfect. In purgatory the soul is freed from the remnants of sin, and the period of purgation may be lessened by the gifts, prayers, and masses of those who survive the deceased. Such a view is rejected by most Protestants as being inconsistent with the biblical teaching on the complete and finished work of Christ (Heb 9:28), on the impossibility of one human being meriting or otherwise gaining grace for another (Lk 17:10), and on the biblical teaching that the eternal state of the soul is determined by its condition at death (Heb 9:27).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Dead, Place of the; Hades; Heaven; Hell; Paradise; Sheol.<\/p>","summary_ro":"INTERMEDIATE STATE* State of the human person after death and before the final resurrection. Such teaching is more developed in the NT than in the OT, though it is a mistake to think that reference to it is totally absent in the OT (Jb 19:25). According to Christ, the intermediate state is deducible from such texts as Exodus 3:6 (Mt 22:32). Even in the NT, an account of the intermediate state is not given explicitly but may be inferred from teaching about the physical death and resurrection o...","summary_en":"INTERMEDIATE STATE* State of the human person after death and before the final resurrection. Such teaching is more developed in the NT than in the OT, though it is a mistake to think that reference to it is totally absent in the OT (Jb 19:25). According to Christ, the intermediate state is deducible from such texts as Exodus 3:6 (Mt 22:32). Even in the NT, an account of the intermediate state is not given explicitly but may be inferred from teaching about the physical death and resurrection o...","source":"Articles\/I.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":19669,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Teachings of Jesus Christ","title_en":"Teachings of Jesus Christ","content_ro":"<h3>JESUS CHRIST, Teachings of<\/h3>\nBecause of the wide variety of forms in which the teachings of Jesus have been preserved, it is difficult to bring out the essence of that teaching in a systematic way. Jesus did not present us with a theological system. His words were essentially practical in intent. Yet from all the variety of sayings it is possible to extract a clear idea of what Jesus thought about a number of important issues. What was his teaching about God? What did he think about himself? What did he mean when he spoke about the kingdom? What light does his teaching throw on the meaning of his death? What did he say about the Holy Spirit? How did he describe human beings and their needs? Did he anticipate the Christian church? Did he teach anything about the end of the world? What were the main features of his moral teaching? The following sections will seek to answer these important questions.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Teachings about God<\/p>\n• Teachings about Himself<\/p>\n• Teachings about the Kingdom of God<\/p>\n• Teachings about His Own Death<\/p>\n• Teachings about the Holy Spirit<\/p>\n• Teachings about Humanity<\/p>\n• Teachings about the Church<\/p>\n• Teachings about the Future<\/p>\n• Teachings about Moral Issues<\/p>\nTeachings about God<\/p>\nAnyone who comes to the teachings of Jesus after reading the OT will at once recognize that much of his teaching about God is the same. Since Jesus, as all orthodox Jews of his day, accepted the testimony of the OT as inspired, it is not surprising that his approach to God was similar. This is especially true of his assumption that God was Creator. He taught a special providential care over the created order and affirmed that God watched over such small creatures as the sparrow (Mt 10:29). There is no support in the teachings of Jesus for the view that God is uninterested in the world he made.<\/p>\nOne of the most characteristic titles Jesus used for God was Father. This was not new, for the idea occurs in the OT, where God is seen as Father of his people Israel. This kind of fatherhood was national rather than personal. In the intertestamental period the Jews came to regard God as so holy that he was removed from direct contact with human affairs. There had to be mediators between God and people. This exalted notion of God was not conducive to the idea of God as Father, and it is against this background that the uniqueness of the personal fatherhood of God in the teaching of Jesus must be seen. There is some evidence in Judaism that prayer to God as “Our Father” was known, but what distinguishes Jesus’ teachings from that of his contemporaries is that the fatherhood of God was central to what he taught.<\/p>\nThe father-son relationship is particularly vivid in John’s Gospel, where Jesus as Son is seen to be in close communion with God as Father. This comes out strongly in Jesus’ prayer in John 17 and in the frequent assertions that the Father had sent the Son and that the Son was doing the will of the Father. It is this strong relationship between God and Jesus in terms of fatherhood and sonship that led Jesus to teach men to approach God in the same way. The Lord’s Prayer at once recognizes this in its opening words. It is particularly important to note that “Our Father” precedes “hallowed be thy name,” for the more intimate idea prepares the way for the more remote. Jesus never taught men to approach God with terror.<\/p>\nAlthough there is a connection between the way in which Jesus addressed God as Father and the way in which he taught his disciples to approach God, there is also a distinction. Jesus spoke of “my Father and your Father” when he appeared to Mary Magdalene after his resurrection (Jn 20:17), but he did not say “our Father.” His sonship was unique, for he claimed that he and the Father were one (Jn 10:30).<\/p>\nIn the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus assured his followers that their heavenly Father knows about their needs (Mt 6:32; Lk 12:30), on the strength of which they are exhorted not to be anxious. This gives some insight into the way in which Jesus’ teachings about God has a bearing on practical issues.<\/p>\nTeachings about Himself<\/p>\nWhat Jesus said about himself is of great importance, for this undoubtedly formed the basis of what the early church came to teach about him.<\/p>\nJesus used certain titles of himself or accepted them as descriptions of himself when they were used by others. The most widely used is Son of Man. This title was used by Jesus to refer to himself but was not used by anyone else. It was used, moreover, in several different kinds of sayings. Sometimes the sayings related directly to the public ministry of Jesus, like the saying that the Son of Man was Lord of the Sabbath (Mk 2:28), or that the Son of Man had authority to forgive sins (v 10). Sometimes the sayings had a direct bearing on the Passion, as when Jesus said that the Son of Man must suffer many things (Mk 8:31; note that Mt 16:21 has “he” instead of “Son of Man”). At other times the reference is to a future appearance, as when Jesus declared to the high priest that he would see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven (Mk 14:62). What did Jesus mean by the title, and why did he use it?<\/p>\nThe title “Son of Man” had been used before. The phrase occurs in Psalm 8:4, where it refers to man or humans. Again, the expression is used many times in Ezekiel as a mode of address to the prophet, but here also it means man. A rather different use occurs in Daniel 7:13, where one like a son of man comes with the clouds before the Ancient of Days. There is a strong similarity between this passage and the words of Jesus in Mark 14:62. But an important difference is that whereas Son of Man becomes a title in Mark, it is not so in Daniel. There is some evidence for the title in Jewish apocalyptic literature (e.g., in the Similitudes of Enoch), where it represents a preexistent being who will come to judge and overthrow the enemies of God. It seems evident from this that Jesus’ use of Son of Man as a title is unique.<\/p>\nThe Son of Man sayings are distributed throughout the four Gospels, and there are no appreciable differences in their uses. What is at first astonishing is that though the title is so widespread in the Gospels on the lips of Jesus, it never became a name by which Jesus was known by the early Christians. In fact, only in Acts 7:56 does the title appear, in this case used by Stephen. It is clear, therefore, that it had a special meaning for Jesus that it did not have for others. There is no doubt that he was referring to himself and not to someone else, as a careful study of all the Son of Man sayings shows. Those who think that Jesus was referring to someone else arrive at this conclusion only after first dispensing with some of the sayings. The most probable reason why he used the title Son of Man was because he wanted to avoid a term like Messiah, which carried with it too many political overtones. But what did Son of Man mean to Jesus? It is rich with the idea of humanness, possibly allusions to Daniel’s “son of man,” and perhaps a touch of the Suffering Servant idea from Isaiah 53. It is most likely that Jesus saw it in terms of his mission in a way that his hearers could not fully appreciate. It is also probable that the early church preferred Messiah because this title carried the meaning of a royal deliverer; also, after the death of Jesus, there would be no further fear of political misunderstanding.<\/p>\nThe term Messiah, or Christ, does not belong strictly to the teachings of Jesus, since he himself never used it. The most striking instance where he accepted the ascription of Messiah was in Peter’s confession at Caesarea Philippi. All the synoptic Gospels record the confession “You are the Christ,” while Matthew adds the significant comment by Jesus that flesh and blood had not revealed it but “my Father who is in heaven” (Mt 16:17). He certainly accepted the confession and regarded it as revelation. One other case in the Synoptics where he does not specifically refute messiahship is his answer to the high priest’s question “Are you the Messiah?” (Mk 14:61). In John’s Gospel, Andrew tells Peter that he had found the Messiah (Jn 1:41); the woman at Samaria talks to Jesus, and he reveals that he is the Messiah (4:25-26). There was a widespread expectation among the Jews that a deliverer would come to overthrow their political enemies, the Romans. There were various ideas about his origin (a military leader or a heavenly warrior) and his methods (the Zealots believed that deliverance could come only through armed revolution). The reticence of Jesus concerning messiahship is therefore readily understandable.<\/p>\nAnother title of utmost importance is Son of God, although it occurs mainly in John’s Gospel. That both Mark and John regarded Jesus in this light is clear from explicit statements in their Gospels (cf. Mk 1:1; Jn 20:30-31). There are certainly passages where Messiah is linked with Son of God and where Jesus rejects neither title (cf. Mt 16:16). But in the teachings of Jesus one passage makes abundantly clear the special relationship that Jesus had with God as Son—namely, Matthew 11:27 (also Lk 10:22, a parallel passage), where Jesus implies that he is the Son of the Father.<\/p>\nMany similar passages in John’s Gospel are, however, more explicit. The Son is unquestionably preexistent, because he knows he came from the Father and returns to the Father. It is not possible from the many references to sonship in John’s Gospel to come to any other conclusion than that Jesus regarded himself as divine. It is particularly important to note that it is also in this Gospel that Jesus is portrayed most clearly in his human nature with its attendant weaknesses. Nowhere in the teachings of Jesus did he explain how God could become man, but he assumed this as a fact. He taught with the authority of God.<\/p>\nTeachings about the Kingdom of God<\/p>\nNo one can read the synoptic Gospels without being impressed with the frequency with which the expression “kingdom of God” (or of heaven) occurs. It was clearly an important theme in the whole teaching of Jesus. It is less evident in John’s Gospel but is nevertheless still present. Many of the parables of Jesus are specifically called parables of the kingdom. Jesus’ concept of the kingdom provided a foundational idea to the Christian gospel.<\/p>\nThe main idea is the rule of God over people rather than a realm that belongs to God. In other words, the emphasis is on the active reigning of the King. This is important because it means that the kingdom is inextricably affected by relationships between the members and the King. It also means the kingdom will not be expressed in institutional terms.<\/p>\nThere is one problem with the kingdom teachings that must be faced: its timing. Some sayings imply that it is already present, while others suggest that it will not come until the future. Some scholars disavow the idea that present and future can be held together; therefore, they reject one and concentrate on the other. Those who maintain a present understanding of the kingdom developed the idea of a social gospel, since Christianity was defined as the establishment of the kingdom of God on earth. According to this view, there is no place for a future arrival of the kingdom. On the other hand, some have denied altogether the present aspect and concentrate on the future. In this case, it is difficult to see in what sense the kingdom teachings are relevant.<\/p>\nYet others have insisted that since both present and future aspects are found in the Gospel records, no explanation is satisfying that denies one at the expense of the other. One possible solution is to regard the present aspects as applying to this age but as not reaching their fulfillment until the future establishment of the kingdom. A similar solution, expressed differently, is to maintain that the reality is a future kingdom but that it has spilled over into the present. Jesus intentionally included both present and future aspects.<\/p>\nThat the kingdom was a theme of common interest is clear from Luke 17:20-21, where the Pharisees asked Jesus when it was coming. His answer, that it was among them, shows unmistakably a present idea. This is equally true of the statement that in the exorcism of evil spirits the kingdom had arrived (Mt 12:28; Lk 11:20). Moreover, Jesus mentioned that the kingdom has been forcefully advancing (Mt 11:12), by which he did not mean by revolutionary methods, although he clearly implied that something dynamic was already happening. This idea of dynamic power is one of the most characteristic features of the kingdom. Jesus spoke of binding the strong, armed man (Lk 11:21-22), which shows that in his ministry he expected to give a powerful demonstration against the forces of darkness.<\/p>\nIt is evident that the kingdom Jesus proclaimed was a kingdom in which God was supreme. It was inseparably linked with his redemptive mission, in which God was bringing spiritual deliverance to his people. Moreover, the kingdom teachings of Jesus cannot be regarded in isolation. It is part of the total message; no part of that message can be divorced from any other part without distorting the whole.<\/p>\nThe clearest teachings on the future aspect of the kingdom are to be found in some of the parables (Mt 13) and in the discourse on the Mt of Olives (Mt 24–25; Mk 13; Lk 21). In the latter, Jesus spoke of the future using imagery drawn from Jewish literature, like the references to clouds, to glory, and to angels in relation to the coming of the Son of Man (Mk 13:26-27). In Matthew’s account there is reference to a trumpet call, another familiar feature (Mt 24:31).<\/p>\nVarious features from the kingdom parables give the clearest idea of the nature of the kingdom. Membership in the kingdom is not considered to be universal, for in the parable of the sower not all the soils are productive. The same separation is seen in the parable of the tares and the parable of the dragnet. The tares are destroyed and only the wheat is harvested, while the bad fish are discarded. The members of the kingdom are those who hear and understand the word of the kingdom (Mt 13:23). It is clear, therefore, that a response is necessary if the benefits of the kingdom are to be enjoyed.<\/p>\nThere is an emphasis on growth in the parable of the mustard seed, where rapid development occurs from small beginnings. The parables of the treasure and the pearl are intended to underline the value of the kingdom. The universal character of the kingdom comes out sharply in the parable of the vineyard, where the kingdom is said to be taken away from the Jews and given to another “nation,” presumably an allusion to the Gentiles (Mt 21:43). This is in line with the great commission Jesus gave to his disciples to preach to all nations (28:19). A universal kingdom would certainly be entirely different from the messianic kingdom idea of Judaism, in which Israel was to be the central unit. It is not easy to appreciate how revolutionary the idea was of a worldwide kingdom with Gentiles and Jews on the same footing.<\/p>\nTeachings about His Own Death<\/p>\nThe announcement of the kingdom must be linked with Jesus’ approach to his own death. Did Jesus see his death as an integral part of his mission? Some have maintained that he ended his life in disillusionment, but a brief survey of his teaching about his own destiny is sufficient to dispel such a theory. To the further question, “What meaning did Jesus attach to his forthcoming death?” he gave a series of passing indications that, when taken together, supply us with a basis on which to reconstruct some idea of the place of his death within the entire range of his mission.<\/p>\nIt is important to note that many times Jesus showed his awareness that details of his life were a fulfillment of Scripture (cf. Mt 26:24, 56; Mk 9:12; Lk 18:31; 24:25-27, 44-45). In all the instances cited, the suffering of Jesus is referred to as the subject of OT prophecy. This must mean that he had reflected on OT predictions and recognized that they could be fulfilled only through his own sufferings. In this case the Passion must be regarded as an indispensable part of Jesus’ consciousness of his own mission.<\/p>\nThis emphasis on fulfillment of Scripture is also seen in John’s Gospel. His statement that the Son of Man must be lifted up even as Moses lifted up the serpent (Jn 3:14) illustrates this point. Most of the passages where fulfillment of Scripture is mentioned are the comments of the Evangelist, John. But there can be no doubt that the fulfillment motive played a vital part both in Jesus’ own understanding of his mission and in the early Christians’ understanding of his death. In this connection, some hold that John puts more stress on the Incarnation as a means of salvation in that he sees it as an illumination of the mind. But this is only part of the truth, for there is more on the meaning of the death of Jesus in John’s Gospel than in the others.<\/p>\nThe Gospels emphasize the divine necessity of the death of Jesus. In addition to the fulfillment motive, the idea of necessity is strong in the first prediction by Jesus of his approaching death. In John’s Gospel Jesus speaks of his “hour” several times in the earlier stages of his ministry as “not yet,” but in the later stages as having arrived. There is a sense of definite movement toward a climax, the hour undoubtedly being the hour of the Passion (cf. Jn 17:1). There is not room for any disillusionment here. Jesus knew that only through the hour of death could the Father be glorified. The climax was according to an orderly plan.<\/p>\nJesus evidently regarded his death as in some ways a sacrifice. The clearest indication of this is in the words of institution at the Last Supper. The cup is connected with the blood of the new covenant, which is said to be for the “remission of sins” (Mt 26:26-28). No explanation is given of the way in which the coming death, signified by the broken bread and poured-out wine, would bring about forgiveness of sins. But the immediate realization by the early church that Christ died for our sins (cf. 1 Cor 15:3) shows that the importance of what Jesus said had been clearly grasped. The new covenant idea is parallel to the old covenant, which according to Exodus 24 was sealed with sacrificial blood; there can be little doubt that Jesus had this in mind when he spoke the words about the new covenant. It was also akin to the ideas expressed in Jeremiah 31, referring to a covenant written on the heart rather than graven in stone.<\/p>\nAnother aspect of the death of Christ seen especially in John’s Gospel is the sense of completion that went with it. In Jesus’ prayer in John 17, as he faces the cross, he declares that he has finished the work that the Father had given him to do (Jn 17:4). This is reinforced by the cry from the cross, “It is finished,” which only John records (19:30). This sense of accomplishment gives an air of triumph to what might otherwise have been considered a disaster.<\/p>\nTeachings about the Holy Spirit<\/p>\nAt several of the major events in the life of Jesus, the Evangelists note the activity of the Spirit (e.g., the Virgin Birth, the Baptism, the Temptation). It is to be expected, therefore, that Jesus would have instructed his disciples about the Spirit. However, there is surprisingly little in the synoptic Gospels on this theme. Most of the teachings come from John’s Gospel.<\/p>\nWhen Jesus began his preaching ministry in Nazareth, according to Luke, he read the statement in Isaiah 61:1-2 about the Spirit of God and applied it to himself. He saw his ministry as being inaugurated by the Spirit. This becomes clear in the way in which he responded to the charge that he cast out demons by means of Beelzebub, prince of the demons. He identified the reality of the coming of the kingdom by the fact that he was casting out evil spirits by the Spirit of God (Mt 12:28). He was, moreover, sensitive to the seriousness of blaspheming the Spirit, which he implies his accusers were in danger of doing. Whatever he did in his ministry he saw as an activity of the Spirit, and this was especially so in the contest with evil spirits.<\/p>\nWhile warning his disciples that they would meet with opposition, Jesus assured them of the Spirit’s support when they were forced to appear before kings or governors (Mt 10:19-20; Mk 13:11). Indeed, he told them that the Spirit would speak through them, thus emphasizing that he expected a continuation of the Spirit’s activity in the future. Luke records one instance in which Jesus comments on what fathers will do for their children and asks whether God will not give the Holy Spirit to those who ask (Lk 11:13). The assumption is that God regards the Holy Spirit as the best gift to give his children. On yet another occasion, Jesus recognized that David was inspired by the Holy Spirit when he wrote Psalm 110 (Mk 12:36), reflecting Jesus’ belief in the Spirit’s agency in the production of Scripture.<\/p>\nThe Gospel of John provides a more detailed development of what Jesus taught about the Spirit. Teachings about the Spirit are usually linked to Jesus’ teachings about giving eternal life to those who believe in him and receive him. At the same time he spoke of the new birth and eternal life to Nicodemus, Jesus also spoke of the Spirit (Jn 3:3-8, 15-16). When he spoke of water of life to the Samaritan woman, he also spoke of the Spirit (4:14, 23-24). The same holds true for the discourses on the bread of life (6:48-63) and river of life (7:37-39). Throughout the Gospel, Jesus declares to various people that he can give them eternal life if they would believe in him. He promises them the water of life, the bread of life, and the light of life, but no one could really partake of these until after the Lord was resurrected. As a foretaste, as a sample, they could receive a certain measure of life via the Lord’s words, because his words were themselves spirit and life (6:63), but it was not until the Spirit would become available that the believers could actually become the recipients of the divine, eternal life.<\/p>\nAfter the Lord’s discourse in John 6 (a discourse that was very troubling and offensive to most of his disciples), Jesus said, “It is the Spirit who gives eternal life” (6:63). When the Spirit became available, they could have life. Again, Jesus offered the water of life—even life flowing like rivers of living water—to the Jews assembled at the Feast of Tabernacles. He told them to come and drink of him. But no one could, then and there, come and drink of him. So John added a note: “This He spoke of the Spirit, . . . for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified” (7:39, nasb<\/span>). Once Jesus would be glorified through resurrection, the Spirit of the glorified Jesus would be available for men to drink. In John 6, Jesus offered himself as the bread of life to be eaten by men; and in John 7, he offered himself as the water of life to refresh men. But no one could eat of him or drink of him until the Spirit of the glorified Jesus was made available, as was intimated in John 6:63 and then stated plainly in John 7:39.<\/p>\nIn John 14:16-18, Jesus went one step further in identifying himself with the Spirit. He told the disciples that he would give them another Comforter. Then he told them that they should know who this Comforter was because he was, then and there, abiding with them and would, in the near future, be in them. Who else but Jesus was abiding with them at that time? Then after telling the disciples that the Comforter would come to them, he said, “I am coming to you.” First he said that the Comforter would come to them and abide in them, and then in the same breath he said that he would come to them and abide in them (see 14:20). In short, the coming of the Comforter to the disciples was one and the same as the coming of Jesus to the disciples. The Comforter who was dwelling with the disciples that night was the Spirit in Christ; the Comforter who would be in the disciples (after the resurrection) would be Christ in the Spirit.<\/p>\nOn the evening of the resurrection, the Lord Jesus appeared to the disciples and then breathed into them the Holy Spirit. This inbreathing, reminiscent of God’s breathing into Adam the breath of life (Gn 2:7), became the fulfillment of all that had been promised and anticipated earlier in John’s Gospel. Through this impartation, the disciples were regenerated and indwelt by the Spirit of Jesus Christ. This historical event marked the genesis of the new creation. Jesus could now be realized as the bread of life, the water of life, and the light of life. The believers now possessed his divine, eternal, risen life. From that time forward, Christ as Spirit indwelt his believers. Thus, in his first epistle John could say, “We know he lives in us because the Holy Spirit lives in us” (1 Jn 3:24).<\/p>\nThe indwelling Spirit helped the disciples remember Jesus’ words and actions (Jn 14:26) so that they could teach and write about them with acumen. This means that Jesus did not intend that the preservation of his teachings should be left to chance. All too often theories attempting to explain the way in which the traditions about Jesus and his teachings were transmitted in the period before there were any written Gospels are suggested without any reference to the Holy Spirit. It is not acceptable to concentrate on so-called laws of oral tradition and pay no attention to the unique factor in this case—the Holy Spirit. It is part of the Spirit’s mission to preserve and transmit the teaching of Jesus. What Jesus says in this passage about the Spirit has far-reaching significance for the formation of the Gospels.<\/p>\nAnother important function is the activity of the Spirit in the world. Jesus made it clear that the Spirit would convict of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment (Jn 16:8). Without the activity of the Spirit, there would be no possibility of the disciples making any impact on the world. Nevertheless, Jesus warned that the world could not receive the Spirit because it did not know him (14:17). The mystery of the Spirit is that he dwells in every believer. This indwelling aspect is of great importance and was particularly developed in the writings of Paul.<\/p>\nTeachings about Humanity<\/p>\nJesus taught about God’s providential care over all human beings. A person’s hairs are all numbered (Mt 10:30), which is a vivid way of saying that God is concerned about the details of human life. But God is far more concerned with the eternal soul. Jesus made it clear that it would be unprofitable for anyone to gain the world and to lose his or her soul (Mt 16:26; Mk 8:36; Lk 9:25). The focus falls on what a person is and not what he or she has. Jesus even said that a maimed body was preferable to a forfeited life (Mk 9:43-47). One’s total fulfillment depends more on one’s spiritual condition than on one’s environment or physical well-being. He was not, of course, unconcerned about people’s physical state, as his many healings show, but his major concern was with people’s relationship with God.<\/p>\nJesus never viewed humans as isolated individuals. Within God’s community people were expected to have responsibility toward one another. The Sermon on the Mount illustrated this social emphasis in the teaching of Jesus. Those who are merciful to others will obtain mercy (Mt 5:7). There is special commendation for peacemakers (v 9). The disciples of Jesus are expected to bring light to others (v 16). They are expected to give more than expected (v 40). Jesus is clearly saying that people have responsibility beyond themselves.<\/p>\nThe relation of people to God is one of dependence. Jesus taught men and women to pray to God for daily bread (Mt 6:11) as a reminder that they cannot be wholly self-sufficient. He allowed no place in his teaching for humans to boast in their own achievements.<\/p>\nJesus had some specific things to say about home life. He accepted the sanctity of the marriage contract (Mt 5:31-32; cf. 19:3-9) and therefore showed a high regard for the honor and rights of the wife. It was more in his actions and attitudes rather than his specific teachings that Jesus showed his regard for the status of women. When he spoke of men, he often used the term in the sense of people, including both men and women. There is no suggestion that in matters of faith women were in the least inferior to men. Moreover, Luke points out how many women supported Jesus and his disciples in their travels.<\/p>\nJesus had a high view of the human potential but also acknowledged their present condition. The stress on repentance (Mt 4:17) shows a sinfulness of which people need to repent. This sense of need is implicit in the instances where Jesus pronounces forgiveness (e.g., to the paralytic, Mt 9:1-8; and to the woman who anointed him, Lk 7:47-48). In the Lord’s Prayer, Jesus instructs his disciples to pray for forgiveness (Mt 6:12; Lk 11:4). He takes for granted that they need it and desire to obtain it.<\/p>\nJesus gives no support to any self-righteousness in men or women. This is the burden of his criticism of the religious leaders in various sayings, but particularly in Matthew 23. He was critical of Jewish teachers because they placed so much importance on works of merit as contributing to salvation. His whole approach depended on humans casting themselves on the mercy of God. This is vividly illustrated in the parable about the Pharisee and the tax collector at prayer (Lk 18:10-14). It was the latter who threw himself on the mercy of God and who was commended by Jesus.<\/p>\nUndoubtedly, Jesus regarded sin as universal. He never suggested that there was anyone who was exempt from it. The major concept of sin in his teachings was alienation from God. This comes out clearly in John’s Gospel, with its strong antithesis between light and darkness, life and death (cf. Jn 5:24). Indeed, the “world” in John’s Gospel represents the system that takes no account of God. But sin is also seen as enslavement to Satan. The life and teachings of Jesus are seen against the background of spiritual conflict. Jesus can even say to his opponents, “You are of your father the devil” (Jn 8:44). He assumes throughout that there are hostile forces bringing man into subjection.<\/p>\nIn the parable of the prodigal son, sin against God is linked with sin before the father. In other words, it is regarded in terms of rebellion and revolt (Lk 15:21). This is a different assessment of the son’s offense than the one arrived at by the elder brother, who could see it only in terms of property. The view that humans are essentially in a state of rebellion against God is a basic tenet of Paul’s theological position, and it is important to note that it finds its root in the teachings of Jesus.<\/p>\nThere is no question that Jesus had much to say about condemnation. Those who did not believe and were therefore outside the provision of salvation that Jesus had made are declared to be already condemned (Jn 3:18). At various times Jesus mentioned judgment to come, which shows that a person’s destiny is related to his or her present spiritual condition. Against this background of humanity’s spiritual need, the whole mission of Jesus must be seen. A person, if left to himself or herself, would be totally unable to achieve salvation, but Jesus came to offer eternal life to those who believe in him (Jn 3:16).<\/p>\nTeachings about the Church<\/p>\nSome have supposed that Jesus did not predict that there would be a church. But on two occasions he used the word “church,” which means a people called out by God. On one of the occasions—at Caesarea Philippi—Jesus told Peter that he would build his church upon the rock (Mt 16:16-19). It seems most probable that “rock” was intended to link the foundation of the church to Peter’s particular confession about Jesus. It is certain that the later church was a community that affirmed that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God. It is important to note that it is Christ himself who is the builder of the church. He assured his disciples that it would be impregnable (the gates of hades would not overcome it). Moreover, one of the functions of the church was to proclaim forgiveness of sins, and this is implied in what Jesus said to Peter. That the words were not intended to refer exclusively to him is clear from Matthew 18:18, where similar words were addressed to all the disciples. The church, according to Matthew 18:17, was to be a community that could settle disputes between believers.<\/p>\nIn addition to these specific references to the church, Jesus assumed that his followers would meet together in his name (Mt 18:19-20). In his final words in Matthew’s account, he commissioned them to teach what he had taught them and to baptize new disciples (Mt 28:19-20). He promised his presence would be with them. The command to baptize was reinforced by Jesus’ own example in submitting to John’s baptism. One other special rite that Jesus expected his disciples to observe was the Lord’s Supper. His instructions about this presuppose a later community that could observe it. Since the form of words used in the institution point to the meaning of the death of Christ, it is clear that Jesus intended the future community to be frequently reminded of the center of the faith. The Christian church was to be a group of people who knew that through Christ they had entered into a new relationship with God.<\/p>\nAlthough there are no references to the church in John’s Gospel, there are certainly hints that support the community idea. Jesus introduced himself as the Shepherd and spoke of his followers as forming a flock (Jn 10:16). The sheep imagery occurs again in this Gospel when Peter is instructed three times by the risen Lord to feed the sheep (Jn 21:15-17). Another figure of speech that Jesus used to bring out the group idea is that of the many branches that draw their life from the vine, and therefore belong to each other because of their common life in the vine.<\/p>\nJesus recognized that the future community would need the aid of the Spirit. His teachings on this subject laid the foundation for the evident dependence of the early church on the Spirit, as seen in the book of Acts. Finally, it should be noted that there is a close connection between the church and the kingdom, although they are not identical. The kingdom is more comprehensive than the church, which is included within it.<\/p>\nTeachings about the Future<\/p>\nJesus thought of the kingdom in terms of both present realization and future hope. The future aspect is related to the end of the age. Although he did not spell it out in specific terms, Jesus did not leave his disciples without any knowledge of how the present age would end. He gave firm assurance that he would return at some time in the future.<\/p>\nHe told the disciples that the Son of Man would come with his angels in his Father’s glory (Mt 16:27). In the discourse in which he answers the disciples’ question about the end of the world, he speaks again of the Son of Man coming in clouds with power and glory (Mk 13:26), probably drawn from the familiar language of Daniel 7. Jesus described various signs that would precede his own coming. He spoke of wars, conflicts, earthquakes, famines, and disturbances in the heavens. The gospel was to be preached to all nations. At the same time many false Christs would arise.<\/p>\nJesus gave such details about his return to encourage his disciples in the face of persecution. The future hope had a definitely practical purpose. The disciples were urged to watch. The coming would happen as unexpectedly as a thief in the night. Jesus said that even he himself did not know when the coming would take place (Mk 13:32).<\/p>\nAnother important theme affecting the future is emphasized in Jesus’ teachings about resurrection. The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection of the body. They attempted to trap Jesus with a question about a woman who had been married seven times. They wanted to know whose husband she would be at the resurrection (Mk 12:18-27). Jesus pointed out that there would be no marriage when the dead rise. The Sadducees’ idea about resurrection was clearly wrong. Jesus’ teaching was that the resurrected would be like the angels. There is no doubt about the resurrection of the dead, although no information is given about the resurrection body. Jesus told a story about a rich man and a poor man who both died (Lk 16:19-31). In the afterlife the rich man cries out in torment, while the poor man enjoys a state of blessedness. What is most clear from this is the certainty of the afterlife and the fact of a distinction between the two men, although we are not told on what grounds the distinction is made. Elsewhere in his teachings, Jesus suggested that the most vital requirement is faith in himself. The conversation between Jesus and the dying thief on the cross suggests that paradise for the latter consisted in an awareness of the presence of Jesus (Lk 23:42-43).<\/p>\nThe theme of rewards and punishment occurs in many passages. In Matthew 16:27 Jesus says that the Son of Man will reward everyone according to what he or she has done. Those who are worthless are promised punishment in darkness (Mt 25:30). Moreover, Jesus spoke of a day of judgment on which men and women must give an account, even of all their careless words (12:36-37). In the parable of the sheep and the goats, he spoke of a separation that the Son of Man will make when he comes. Those commended are those who have shown concern for the believers (25:31-46).<\/p>\nAmong Jesus’ most solemn statements are those that speak of hell. There is no way of getting around his teachings about eternal punishment for the unrighteous (as in Mt 25:41, 46), which is opposite to the eternal life promised to the righteous. He taught that his disciples would have a place prepared for them in heaven (Jn 14:2), and spoke of a Book of Life in which the names of his disciples were written (Lk 10:20).<\/p>\nTeachings about Moral Issues<\/p>\nMuch of the teaching of Jesus is concerned with moral issues—so much so that some scholars have concluded that this was the main burden of his teaching. But the moral teachings cannot be considered apart from the many facets of his teachings outlined above. It has been said that there are close parallels between the teachings of Jesus and the moral teachings of Judaism. What is distinctive about Jesus’ teachings about morality is that the motive and power behind moral conduct is not conceived in terms of laws that must be obeyed. Right conduct is seen to be the result of a right relationship with God.<\/p>\nJesus was himself the pattern for moral behavior. He made clear that his aim was to fulfill the will of God. There is no sense of legalism in his approach to ethical decisions. When—in the Sermon on the Mount—he compared his own teaching with that of Moses, he showed the importance of penetrating to the inner meaning (cf. Mt 5:21-22, 27-28, 31-32). On the face of it, Jesus made more rigorous demands than the Mosaic law, because he was concerned with probing the motives as well as the actions. Many have dismissed the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount as entirely impractical, but Jesus never intended that his teaching would be easy; he set as a target nothing less than the perfection of God himself (Mt 5:48). Nevertheless, he called his yoke easy and his burden light (11:29-30), which suggests that he was not setting out an impossible ethical pattern. It must be remembered that he was not producing a manifesto for society. His concern was that each individual should have powerful motives for right decisions on matters of conduct. His reaction against a rigid application of Sabbath observance at the expense of the welfare of a needy person illustrates this point. Concern for others was rated higher than ritual correctness.<\/p>\nConclusion<\/p>\nNo account of the life and teachings of Jesus would be complete without some indication of the place that Jesus Christ gained in the developing church. Such a quest naturally takes us outside the scope of the Gospels into the testimony of the book of Acts and Paul’s letters. There we can see whether the predictions of Jesus were fulfilled and whether in fact the early Christians took his teaching seriously. Although there can be no question that Jesus Christ became central to the faith of the early Christians, he was regarded from many points of view. He was seen as Messiah in the sense of a spiritual deliverer, as Lord in the sense of being sovereign over his people, as Servant in the sense of his obedience to suffering, as Son in his relation to his Father. In many ways the full understanding of what and who he was could not have occurred until after the resurrection. Therefore, we find that many facets of his teachings about himself were more fully developed in the reflections of his people. This is true in a special sense of the writings of the apostle Paul.<\/p>\nMany have found a problem in linking the Gospels with their detailed presentation of the acts and teachings of Jesus with the Christ who is so central in Paul’s beliefs. The problem arises because the apostle does not refer to any specific incident in the life of Jesus and does not reflect in his epistles any acquaintance with the large amount of teaching material in the Gospels. Does this suggest that Paul had no interest in the historical Jesus? Or could it be maintained that he knew nothing about him? Those who have driven a wedge between Paul and Jesus have not given sufficient weight to those incidental indications that Paul knew a great deal more about the historical Jesus than he states in his letters. He writes, for instance, about the meekness and gentleness of Christ (2 Cor 10:1), suggesting that he knew that Jesus had said of himself that he was meek and lowly of heart (Mt 11:29). Moreover, Paul speaks of the poverty of Christ (2 Cor 8:9) and must have known that the Son of Man had nowhere to lay his head. He certainly knows the details of how Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11:23-26), and he knows of his death by crucifixion. It seems reasonable to conclude that Paul assumes that his readers will be acquainted with the Gospel material.<\/p>\nIt is perhaps useful in this connection to inquire whether the life and teachings of Jesus played a significant part in the early Christian proclamation. One passage that is valuable in this respect is Acts 10:36-38. In Peter’s address to Cornelius, he spoke of God’s having anointed Jesus of Nazareth, and of Jesus’ having gone about doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil. It is clear that some account of the acts of Jesus was included in the early preaching, and there is no reason to suppose that this was not a regular procedure.<\/p>\nThere is no doubt that the example of Jesus was a powerful motive for promoting right behavior. Peter appeals to it in encouraging Christians who were suffering for their faith (1 Pt 2:21). Paul also knows the value of imitation (1 Cor 11:1; 1 Thes 1:6). Since Jesus was recognized as being a man who did not sin (cf. 2 Cor 5:21), his behavior patterns would have proved invaluable for those who needed a new standard for moral action. While this idea of example is unquestionably present in the Epistles, it would be quite wrong to suppose that it formed a major part of Christian doctrine.<\/p>\nThere are a few references to the teachings of Jesus in the non-Gospel portion of the NT. In the Letter of James, which is almost wholly practical, there are more allusions to the teachings of Jesus than anywhere else in the NT. This is especially true in echoes of the Sermon on the Mount, and it shows the strong contribution that the moral teaching of Jesus had on the ethical values of the early Christians. Most of the expositions of doctrine in the Epistles find their basis in some aspect of the teachings of Jesus. These teachings have an ongoing significance for the development of the church.<\/p>\nTo what extent is knowledge of the life and teachings of Jesus relevant to the 21st century? Existential theologians have driven such a wedge between the Christ of faith and the Jesus of history that the latter has ceased to have any importance for them. Christians today, no less than their first-century predecessors, need to know that the object of their faith is the same one who lived and taught in Galilee and Judea.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Ascension of Christ; Christ; Christology; Genealogy of Jesus Christ; Incarnation; Jesus Christ; Kingdom of God, Kingdom of Heaven; Messiah; Parable; Savior; Son of God; Son of Man; Virgin Birth of Jesus.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JESUS CHRIST, Teachings of<\/h3>\nBecause of the wide variety of forms in which the teachings of Jesus have been preserved, it is difficult to bring out the essence of that teaching in a systematic way. Jesus did not present us with a theological system. His words were essentially practical in intent. Yet from all the variety of sayings it is possible to extract a clear idea of what Jesus thought about a number of important issues. What was his teaching about God? What did he think about himself? What did he mean when he spoke about the kingdom? What light does his teaching throw on the meaning of his death? What did he say about the Holy Spirit? How did he describe human beings and their needs? Did he anticipate the Christian church? Did he teach anything about the end of the world? What were the main features of his moral teaching? The following sections will seek to answer these important questions.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Teachings about God<\/p>\n• Teachings about Himself<\/p>\n• Teachings about the Kingdom of God<\/p>\n• Teachings about His Own Death<\/p>\n• Teachings about the Holy Spirit<\/p>\n• Teachings about Humanity<\/p>\n• Teachings about the Church<\/p>\n• Teachings about the Future<\/p>\n• Teachings about Moral Issues<\/p>\nTeachings about God<\/p>\nAnyone who comes to the teachings of Jesus after reading the OT will at once recognize that much of his teaching about God is the same. Since Jesus, as all orthodox Jews of his day, accepted the testimony of the OT as inspired, it is not surprising that his approach to God was similar. This is especially true of his assumption that God was Creator. He taught a special providential care over the created order and affirmed that God watched over such small creatures as the sparrow (Mt 10:29). There is no support in the teachings of Jesus for the view that God is uninterested in the world he made.<\/p>\nOne of the most characteristic titles Jesus used for God was Father. This was not new, for the idea occurs in the OT, where God is seen as Father of his people Israel. This kind of fatherhood was national rather than personal. In the intertestamental period the Jews came to regard God as so holy that he was removed from direct contact with human affairs. There had to be mediators between God and people. This exalted notion of God was not conducive to the idea of God as Father, and it is against this background that the uniqueness of the personal fatherhood of God in the teaching of Jesus must be seen. There is some evidence in Judaism that prayer to God as “Our Father” was known, but what distinguishes Jesus’ teachings from that of his contemporaries is that the fatherhood of God was central to what he taught.<\/p>\nThe father-son relationship is particularly vivid in John’s Gospel, where Jesus as Son is seen to be in close communion with God as Father. This comes out strongly in Jesus’ prayer in John 17 and in the frequent assertions that the Father had sent the Son and that the Son was doing the will of the Father. It is this strong relationship between God and Jesus in terms of fatherhood and sonship that led Jesus to teach men to approach God in the same way. The Lord’s Prayer at once recognizes this in its opening words. It is particularly important to note that “Our Father” precedes “hallowed be thy name,” for the more intimate idea prepares the way for the more remote. Jesus never taught men to approach God with terror.<\/p>\nAlthough there is a connection between the way in which Jesus addressed God as Father and the way in which he taught his disciples to approach God, there is also a distinction. Jesus spoke of “my Father and your Father” when he appeared to Mary Magdalene after his resurrection (Jn 20:17), but he did not say “our Father.” His sonship was unique, for he claimed that he and the Father were one (Jn 10:30).<\/p>\nIn the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus assured his followers that their heavenly Father knows about their needs (Mt 6:32; Lk 12:30), on the strength of which they are exhorted not to be anxious. This gives some insight into the way in which Jesus’ teachings about God has a bearing on practical issues.<\/p>\nTeachings about Himself<\/p>\nWhat Jesus said about himself is of great importance, for this undoubtedly formed the basis of what the early church came to teach about him.<\/p>\nJesus used certain titles of himself or accepted them as descriptions of himself when they were used by others. The most widely used is Son of Man. This title was used by Jesus to refer to himself but was not used by anyone else. It was used, moreover, in several different kinds of sayings. Sometimes the sayings related directly to the public ministry of Jesus, like the saying that the Son of Man was Lord of the Sabbath (Mk 2:28), or that the Son of Man had authority to forgive sins (v 10). Sometimes the sayings had a direct bearing on the Passion, as when Jesus said that the Son of Man must suffer many things (Mk 8:31; note that Mt 16:21 has “he” instead of “Son of Man”). At other times the reference is to a future appearance, as when Jesus declared to the high priest that he would see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven (Mk 14:62). What did Jesus mean by the title, and why did he use it?<\/p>\nThe title “Son of Man” had been used before. The phrase occurs in Psalm 8:4, where it refers to man or humans. Again, the expression is used many times in Ezekiel as a mode of address to the prophet, but here also it means man. A rather different use occurs in Daniel 7:13, where one like a son of man comes with the clouds before the Ancient of Days. There is a strong similarity between this passage and the words of Jesus in Mark 14:62. But an important difference is that whereas Son of Man becomes a title in Mark, it is not so in Daniel. There is some evidence for the title in Jewish apocalyptic literature (e.g., in the Similitudes of Enoch), where it represents a preexistent being who will come to judge and overthrow the enemies of God. It seems evident from this that Jesus’ use of Son of Man as a title is unique.<\/p>\nThe Son of Man sayings are distributed throughout the four Gospels, and there are no appreciable differences in their uses. What is at first astonishing is that though the title is so widespread in the Gospels on the lips of Jesus, it never became a name by which Jesus was known by the early Christians. In fact, only in Acts 7:56 does the title appear, in this case used by Stephen. It is clear, therefore, that it had a special meaning for Jesus that it did not have for others. There is no doubt that he was referring to himself and not to someone else, as a careful study of all the Son of Man sayings shows. Those who think that Jesus was referring to someone else arrive at this conclusion only after first dispensing with some of the sayings. The most probable reason why he used the title Son of Man was because he wanted to avoid a term like Messiah, which carried with it too many political overtones. But what did Son of Man mean to Jesus? It is rich with the idea of humanness, possibly allusions to Daniel’s “son of man,” and perhaps a touch of the Suffering Servant idea from Isaiah 53. It is most likely that Jesus saw it in terms of his mission in a way that his hearers could not fully appreciate. It is also probable that the early church preferred Messiah because this title carried the meaning of a royal deliverer; also, after the death of Jesus, there would be no further fear of political misunderstanding.<\/p>\nThe term Messiah, or Christ, does not belong strictly to the teachings of Jesus, since he himself never used it. The most striking instance where he accepted the ascription of Messiah was in Peter’s confession at Caesarea Philippi. All the synoptic Gospels record the confession “You are the Christ,” while Matthew adds the significant comment by Jesus that flesh and blood had not revealed it but “my Father who is in heaven” (Mt 16:17). He certainly accepted the confession and regarded it as revelation. One other case in the Synoptics where he does not specifically refute messiahship is his answer to the high priest’s question “Are you the Messiah?” (Mk 14:61). In John’s Gospel, Andrew tells Peter that he had found the Messiah (Jn 1:41); the woman at Samaria talks to Jesus, and he reveals that he is the Messiah (4:25-26). There was a widespread expectation among the Jews that a deliverer would come to overthrow their political enemies, the Romans. There were various ideas about his origin (a military leader or a heavenly warrior) and his methods (the Zealots believed that deliverance could come only through armed revolution). The reticence of Jesus concerning messiahship is therefore readily understandable.<\/p>\nAnother title of utmost importance is Son of God, although it occurs mainly in John’s Gospel. That both Mark and John regarded Jesus in this light is clear from explicit statements in their Gospels (cf. Mk 1:1; Jn 20:30-31). There are certainly passages where Messiah is linked with Son of God and where Jesus rejects neither title (cf. Mt 16:16). But in the teachings of Jesus one passage makes abundantly clear the special relationship that Jesus had with God as Son—namely, Matthew 11:27 (also Lk 10:22, a parallel passage), where Jesus implies that he is the Son of the Father.<\/p>\nMany similar passages in John’s Gospel are, however, more explicit. The Son is unquestionably preexistent, because he knows he came from the Father and returns to the Father. It is not possible from the many references to sonship in John’s Gospel to come to any other conclusion than that Jesus regarded himself as divine. It is particularly important to note that it is also in this Gospel that Jesus is portrayed most clearly in his human nature with its attendant weaknesses. Nowhere in the teachings of Jesus did he explain how God could become man, but he assumed this as a fact. He taught with the authority of God.<\/p>\nTeachings about the Kingdom of God<\/p>\nNo one can read the synoptic Gospels without being impressed with the frequency with which the expression “kingdom of God” (or of heaven) occurs. It was clearly an important theme in the whole teaching of Jesus. It is less evident in John’s Gospel but is nevertheless still present. Many of the parables of Jesus are specifically called parables of the kingdom. Jesus’ concept of the kingdom provided a foundational idea to the Christian gospel.<\/p>\nThe main idea is the rule of God over people rather than a realm that belongs to God. In other words, the emphasis is on the active reigning of the King. This is important because it means that the kingdom is inextricably affected by relationships between the members and the King. It also means the kingdom will not be expressed in institutional terms.<\/p>\nThere is one problem with the kingdom teachings that must be faced: its timing. Some sayings imply that it is already present, while others suggest that it will not come until the future. Some scholars disavow the idea that present and future can be held together; therefore, they reject one and concentrate on the other. Those who maintain a present understanding of the kingdom developed the idea of a social gospel, since Christianity was defined as the establishment of the kingdom of God on earth. According to this view, there is no place for a future arrival of the kingdom. On the other hand, some have denied altogether the present aspect and concentrate on the future. In this case, it is difficult to see in what sense the kingdom teachings are relevant.<\/p>\nYet others have insisted that since both present and future aspects are found in the Gospel records, no explanation is satisfying that denies one at the expense of the other. One possible solution is to regard the present aspects as applying to this age but as not reaching their fulfillment until the future establishment of the kingdom. A similar solution, expressed differently, is to maintain that the reality is a future kingdom but that it has spilled over into the present. Jesus intentionally included both present and future aspects.<\/p>\nThat the kingdom was a theme of common interest is clear from Luke 17:20-21, where the Pharisees asked Jesus when it was coming. His answer, that it was among them, shows unmistakably a present idea. This is equally true of the statement that in the exorcism of evil spirits the kingdom had arrived (Mt 12:28; Lk 11:20). Moreover, Jesus mentioned that the kingdom has been forcefully advancing (Mt 11:12), by which he did not mean by revolutionary methods, although he clearly implied that something dynamic was already happening. This idea of dynamic power is one of the most characteristic features of the kingdom. Jesus spoke of binding the strong, armed man (Lk 11:21-22), which shows that in his ministry he expected to give a powerful demonstration against the forces of darkness.<\/p>\nIt is evident that the kingdom Jesus proclaimed was a kingdom in which God was supreme. It was inseparably linked with his redemptive mission, in which God was bringing spiritual deliverance to his people. Moreover, the kingdom teachings of Jesus cannot be regarded in isolation. It is part of the total message; no part of that message can be divorced from any other part without distorting the whole.<\/p>\nThe clearest teachings on the future aspect of the kingdom are to be found in some of the parables (Mt 13) and in the discourse on the Mt of Olives (Mt 24–25; Mk 13; Lk 21). In the latter, Jesus spoke of the future using imagery drawn from Jewish literature, like the references to clouds, to glory, and to angels in relation to the coming of the Son of Man (Mk 13:26-27). In Matthew’s account there is reference to a trumpet call, another familiar feature (Mt 24:31).<\/p>\nVarious features from the kingdom parables give the clearest idea of the nature of the kingdom. Membership in the kingdom is not considered to be universal, for in the parable of the sower not all the soils are productive. The same separation is seen in the parable of the tares and the parable of the dragnet. The tares are destroyed and only the wheat is harvested, while the bad fish are discarded. The members of the kingdom are those who hear and understand the word of the kingdom (Mt 13:23). It is clear, therefore, that a response is necessary if the benefits of the kingdom are to be enjoyed.<\/p>\nThere is an emphasis on growth in the parable of the mustard seed, where rapid development occurs from small beginnings. The parables of the treasure and the pearl are intended to underline the value of the kingdom. The universal character of the kingdom comes out sharply in the parable of the vineyard, where the kingdom is said to be taken away from the Jews and given to another “nation,” presumably an allusion to the Gentiles (Mt 21:43). This is in line with the great commission Jesus gave to his disciples to preach to all nations (28:19). A universal kingdom would certainly be entirely different from the messianic kingdom idea of Judaism, in which Israel was to be the central unit. It is not easy to appreciate how revolutionary the idea was of a worldwide kingdom with Gentiles and Jews on the same footing.<\/p>\nTeachings about His Own Death<\/p>\nThe announcement of the kingdom must be linked with Jesus’ approach to his own death. Did Jesus see his death as an integral part of his mission? Some have maintained that he ended his life in disillusionment, but a brief survey of his teaching about his own destiny is sufficient to dispel such a theory. To the further question, “What meaning did Jesus attach to his forthcoming death?” he gave a series of passing indications that, when taken together, supply us with a basis on which to reconstruct some idea of the place of his death within the entire range of his mission.<\/p>\nIt is important to note that many times Jesus showed his awareness that details of his life were a fulfillment of Scripture (cf. Mt 26:24, 56; Mk 9:12; Lk 18:31; 24:25-27, 44-45). In all the instances cited, the suffering of Jesus is referred to as the subject of OT prophecy. This must mean that he had reflected on OT predictions and recognized that they could be fulfilled only through his own sufferings. In this case the Passion must be regarded as an indispensable part of Jesus’ consciousness of his own mission.<\/p>\nThis emphasis on fulfillment of Scripture is also seen in John’s Gospel. His statement that the Son of Man must be lifted up even as Moses lifted up the serpent (Jn 3:14) illustrates this point. Most of the passages where fulfillment of Scripture is mentioned are the comments of the Evangelist, John. But there can be no doubt that the fulfillment motive played a vital part both in Jesus’ own understanding of his mission and in the early Christians’ understanding of his death. In this connection, some hold that John puts more stress on the Incarnation as a means of salvation in that he sees it as an illumination of the mind. But this is only part of the truth, for there is more on the meaning of the death of Jesus in John’s Gospel than in the others.<\/p>\nThe Gospels emphasize the divine necessity of the death of Jesus. In addition to the fulfillment motive, the idea of necessity is strong in the first prediction by Jesus of his approaching death. In John’s Gospel Jesus speaks of his “hour” several times in the earlier stages of his ministry as “not yet,” but in the later stages as having arrived. There is a sense of definite movement toward a climax, the hour undoubtedly being the hour of the Passion (cf. Jn 17:1). There is not room for any disillusionment here. Jesus knew that only through the hour of death could the Father be glorified. The climax was according to an orderly plan.<\/p>\nJesus evidently regarded his death as in some ways a sacrifice. The clearest indication of this is in the words of institution at the Last Supper. The cup is connected with the blood of the new covenant, which is said to be for the “remission of sins” (Mt 26:26-28). No explanation is given of the way in which the coming death, signified by the broken bread and poured-out wine, would bring about forgiveness of sins. But the immediate realization by the early church that Christ died for our sins (cf. 1 Cor 15:3) shows that the importance of what Jesus said had been clearly grasped. The new covenant idea is parallel to the old covenant, which according to Exodus 24 was sealed with sacrificial blood; there can be little doubt that Jesus had this in mind when he spoke the words about the new covenant. It was also akin to the ideas expressed in Jeremiah 31, referring to a covenant written on the heart rather than graven in stone.<\/p>\nAnother aspect of the death of Christ seen especially in John’s Gospel is the sense of completion that went with it. In Jesus’ prayer in John 17, as he faces the cross, he declares that he has finished the work that the Father had given him to do (Jn 17:4). This is reinforced by the cry from the cross, “It is finished,” which only John records (19:30). This sense of accomplishment gives an air of triumph to what might otherwise have been considered a disaster.<\/p>\nTeachings about the Holy Spirit<\/p>\nAt several of the major events in the life of Jesus, the Evangelists note the activity of the Spirit (e.g., the Virgin Birth, the Baptism, the Temptation). It is to be expected, therefore, that Jesus would have instructed his disciples about the Spirit. However, there is surprisingly little in the synoptic Gospels on this theme. Most of the teachings come from John’s Gospel.<\/p>\nWhen Jesus began his preaching ministry in Nazareth, according to Luke, he read the statement in Isaiah 61:1-2 about the Spirit of God and applied it to himself. He saw his ministry as being inaugurated by the Spirit. This becomes clear in the way in which he responded to the charge that he cast out demons by means of Beelzebub, prince of the demons. He identified the reality of the coming of the kingdom by the fact that he was casting out evil spirits by the Spirit of God (Mt 12:28). He was, moreover, sensitive to the seriousness of blaspheming the Spirit, which he implies his accusers were in danger of doing. Whatever he did in his ministry he saw as an activity of the Spirit, and this was especially so in the contest with evil spirits.<\/p>\nWhile warning his disciples that they would meet with opposition, Jesus assured them of the Spirit’s support when they were forced to appear before kings or governors (Mt 10:19-20; Mk 13:11). Indeed, he told them that the Spirit would speak through them, thus emphasizing that he expected a continuation of the Spirit’s activity in the future. Luke records one instance in which Jesus comments on what fathers will do for their children and asks whether God will not give the Holy Spirit to those who ask (Lk 11:13). The assumption is that God regards the Holy Spirit as the best gift to give his children. On yet another occasion, Jesus recognized that David was inspired by the Holy Spirit when he wrote Psalm 110 (Mk 12:36), reflecting Jesus’ belief in the Spirit’s agency in the production of Scripture.<\/p>\nThe Gospel of John provides a more detailed development of what Jesus taught about the Spirit. Teachings about the Spirit are usually linked to Jesus’ teachings about giving eternal life to those who believe in him and receive him. At the same time he spoke of the new birth and eternal life to Nicodemus, Jesus also spoke of the Spirit (Jn 3:3-8, 15-16). When he spoke of water of life to the Samaritan woman, he also spoke of the Spirit (4:14, 23-24). The same holds true for the discourses on the bread of life (6:48-63) and river of life (7:37-39). Throughout the Gospel, Jesus declares to various people that he can give them eternal life if they would believe in him. He promises them the water of life, the bread of life, and the light of life, but no one could really partake of these until after the Lord was resurrected. As a foretaste, as a sample, they could receive a certain measure of life via the Lord’s words, because his words were themselves spirit and life (6:63), but it was not until the Spirit would become available that the believers could actually become the recipients of the divine, eternal life.<\/p>\nAfter the Lord’s discourse in John 6 (a discourse that was very troubling and offensive to most of his disciples), Jesus said, “It is the Spirit who gives eternal life” (6:63). When the Spirit became available, they could have life. Again, Jesus offered the water of life—even life flowing like rivers of living water—to the Jews assembled at the Feast of Tabernacles. He told them to come and drink of him. But no one could, then and there, come and drink of him. So John added a note: “This He spoke of the Spirit, . . . for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified” (7:39, nasb<\/span>). Once Jesus would be glorified through resurrection, the Spirit of the glorified Jesus would be available for men to drink. In John 6, Jesus offered himself as the bread of life to be eaten by men; and in John 7, he offered himself as the water of life to refresh men. But no one could eat of him or drink of him until the Spirit of the glorified Jesus was made available, as was intimated in John 6:63 and then stated plainly in John 7:39.<\/p>\nIn John 14:16-18, Jesus went one step further in identifying himself with the Spirit. He told the disciples that he would give them another Comforter. Then he told them that they should know who this Comforter was because he was, then and there, abiding with them and would, in the near future, be in them. Who else but Jesus was abiding with them at that time? Then after telling the disciples that the Comforter would come to them, he said, “I am coming to you.” First he said that the Comforter would come to them and abide in them, and then in the same breath he said that he would come to them and abide in them (see 14:20). In short, the coming of the Comforter to the disciples was one and the same as the coming of Jesus to the disciples. The Comforter who was dwelling with the disciples that night was the Spirit in Christ; the Comforter who would be in the disciples (after the resurrection) would be Christ in the Spirit.<\/p>\nOn the evening of the resurrection, the Lord Jesus appeared to the disciples and then breathed into them the Holy Spirit. This inbreathing, reminiscent of God’s breathing into Adam the breath of life (Gn 2:7), became the fulfillment of all that had been promised and anticipated earlier in John’s Gospel. Through this impartation, the disciples were regenerated and indwelt by the Spirit of Jesus Christ. This historical event marked the genesis of the new creation. Jesus could now be realized as the bread of life, the water of life, and the light of life. The believers now possessed his divine, eternal, risen life. From that time forward, Christ as Spirit indwelt his believers. Thus, in his first epistle John could say, “We know he lives in us because the Holy Spirit lives in us” (1 Jn 3:24).<\/p>\nThe indwelling Spirit helped the disciples remember Jesus’ words and actions (Jn 14:26) so that they could teach and write about them with acumen. This means that Jesus did not intend that the preservation of his teachings should be left to chance. All too often theories attempting to explain the way in which the traditions about Jesus and his teachings were transmitted in the period before there were any written Gospels are suggested without any reference to the Holy Spirit. It is not acceptable to concentrate on so-called laws of oral tradition and pay no attention to the unique factor in this case—the Holy Spirit. It is part of the Spirit’s mission to preserve and transmit the teaching of Jesus. What Jesus says in this passage about the Spirit has far-reaching significance for the formation of the Gospels.<\/p>\nAnother important function is the activity of the Spirit in the world. Jesus made it clear that the Spirit would convict of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment (Jn 16:8). Without the activity of the Spirit, there would be no possibility of the disciples making any impact on the world. Nevertheless, Jesus warned that the world could not receive the Spirit because it did not know him (14:17). The mystery of the Spirit is that he dwells in every believer. This indwelling aspect is of great importance and was particularly developed in the writings of Paul.<\/p>\nTeachings about Humanity<\/p>\nJesus taught about God’s providential care over all human beings. A person’s hairs are all numbered (Mt 10:30), which is a vivid way of saying that God is concerned about the details of human life. But God is far more concerned with the eternal soul. Jesus made it clear that it would be unprofitable for anyone to gain the world and to lose his or her soul (Mt 16:26; Mk 8:36; Lk 9:25). The focus falls on what a person is and not what he or she has. Jesus even said that a maimed body was preferable to a forfeited life (Mk 9:43-47). One’s total fulfillment depends more on one’s spiritual condition than on one’s environment or physical well-being. He was not, of course, unconcerned about people’s physical state, as his many healings show, but his major concern was with people’s relationship with God.<\/p>\nJesus never viewed humans as isolated individuals. Within God’s community people were expected to have responsibility toward one another. The Sermon on the Mount illustrated this social emphasis in the teaching of Jesus. Those who are merciful to others will obtain mercy (Mt 5:7). There is special commendation for peacemakers (v 9). The disciples of Jesus are expected to bring light to others (v 16). They are expected to give more than expected (v 40). Jesus is clearly saying that people have responsibility beyond themselves.<\/p>\nThe relation of people to God is one of dependence. Jesus taught men and women to pray to God for daily bread (Mt 6:11) as a reminder that they cannot be wholly self-sufficient. He allowed no place in his teaching for humans to boast in their own achievements.<\/p>\nJesus had some specific things to say about home life. He accepted the sanctity of the marriage contract (Mt 5:31-32; cf. 19:3-9) and therefore showed a high regard for the honor and rights of the wife. It was more in his actions and attitudes rather than his specific teachings that Jesus showed his regard for the status of women. When he spoke of men, he often used the term in the sense of people, including both men and women. There is no suggestion that in matters of faith women were in the least inferior to men. Moreover, Luke points out how many women supported Jesus and his disciples in their travels.<\/p>\nJesus had a high view of the human potential but also acknowledged their present condition. The stress on repentance (Mt 4:17) shows a sinfulness of which people need to repent. This sense of need is implicit in the instances where Jesus pronounces forgiveness (e.g., to the paralytic, Mt 9:1-8; and to the woman who anointed him, Lk 7:47-48). In the Lord’s Prayer, Jesus instructs his disciples to pray for forgiveness (Mt 6:12; Lk 11:4). He takes for granted that they need it and desire to obtain it.<\/p>\nJesus gives no support to any self-righteousness in men or women. This is the burden of his criticism of the religious leaders in various sayings, but particularly in Matthew 23. He was critical of Jewish teachers because they placed so much importance on works of merit as contributing to salvation. His whole approach depended on humans casting themselves on the mercy of God. This is vividly illustrated in the parable about the Pharisee and the tax collector at prayer (Lk 18:10-14). It was the latter who threw himself on the mercy of God and who was commended by Jesus.<\/p>\nUndoubtedly, Jesus regarded sin as universal. He never suggested that there was anyone who was exempt from it. The major concept of sin in his teachings was alienation from God. This comes out clearly in John’s Gospel, with its strong antithesis between light and darkness, life and death (cf. Jn 5:24). Indeed, the “world” in John’s Gospel represents the system that takes no account of God. But sin is also seen as enslavement to Satan. The life and teachings of Jesus are seen against the background of spiritual conflict. Jesus can even say to his opponents, “You are of your father the devil” (Jn 8:44). He assumes throughout that there are hostile forces bringing man into subjection.<\/p>\nIn the parable of the prodigal son, sin against God is linked with sin before the father. In other words, it is regarded in terms of rebellion and revolt (Lk 15:21). This is a different assessment of the son’s offense than the one arrived at by the elder brother, who could see it only in terms of property. The view that humans are essentially in a state of rebellion against God is a basic tenet of Paul’s theological position, and it is important to note that it finds its root in the teachings of Jesus.<\/p>\nThere is no question that Jesus had much to say about condemnation. Those who did not believe and were therefore outside the provision of salvation that Jesus had made are declared to be already condemned (Jn 3:18). At various times Jesus mentioned judgment to come, which shows that a person’s destiny is related to his or her present spiritual condition. Against this background of humanity’s spiritual need, the whole mission of Jesus must be seen. A person, if left to himself or herself, would be totally unable to achieve salvation, but Jesus came to offer eternal life to those who believe in him (Jn 3:16).<\/p>\nTeachings about the Church<\/p>\nSome have supposed that Jesus did not predict that there would be a church. But on two occasions he used the word “church,” which means a people called out by God. On one of the occasions—at Caesarea Philippi—Jesus told Peter that he would build his church upon the rock (Mt 16:16-19). It seems most probable that “rock” was intended to link the foundation of the church to Peter’s particular confession about Jesus. It is certain that the later church was a community that affirmed that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God. It is important to note that it is Christ himself who is the builder of the church. He assured his disciples that it would be impregnable (the gates of hades would not overcome it). Moreover, one of the functions of the church was to proclaim forgiveness of sins, and this is implied in what Jesus said to Peter. That the words were not intended to refer exclusively to him is clear from Matthew 18:18, where similar words were addressed to all the disciples. The church, according to Matthew 18:17, was to be a community that could settle disputes between believers.<\/p>\nIn addition to these specific references to the church, Jesus assumed that his followers would meet together in his name (Mt 18:19-20). In his final words in Matthew’s account, he commissioned them to teach what he had taught them and to baptize new disciples (Mt 28:19-20). He promised his presence would be with them. The command to baptize was reinforced by Jesus’ own example in submitting to John’s baptism. One other special rite that Jesus expected his disciples to observe was the Lord’s Supper. His instructions about this presuppose a later community that could observe it. Since the form of words used in the institution point to the meaning of the death of Christ, it is clear that Jesus intended the future community to be frequently reminded of the center of the faith. The Christian church was to be a group of people who knew that through Christ they had entered into a new relationship with God.<\/p>\nAlthough there are no references to the church in John’s Gospel, there are certainly hints that support the community idea. Jesus introduced himself as the Shepherd and spoke of his followers as forming a flock (Jn 10:16). The sheep imagery occurs again in this Gospel when Peter is instructed three times by the risen Lord to feed the sheep (Jn 21:15-17). Another figure of speech that Jesus used to bring out the group idea is that of the many branches that draw their life from the vine, and therefore belong to each other because of their common life in the vine.<\/p>\nJesus recognized that the future community would need the aid of the Spirit. His teachings on this subject laid the foundation for the evident dependence of the early church on the Spirit, as seen in the book of Acts. Finally, it should be noted that there is a close connection between the church and the kingdom, although they are not identical. The kingdom is more comprehensive than the church, which is included within it.<\/p>\nTeachings about the Future<\/p>\nJesus thought of the kingdom in terms of both present realization and future hope. The future aspect is related to the end of the age. Although he did not spell it out in specific terms, Jesus did not leave his disciples without any knowledge of how the present age would end. He gave firm assurance that he would return at some time in the future.<\/p>\nHe told the disciples that the Son of Man would come with his angels in his Father’s glory (Mt 16:27). In the discourse in which he answers the disciples’ question about the end of the world, he speaks again of the Son of Man coming in clouds with power and glory (Mk 13:26), probably drawn from the familiar language of Daniel 7. Jesus described various signs that would precede his own coming. He spoke of wars, conflicts, earthquakes, famines, and disturbances in the heavens. The gospel was to be preached to all nations. At the same time many false Christs would arise.<\/p>\nJesus gave such details about his return to encourage his disciples in the face of persecution. The future hope had a definitely practical purpose. The disciples were urged to watch. The coming would happen as unexpectedly as a thief in the night. Jesus said that even he himself did not know when the coming would take place (Mk 13:32).<\/p>\nAnother important theme affecting the future is emphasized in Jesus’ teachings about resurrection. The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection of the body. They attempted to trap Jesus with a question about a woman who had been married seven times. They wanted to know whose husband she would be at the resurrection (Mk 12:18-27). Jesus pointed out that there would be no marriage when the dead rise. The Sadducees’ idea about resurrection was clearly wrong. Jesus’ teaching was that the resurrected would be like the angels. There is no doubt about the resurrection of the dead, although no information is given about the resurrection body. Jesus told a story about a rich man and a poor man who both died (Lk 16:19-31). In the afterlife the rich man cries out in torment, while the poor man enjoys a state of blessedness. What is most clear from this is the certainty of the afterlife and the fact of a distinction between the two men, although we are not told on what grounds the distinction is made. Elsewhere in his teachings, Jesus suggested that the most vital requirement is faith in himself. The conversation between Jesus and the dying thief on the cross suggests that paradise for the latter consisted in an awareness of the presence of Jesus (Lk 23:42-43).<\/p>\nThe theme of rewards and punishment occurs in many passages. In Matthew 16:27 Jesus says that the Son of Man will reward everyone according to what he or she has done. Those who are worthless are promised punishment in darkness (Mt 25:30). Moreover, Jesus spoke of a day of judgment on which men and women must give an account, even of all their careless words (12:36-37). In the parable of the sheep and the goats, he spoke of a separation that the Son of Man will make when he comes. Those commended are those who have shown concern for the believers (25:31-46).<\/p>\nAmong Jesus’ most solemn statements are those that speak of hell. There is no way of getting around his teachings about eternal punishment for the unrighteous (as in Mt 25:41, 46), which is opposite to the eternal life promised to the righteous. He taught that his disciples would have a place prepared for them in heaven (Jn 14:2), and spoke of a Book of Life in which the names of his disciples were written (Lk 10:20).<\/p>\nTeachings about Moral Issues<\/p>\nMuch of the teaching of Jesus is concerned with moral issues—so much so that some scholars have concluded that this was the main burden of his teaching. But the moral teachings cannot be considered apart from the many facets of his teachings outlined above. It has been said that there are close parallels between the teachings of Jesus and the moral teachings of Judaism. What is distinctive about Jesus’ teachings about morality is that the motive and power behind moral conduct is not conceived in terms of laws that must be obeyed. Right conduct is seen to be the result of a right relationship with God.<\/p>\nJesus was himself the pattern for moral behavior. He made clear that his aim was to fulfill the will of God. There is no sense of legalism in his approach to ethical decisions. When—in the Sermon on the Mount—he compared his own teaching with that of Moses, he showed the importance of penetrating to the inner meaning (cf. Mt 5:21-22, 27-28, 31-32). On the face of it, Jesus made more rigorous demands than the Mosaic law, because he was concerned with probing the motives as well as the actions. Many have dismissed the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount as entirely impractical, but Jesus never intended that his teaching would be easy; he set as a target nothing less than the perfection of God himself (Mt 5:48). Nevertheless, he called his yoke easy and his burden light (11:29-30), which suggests that he was not setting out an impossible ethical pattern. It must be remembered that he was not producing a manifesto for society. His concern was that each individual should have powerful motives for right decisions on matters of conduct. His reaction against a rigid application of Sabbath observance at the expense of the welfare of a needy person illustrates this point. Concern for others was rated higher than ritual correctness.<\/p>\nConclusion<\/p>\nNo account of the life and teachings of Jesus would be complete without some indication of the place that Jesus Christ gained in the developing church. Such a quest naturally takes us outside the scope of the Gospels into the testimony of the book of Acts and Paul’s letters. There we can see whether the predictions of Jesus were fulfilled and whether in fact the early Christians took his teaching seriously. Although there can be no question that Jesus Christ became central to the faith of the early Christians, he was regarded from many points of view. He was seen as Messiah in the sense of a spiritual deliverer, as Lord in the sense of being sovereign over his people, as Servant in the sense of his obedience to suffering, as Son in his relation to his Father. In many ways the full understanding of what and who he was could not have occurred until after the resurrection. Therefore, we find that many facets of his teachings about himself were more fully developed in the reflections of his people. This is true in a special sense of the writings of the apostle Paul.<\/p>\nMany have found a problem in linking the Gospels with their detailed presentation of the acts and teachings of Jesus with the Christ who is so central in Paul’s beliefs. The problem arises because the apostle does not refer to any specific incident in the life of Jesus and does not reflect in his epistles any acquaintance with the large amount of teaching material in the Gospels. Does this suggest that Paul had no interest in the historical Jesus? Or could it be maintained that he knew nothing about him? Those who have driven a wedge between Paul and Jesus have not given sufficient weight to those incidental indications that Paul knew a great deal more about the historical Jesus than he states in his letters. He writes, for instance, about the meekness and gentleness of Christ (2 Cor 10:1), suggesting that he knew that Jesus had said of himself that he was meek and lowly of heart (Mt 11:29). Moreover, Paul speaks of the poverty of Christ (2 Cor 8:9) and must have known that the Son of Man had nowhere to lay his head. He certainly knows the details of how Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11:23-26), and he knows of his death by crucifixion. It seems reasonable to conclude that Paul assumes that his readers will be acquainted with the Gospel material.<\/p>\nIt is perhaps useful in this connection to inquire whether the life and teachings of Jesus played a significant part in the early Christian proclamation. One passage that is valuable in this respect is Acts 10:36-38. In Peter’s address to Cornelius, he spoke of God’s having anointed Jesus of Nazareth, and of Jesus’ having gone about doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil. It is clear that some account of the acts of Jesus was included in the early preaching, and there is no reason to suppose that this was not a regular procedure.<\/p>\nThere is no doubt that the example of Jesus was a powerful motive for promoting right behavior. Peter appeals to it in encouraging Christians who were suffering for their faith (1 Pt 2:21). Paul also knows the value of imitation (1 Cor 11:1; 1 Thes 1:6). Since Jesus was recognized as being a man who did not sin (cf. 2 Cor 5:21), his behavior patterns would have proved invaluable for those who needed a new standard for moral action. While this idea of example is unquestionably present in the Epistles, it would be quite wrong to suppose that it formed a major part of Christian doctrine.<\/p>\nThere are a few references to the teachings of Jesus in the non-Gospel portion of the NT. In the Letter of James, which is almost wholly practical, there are more allusions to the teachings of Jesus than anywhere else in the NT. This is especially true in echoes of the Sermon on the Mount, and it shows the strong contribution that the moral teaching of Jesus had on the ethical values of the early Christians. Most of the expositions of doctrine in the Epistles find their basis in some aspect of the teachings of Jesus. These teachings have an ongoing significance for the development of the church.<\/p>\nTo what extent is knowledge of the life and teachings of Jesus relevant to the 21st century? Existential theologians have driven such a wedge between the Christ of faith and the Jesus of history that the latter has ceased to have any importance for them. Christians today, no less than their first-century predecessors, need to know that the object of their faith is the same one who lived and taught in Galilee and Judea.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Ascension of Christ; Christ; Christology; Genealogy of Jesus Christ; Incarnation; Jesus Christ; Kingdom of God, Kingdom of Heaven; Messiah; Parable; Savior; Son of God; Son of Man; Virgin Birth of Jesus.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JESUS CHRIST, Teachings of Because of the wide variety of forms in which the teachings of Jesus have been preserved, it is difficult to bring out the essence of that teaching in a systematic way. Jesus did not present us with a theological system. His words were essentially practical in intent. Yet from all the variety of sayings it is possible to extract a clear idea of what Jesus thought about a number of important issues. What was his teaching about God? What did he think about himself? Wh...","summary_en":"JESUS CHRIST, Teachings of Because of the wide variety of forms in which the teachings of Jesus have been preserved, it is difficult to bring out the essence of that teaching in a systematic way. Jesus did not present us with a theological system. His words were essentially practical in intent. Yet from all the variety of sayings it is possible to extract a clear idea of what Jesus thought about a number of important issues. What was his teaching about God? What did he think about himself? Wh...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":24149,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Man","title_en":"Man","content_ro":"<h3>MAN<\/h3>\nHuman being, whether male or female.<\/p>\nThe biblical teaching on man begins with a right notion concerning God. The biblical perspective of anthropology (i.e., the study of man) is centrally displayed in the context of an elevated theology (i.e., the study of God). A high and reverent view of God leads to a noble and dignified view of man, whereas a poorly developed concept of God often produces a distorted perspective on man. Hence, man may be viewed more importantly than he ought, or man may be seen less important than is biblical. Either view is subbiblical. The place to begin a study of man (which in this article is used as a generic term for both male and female human beings) is with a view of God, his Creator.<\/p>\nMan’s Origin<\/p>\nAgainst the naturalistic, materialistic theories of origins, the biblical view starts with the assertion that the eternal God has created man, the most significant of all his created works. It is not necessary for one to subscribe to a particular chronological scenario for God’s work in the creation of man. Some Christians believe the Bible teaches a closed chronology in Genesis 1 made of six literal 24-hour days (cf. Gn 1:5, 8, 13, etc.), with the stunning, sudden appearance of man coming perhaps just some 6,000 years ago (cf. the chronologies associated with but not limited to Archbishop James Ussher, Annales,<\/em> 1650–58). Some who hold this general viewpoint (sometimes called creation science) extend the creation of man to about 10,000 years ago, based on a view of some elasticity in the chronologies of Genesis 5 and 11.<\/p>\nOthers believe the texts of Genesis 1 and 2 may be interpreted far more broadly to speak of a most remote antiquity for the creation of man (extending to millions of years). They argue that process (under God’s control and direction) may have played a significant role in God’s creative work. This viewpoint is best termed progressive creationism, and is to be contrasted with theistic evolution, in which God is usually viewed as initiating the process but having little involvement once the processes are in motion. In the former approach, the Hebrew term “day” (<\/em>yom<\/span>)<\/em> in Genesis 1 may refer to an extended period of time (e.g., the “day-age” theory); thus, the phrasing “an evening and a morning, the x<\/em>th day” may be a literary device to present successive scenes in the creative works of God through the processes of time.<\/p>\nMany Christians find themselves somewhere between a conservative and a broad chronology for man’s origin. Yet in spite of individual preferences, one must give assent to God’s creative work in producing man in order to think biblically about man. The essence of faith begins in the words “I believe in God the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth.”<\/p>\nMan is not only God’s creation but also the pinnacle of his creative effort. Long before modern precision in such things, the ancients were aware of man’s anatomical similarities with members of the animal kingdom. Yet despite these similarities, the biblical viewpoint never places man on the same level as animals—man is distinct, the high point of God’s creative work, the apex of his handicraft. The progression of the created things in Genesis 1 is climactic; all of God’s created work culminated in his fashioning of man.<\/p>\nThe distinct behavioral characteristics of man include language, toolmaking, and culture. Distinct experiential characteristics include reflective awareness, ethical concern, aesthetic urges, historical awareness, and metaphysical concern. These factors individually and collectively separate man from other forms of animal life. Man is far more than the “naked ape” of some modern evolutionary theories. But sociology alone does not suffice to explain the full nature of man. That is the subject of divine revelation.<\/p>\nWhile man bears a continuity with God’s creation (assumed in the words of Gn 2:7, being fashioned from the dust of the earth), man is also distinct from all that precedes him because God breathed into him the breath of life so that he became a living soul (2:7). Man was created by God as male and female (1:27), meaning that what is said generally of man must be said of both the male and the female, and that the truest picture of what it means to be human will be found in the context of man and woman together. The commands to multiply and exercise sovereignty over the earth were given to both sexes as shared responsibility. Similarly, it is man as male and female that rebelled against God and bears the consequences of that primeval sin in the postfall world, and it is man as male and female that Christ came to redeem (cf. Gal 3:28). At the same time, the words “male” and “female” denote true distinctions. Many perceived gender differences may be culturally conditioned, yet the prime sexual distinctions between male (Hebrew, zakar<\/span>,<\/em> “the piercer”) and female (Hebrew, neqeba<\/span>,<\/em> “the pierced”) are divinely intended. It takes both male and female to exhibit the full image of God (see Gn 1:27).<\/p>\nIndeed, the most stunning biblical assertion respecting man is that God made man in his image.<\/em> Of no other creature, not even the angels, is such a statement found. The words “in God’s image” in Genesis 1:26-28 are the basis for the psalmist’s paraphrase in Psalm 8:5, “for you have made him to lack but little of God” (literal translation; “lower than the angels,” Septuagint translation). The meaning of the phrase “the image of God” (Latin, imago Dei<\/em>) has been the subject of much debate. Some have thought the phrase to refer to a physical representation of God, but this is doubtful in that God is spirit (cf. Jn 4:24). Others think the phrase refers to man’s personhood, which corresponds to the personality of God (having intellect, sensibilities, and will). Such qualities of man may be found in God’s image; however, these varied aspects of personality are also shared by other members of the animal kingdom and are not unique to the human species.<\/p>\nThe basic meaning of the word “image” (Hebrew, tselem<\/span>) is “shadow,” “representation,” or “likeness.” The image of God in man reveals God’s perspective of man’s worth and dignity as a representation or a shadow of himself in the created world. Ancient kings of Assyria were known to have physical images of themselves placed in outlying districts as a reminder to those who might be prone to forget that these areas were a part of the empire. So God has placed in man a shadow of himself, a representation of his presence, in the world that he has made.<\/p>\nThis view of God’s image in man seems to be confirmed by the immediate context in Genesis 1. Man, created in God’s image, is to have dominion over all of God’s other works (Gn 1:26; see also Ps 8:5). Further, as a representative of the Creator, man is to respond to him. Jesus’ assertion of the spirituality of God results in a response of worship in spirit and in truth (Jn 4:21-24).<\/p>\nMan’s Nature<\/p>\nOne may tend to think of man in parts, but the biblical emphasis is on man as a whole. Debates continue on the tripartite (threefold) nature of man (cf. 1 Thes 5:23)—spirit, soul, and body—as against a bipartite (twofold) nature of man, material and immaterial. Though the Bible does seem to support both positions, the most important issue respecting the nature of man is his unity rather than the number of his parts. Hence, a biblical view of man begins in the assertion that one is a person made up of physical and nonphysical properties. In the words of Karl Barth, the human person is “bodily soul, as he is also besouled body.” There is no person in body only, nor can one easily think of a bodiless spirit as a person, except in a temporary, transitional state. The Hebrew term nephesh<\/span>,<\/em> often translated “soul,” is best rendered “person” in most contexts. The Hebrew word ruach<\/span> (“breath,” “wind,” “spirit”) and the Greek words pneuma<\/span> (“spirit”) and psuche<\/span> (“soul”) often speak of the immaterial part of man. This is no less real than the physical. A purely material, physical view of man is frightfully deficient. At the same time, an overemphasis on the spirit and a deemphasis on the physical is neither realistic nor balanced. One may say, “I am a person whose existence is presently very dependent upon my physical body. But I am more than body, more than flesh. When my body dies, I still live. When my flesh decays, I exist. But one day I shall live in a body again. For the notion of a disembodied spirit is not the full measure of my humanity. God’s ideal for me is to live my life in my [new] body. So in hope of the eternal state, I believe in the resurrection of the body and life everlasting.”<\/p>\nOne cannot go far in thinking of the nature of man from the biblical vantage point without first facing the problem of the fall. Genesis 3 suggests that unfallen man was immortal, that his powers of sexual reproduction were not originally bound in the pain in childbearing, and that his work was not troubled by reversals in nature. After the fall, however, all was changed: within man himself, between the male and the female, in his interaction with nature, and in his relationship with the Creator.<\/p>\nAs a result of the fall, man has become profoundly fallen, a fallenness extending to every part of his person. The phrase “total depravity” need not mean that one is as evil as he or she might be, but rather that the results of sin affect one’s whole being. At the time, the image of God in man continues in some way after the fall, providing the divine rationale for salvation (cf. Rom 5). It is essentially because of God’s estimation of the intrinsic worth of man that the divine justification of salvation may be maintained.<\/p>\nThe old debate between the essential goodness and the evil disposition of man finds its quandary and resolution in the Genesis account: God made man to consciously reflect the dignity and nobility of the Creator, yet man, by his own deliberate rebellion, turned against his Creator and continues, except by God’s grace, in the ensuing sin that marks his life. This resultant sin is both a quality of being in the fallen person, as well as numerous, continuing acts of pride and selfishness. Though the image of God in man was marred by the fall, it may be stimulated anew by the effective work of the Spirit of God as one comes to newness of life in Christ. This gracious work of God brings personal renewal, restoration of relationships with others, and fellowship with God.<\/p>\nMan, then, who was created good by God, has become evil by his own devices, yet in God’s power he may recapture the good again. The rediscovery of what it means to be fully human is found in the life of Jesus, whose human life is the new beginning for man. Hence, Jesus is the new Adam; in his model there is a new beginning that replaces the former pattern.<\/p>\nMan’s Destiny<\/p>\nA biblical view of man must include a balanced statement respecting his divine origin, his rebellion against the grace of God, his judgment, and his prospect for redemption in the person of the Savior Jesus with the promise of eternal life. Man has a beginning and will live forever. This assertion is in stark contrast to naturalistic theories of origins and destinies. One of the most deceptive tendencies of modern thought is the concept “coming to terms with death.” People with no thought of God and no hope for eternity are encouraging each other to accept the inevitable decline and demise of their bodies as the natural end to human life. The biblical notion is that death in man is not natural at all.<\/p>\nDeath is an acquired trait, not the natural destiny of man. Death may be said of the body but not of the spirit. The biblical teaching is that while the body dies and decays, the person lives on in hope of a renewed body. Those who have come to know Christ go to be with him when their bodies die (Phil 1:23) and anticipate the resurrection of the body for eternal life to come (1 Cor 15:35-49). Those who die apart from Christ do not cease to exist but rather are assigned an eternal existence of conscious knowledge that they are separated from God and have fallen short of their destiny to enjoy his presence forever. The biblical teaching on the destiny of the lost is quite unpalatable for modern man. Even Christians who have generally high views of biblical inspiration may find themselves blanching at the thought of eternal punishment of the wicked. Yet the biblical doctrine of the final judgment of the wicked is as well established as most teachings in the Bible.<\/p>\nOne of the most dramatic truths in Scripture respecting the nature of man is to realize that it was for man that God initiated the salvation work that led to the incarnation of the eternal son of God. After his resurrection and ascension, the Lord Jesus Christ returned to his eternal position of glory and majesty in heaven, where he forever remains the God-man. As God, he shares all the attributes of the Father and the Holy Spirit, and as man, identifies with man. He reveals himself in a physical body, albeit the resurrection body, the firstfruits of the resurrection of all who are his. The incarnation, then, brought about an eternal change in deity. Only a very high view of the worth of man could have brought God to such a fundamental change in himself. As the writer to the Hebrews states, “Because God’s children are human beings—made of flesh and blood—Jesus also became flesh and blood by being born in human form” (Heb 2:14, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nThe final measure of our humanity is that man was made to worship God and to enjoy him forever. Such thoughts are not attributed to any other created being. Even the angels, who have maintained their perfect state and who worship the Father in conscious bliss, do not have quite the same relationship with God as do redeemed men (Heb 2:16).<\/p>\nWhat is man? In Christ, man is all God means him to be, in majesty and dignity, and in joy before his throne forever.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Image of God; Man, Natural; Man, Old and New.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MAN<\/h3>\nHuman being, whether male or female.<\/p>\nThe biblical teaching on man begins with a right notion concerning God. The biblical perspective of anthropology (i.e., the study of man) is centrally displayed in the context of an elevated theology (i.e., the study of God). A high and reverent view of God leads to a noble and dignified view of man, whereas a poorly developed concept of God often produces a distorted perspective on man. Hence, man may be viewed more importantly than he ought, or man may be seen less important than is biblical. Either view is subbiblical. The place to begin a study of man (which in this article is used as a generic term for both male and female human beings) is with a view of God, his Creator.<\/p>\nMan’s Origin<\/p>\nAgainst the naturalistic, materialistic theories of origins, the biblical view starts with the assertion that the eternal God has created man, the most significant of all his created works. It is not necessary for one to subscribe to a particular chronological scenario for God’s work in the creation of man. Some Christians believe the Bible teaches a closed chronology in Genesis 1 made of six literal 24-hour days (cf. Gn 1:5, 8, 13, etc.), with the stunning, sudden appearance of man coming perhaps just some 6,000 years ago (cf. the chronologies associated with but not limited to Archbishop James Ussher, Annales,<\/em> 1650–58). Some who hold this general viewpoint (sometimes called creation science) extend the creation of man to about 10,000 years ago, based on a view of some elasticity in the chronologies of Genesis 5 and 11.<\/p>\nOthers believe the texts of Genesis 1 and 2 may be interpreted far more broadly to speak of a most remote antiquity for the creation of man (extending to millions of years). They argue that process (under God’s control and direction) may have played a significant role in God’s creative work. This viewpoint is best termed progressive creationism, and is to be contrasted with theistic evolution, in which God is usually viewed as initiating the process but having little involvement once the processes are in motion. In the former approach, the Hebrew term “day” (<\/em>yom<\/span>)<\/em> in Genesis 1 may refer to an extended period of time (e.g., the “day-age” theory); thus, the phrasing “an evening and a morning, the x<\/em>th day” may be a literary device to present successive scenes in the creative works of God through the processes of time.<\/p>\nMany Christians find themselves somewhere between a conservative and a broad chronology for man’s origin. Yet in spite of individual preferences, one must give assent to God’s creative work in producing man in order to think biblically about man. The essence of faith begins in the words “I believe in God the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth.”<\/p>\nMan is not only God’s creation but also the pinnacle of his creative effort. Long before modern precision in such things, the ancients were aware of man’s anatomical similarities with members of the animal kingdom. Yet despite these similarities, the biblical viewpoint never places man on the same level as animals—man is distinct, the high point of God’s creative work, the apex of his handicraft. The progression of the created things in Genesis 1 is climactic; all of God’s created work culminated in his fashioning of man.<\/p>\nThe distinct behavioral characteristics of man include language, toolmaking, and culture. Distinct experiential characteristics include reflective awareness, ethical concern, aesthetic urges, historical awareness, and metaphysical concern. These factors individually and collectively separate man from other forms of animal life. Man is far more than the “naked ape” of some modern evolutionary theories. But sociology alone does not suffice to explain the full nature of man. That is the subject of divine revelation.<\/p>\nWhile man bears a continuity with God’s creation (assumed in the words of Gn 2:7, being fashioned from the dust of the earth), man is also distinct from all that precedes him because God breathed into him the breath of life so that he became a living soul (2:7). Man was created by God as male and female (1:27), meaning that what is said generally of man must be said of both the male and the female, and that the truest picture of what it means to be human will be found in the context of man and woman together. The commands to multiply and exercise sovereignty over the earth were given to both sexes as shared responsibility. Similarly, it is man as male and female that rebelled against God and bears the consequences of that primeval sin in the postfall world, and it is man as male and female that Christ came to redeem (cf. Gal 3:28). At the same time, the words “male” and “female” denote true distinctions. Many perceived gender differences may be culturally conditioned, yet the prime sexual distinctions between male (Hebrew, zakar<\/span>,<\/em> “the piercer”) and female (Hebrew, neqeba<\/span>,<\/em> “the pierced”) are divinely intended. It takes both male and female to exhibit the full image of God (see Gn 1:27).<\/p>\nIndeed, the most stunning biblical assertion respecting man is that God made man in his image.<\/em> Of no other creature, not even the angels, is such a statement found. The words “in God’s image” in Genesis 1:26-28 are the basis for the psalmist’s paraphrase in Psalm 8:5, “for you have made him to lack but little of God” (literal translation; “lower than the angels,” Septuagint translation). The meaning of the phrase “the image of God” (Latin, imago Dei<\/em>) has been the subject of much debate. Some have thought the phrase to refer to a physical representation of God, but this is doubtful in that God is spirit (cf. Jn 4:24). Others think the phrase refers to man’s personhood, which corresponds to the personality of God (having intellect, sensibilities, and will). Such qualities of man may be found in God’s image; however, these varied aspects of personality are also shared by other members of the animal kingdom and are not unique to the human species.<\/p>\nThe basic meaning of the word “image” (Hebrew, tselem<\/span>) is “shadow,” “representation,” or “likeness.” The image of God in man reveals God’s perspective of man’s worth and dignity as a representation or a shadow of himself in the created world. Ancient kings of Assyria were known to have physical images of themselves placed in outlying districts as a reminder to those who might be prone to forget that these areas were a part of the empire. So God has placed in man a shadow of himself, a representation of his presence, in the world that he has made.<\/p>\nThis view of God’s image in man seems to be confirmed by the immediate context in Genesis 1. Man, created in God’s image, is to have dominion over all of God’s other works (Gn 1:26; see also Ps 8:5). Further, as a representative of the Creator, man is to respond to him. Jesus’ assertion of the spirituality of God results in a response of worship in spirit and in truth (Jn 4:21-24).<\/p>\nMan’s Nature<\/p>\nOne may tend to think of man in parts, but the biblical emphasis is on man as a whole. Debates continue on the tripartite (threefold) nature of man (cf. 1 Thes 5:23)—spirit, soul, and body—as against a bipartite (twofold) nature of man, material and immaterial. Though the Bible does seem to support both positions, the most important issue respecting the nature of man is his unity rather than the number of his parts. Hence, a biblical view of man begins in the assertion that one is a person made up of physical and nonphysical properties. In the words of Karl Barth, the human person is “bodily soul, as he is also besouled body.” There is no person in body only, nor can one easily think of a bodiless spirit as a person, except in a temporary, transitional state. The Hebrew term nephesh<\/span>,<\/em> often translated “soul,” is best rendered “person” in most contexts. The Hebrew word ruach<\/span> (“breath,” “wind,” “spirit”) and the Greek words pneuma<\/span> (“spirit”) and psuche<\/span> (“soul”) often speak of the immaterial part of man. This is no less real than the physical. A purely material, physical view of man is frightfully deficient. At the same time, an overemphasis on the spirit and a deemphasis on the physical is neither realistic nor balanced. One may say, “I am a person whose existence is presently very dependent upon my physical body. But I am more than body, more than flesh. When my body dies, I still live. When my flesh decays, I exist. But one day I shall live in a body again. For the notion of a disembodied spirit is not the full measure of my humanity. God’s ideal for me is to live my life in my [new] body. So in hope of the eternal state, I believe in the resurrection of the body and life everlasting.”<\/p>\nOne cannot go far in thinking of the nature of man from the biblical vantage point without first facing the problem of the fall. Genesis 3 suggests that unfallen man was immortal, that his powers of sexual reproduction were not originally bound in the pain in childbearing, and that his work was not troubled by reversals in nature. After the fall, however, all was changed: within man himself, between the male and the female, in his interaction with nature, and in his relationship with the Creator.<\/p>\nAs a result of the fall, man has become profoundly fallen, a fallenness extending to every part of his person. The phrase “total depravity” need not mean that one is as evil as he or she might be, but rather that the results of sin affect one’s whole being. At the time, the image of God in man continues in some way after the fall, providing the divine rationale for salvation (cf. Rom 5). It is essentially because of God’s estimation of the intrinsic worth of man that the divine justification of salvation may be maintained.<\/p>\nThe old debate between the essential goodness and the evil disposition of man finds its quandary and resolution in the Genesis account: God made man to consciously reflect the dignity and nobility of the Creator, yet man, by his own deliberate rebellion, turned against his Creator and continues, except by God’s grace, in the ensuing sin that marks his life. This resultant sin is both a quality of being in the fallen person, as well as numerous, continuing acts of pride and selfishness. Though the image of God in man was marred by the fall, it may be stimulated anew by the effective work of the Spirit of God as one comes to newness of life in Christ. This gracious work of God brings personal renewal, restoration of relationships with others, and fellowship with God.<\/p>\nMan, then, who was created good by God, has become evil by his own devices, yet in God’s power he may recapture the good again. The rediscovery of what it means to be fully human is found in the life of Jesus, whose human life is the new beginning for man. Hence, Jesus is the new Adam; in his model there is a new beginning that replaces the former pattern.<\/p>\nMan’s Destiny<\/p>\nA biblical view of man must include a balanced statement respecting his divine origin, his rebellion against the grace of God, his judgment, and his prospect for redemption in the person of the Savior Jesus with the promise of eternal life. Man has a beginning and will live forever. This assertion is in stark contrast to naturalistic theories of origins and destinies. One of the most deceptive tendencies of modern thought is the concept “coming to terms with death.” People with no thought of God and no hope for eternity are encouraging each other to accept the inevitable decline and demise of their bodies as the natural end to human life. The biblical notion is that death in man is not natural at all.<\/p>\nDeath is an acquired trait, not the natural destiny of man. Death may be said of the body but not of the spirit. The biblical teaching is that while the body dies and decays, the person lives on in hope of a renewed body. Those who have come to know Christ go to be with him when their bodies die (Phil 1:23) and anticipate the resurrection of the body for eternal life to come (1 Cor 15:35-49). Those who die apart from Christ do not cease to exist but rather are assigned an eternal existence of conscious knowledge that they are separated from God and have fallen short of their destiny to enjoy his presence forever. The biblical teaching on the destiny of the lost is quite unpalatable for modern man. Even Christians who have generally high views of biblical inspiration may find themselves blanching at the thought of eternal punishment of the wicked. Yet the biblical doctrine of the final judgment of the wicked is as well established as most teachings in the Bible.<\/p>\nOne of the most dramatic truths in Scripture respecting the nature of man is to realize that it was for man that God initiated the salvation work that led to the incarnation of the eternal son of God. After his resurrection and ascension, the Lord Jesus Christ returned to his eternal position of glory and majesty in heaven, where he forever remains the God-man. As God, he shares all the attributes of the Father and the Holy Spirit, and as man, identifies with man. He reveals himself in a physical body, albeit the resurrection body, the firstfruits of the resurrection of all who are his. The incarnation, then, brought about an eternal change in deity. Only a very high view of the worth of man could have brought God to such a fundamental change in himself. As the writer to the Hebrews states, “Because God’s children are human beings—made of flesh and blood—Jesus also became flesh and blood by being born in human form” (Heb 2:14, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nThe final measure of our humanity is that man was made to worship God and to enjoy him forever. Such thoughts are not attributed to any other created being. Even the angels, who have maintained their perfect state and who worship the Father in conscious bliss, do not have quite the same relationship with God as do redeemed men (Heb 2:16).<\/p>\nWhat is man? In Christ, man is all God means him to be, in majesty and dignity, and in joy before his throne forever.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Image of God; Man, Natural; Man, Old and New.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MAN Human being, whether male or female. The biblical teaching on man begins with a right notion concerning God. The biblical perspective of anthropology (i.e., the study of man) is centrally displayed in the context of an elevated theology (i.e., the study of God). A high and reverent view of God leads to a noble and dignified view of man, whereas a poorly developed concept of God often produces a distorted perspective on man. Hence, man may be viewed more importantly than he ought, or man m...","summary_en":"MAN Human being, whether male or female. The biblical teaching on man begins with a right notion concerning God. The biblical perspective of anthropology (i.e., the study of man) is centrally displayed in the context of an elevated theology (i.e., the study of God). A high and reverent view of God leads to a noble and dignified view of man, whereas a poorly developed concept of God often produces a distorted perspective on man. Hence, man may be viewed more importantly than he ought, or man m...","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":24177,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Man*, Natural","title_en":"Man*, Natural","content_ro":"<h3>MAN*, Natural<\/h3>\nExpression occurring in 1 Corinthians 2:14 (rsv<\/span> mg). The adjective translated there by “natural” is also found in 1 Corinthians 15:44 (twice), 46; James 3:15; and Jude 1:19. This adjective is related to the Greek noun usually translated “soul.” Its meaning, however, is primarily determined by its various contexts, particularly in 1 Corinthians, where all four occurrences are contrasted pointedly with “spiritual,” an adjective occurring frequently in the NT, mostly in Paul’s writings. In almost every instance it refers to the work of the Holy Spirit. Applied to things, “spiritual” means derived from, or produced by, the Holy Spirit (the law—Rom 7:14; gifts—1 Cor 12:1; blessings—Eph 1:3; sacrifices—1 Pt 2:5). When it is applied to persons, it means indwelt, motivated, and directed by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 2:15; 14:37; Gal 6:1). “Natural,” then, when contrasted with “spiritual,” generally describes what is devoid of or in opposition to the Holy Spirit and his work. In 1 Corinthians 2:14-15 “natural man” is set over against “spiritual man” (see rsv<\/span>). Within this context the natural man is one who does not accept the things that come from the spirit of God (1 Cor 2:14). Rather, these things are “foolishness” to him. He cannot understand them because they are “spiritually discerned.” This foolishness is the foolishness of unbelief (1:21), and the discernment lacking is insight produced only by the Holy Spirit. Plainly, Paul has in view someone utterly without and even opposed to the Holy Spirit and God’s revealed truth.<\/p>\nIn 1 Corinthians 15:44-46, the contrast between spiritual and natural occurs in a different context—that of the “body” in death as compared to the “body” in resurrection. The body of the believer laid in the grave (“sown”) is a natural body (v 44a). The body of the believer raised from the dead will be a spiritual body, that is, a body renewed and transformed by the Holy Spirit (Rom 8:11). In 1 Corinthians 15:44b and 45a, however, the natural body is traced back by appeal to Genesis 2:7 to Adam before the fall, at Creation. This shows that biblically what is natural refers to the Creation. Originally, as created by God, the “natural” was “very good” (Gn 1:31) but subsequently it has been subjected to corruption and death by the sin of man. Therefore, the sinful rebellion of the natural man, measured by the original creation, is thoroughly unnatural and abnormal. The opposing work of the Holy Spirit now, in Christ, not only removes this abnormality but brings the original purposes of Creation to their consummation (Rom 8:19-22; 2 Cor 5:17).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Man; Man, Old and New.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MAN*, Natural<\/h3>\nExpression occurring in 1 Corinthians 2:14 (rsv<\/span> mg). The adjective translated there by “natural” is also found in 1 Corinthians 15:44 (twice), 46; James 3:15; and Jude 1:19. This adjective is related to the Greek noun usually translated “soul.” Its meaning, however, is primarily determined by its various contexts, particularly in 1 Corinthians, where all four occurrences are contrasted pointedly with “spiritual,” an adjective occurring frequently in the NT, mostly in Paul’s writings. In almost every instance it refers to the work of the Holy Spirit. Applied to things, “spiritual” means derived from, or produced by, the Holy Spirit (the law—Rom 7:14; gifts—1 Cor 12:1; blessings—Eph 1:3; sacrifices—1 Pt 2:5). When it is applied to persons, it means indwelt, motivated, and directed by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 2:15; 14:37; Gal 6:1). “Natural,” then, when contrasted with “spiritual,” generally describes what is devoid of or in opposition to the Holy Spirit and his work. In 1 Corinthians 2:14-15 “natural man” is set over against “spiritual man” (see rsv<\/span>). Within this context the natural man is one who does not accept the things that come from the spirit of God (1 Cor 2:14). Rather, these things are “foolishness” to him. He cannot understand them because they are “spiritually discerned.” This foolishness is the foolishness of unbelief (1:21), and the discernment lacking is insight produced only by the Holy Spirit. Plainly, Paul has in view someone utterly without and even opposed to the Holy Spirit and God’s revealed truth.<\/p>\nIn 1 Corinthians 15:44-46, the contrast between spiritual and natural occurs in a different context—that of the “body” in death as compared to the “body” in resurrection. The body of the believer laid in the grave (“sown”) is a natural body (v 44a). The body of the believer raised from the dead will be a spiritual body, that is, a body renewed and transformed by the Holy Spirit (Rom 8:11). In 1 Corinthians 15:44b and 45a, however, the natural body is traced back by appeal to Genesis 2:7 to Adam before the fall, at Creation. This shows that biblically what is natural refers to the Creation. Originally, as created by God, the “natural” was “very good” (Gn 1:31) but subsequently it has been subjected to corruption and death by the sin of man. Therefore, the sinful rebellion of the natural man, measured by the original creation, is thoroughly unnatural and abnormal. The opposing work of the Holy Spirit now, in Christ, not only removes this abnormality but brings the original purposes of Creation to their consummation (Rom 8:19-22; 2 Cor 5:17).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Man; Man, Old and New.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MAN*, Natural Expression occurring in 1 Corinthians 2:14 (rsv mg). The adjective translated there by “natural” is also found in 1 Corinthians 15:44 (twice), 46; James 3:15; and Jude 1:19. This adjective is related to the Greek noun usually translated “soul.” Its meaning, however, is primarily determined by its various contexts, particularly in 1 Corinthians, where all four occurrences are contrasted pointedly with “spiritual,” an adjective occurring frequently in the NT, mostly in Paul’s writ...","summary_en":"MAN*, Natural Expression occurring in 1 Corinthians 2:14 (rsv mg). The adjective translated there by “natural” is also found in 1 Corinthians 15:44 (twice), 46; James 3:15; and Jude 1:19. This adjective is related to the Greek noun usually translated “soul.” Its meaning, however, is primarily determined by its various contexts, particularly in 1 Corinthians, where all four occurrences are contrasted pointedly with “spiritual,” an adjective occurring frequently in the NT, mostly in Paul’s writ...","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":30313,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Philo*, Judaeus","title_en":"Philo*, Judaeus","content_ro":"<h3>PHILO*, Judaeus<\/span><\/h3>\nHellenistic Jewish philosopher (c. 25 BC<\/span>–AD<\/span> 40) whose thought presents the first major confrontation of biblical faith with Greek thought.<\/p>\nSon of a prominent Alexandrian family, Philo was educated both in the Jewish faith and in Greek philosophy and culture. Of the events of his life we know little, except that in AD<\/span> 40 he headed a delegation from the Jewish community in Alexandria to the emperor Caligula in Rome. Ethnic tension in Alexandria had grown as the Jewish populace increased and prospered. The tension erupted in AD<\/span> 42 into riots by the Greeks and the expulsion of Jews from the Gentile sections into which they had spread. Jewish commercial success, particularly in the wheat trade, led to intensified anti-Semitism. Out of the riots came two apologetic treatises by Philo Judaeus, Against Flaccus<\/em> (Flaccus was governing in Alexandria) and Embassy to Caligula<\/em> (Caligula was emperor in Rome).<\/p>\nThe Jewish community in Alexandria was thoroughly Hellenized. Even the Scriptures were read in the Greek translation called the Septuagint. In spite of the fact that these Jews were living and participating in Greek culture, they remained orthodox. Philo was no exception. On the one hand, he carefully observed the Mosaic law and held that it is the infallibly revealed will of God, both for God’s chosen people—the Jews—and for the Gentiles. On the other hand, Philo was very Greek. He probably knew Hebrew only imperfectly and received a liberal education under Greek tutors. His Bible was the OT, especially the Pentateuch, which he held to be most authoritative, but he read it in Greek translation. Because he held that the Septuagint was divinely inspired, Philo had no need to refer to the original Hebrew text.<\/p>\nTo understand Philo’s work, one must recognize that the need to come to terms with Greek culture stemmed not merely from practical necessity but also from the fact that Judaism is a missionary religion. Jews could not simply turn their backs on the Greek world, for the prophets had called Israel to be a light to the Gentiles. From his studies Philo was also convinced that there is much that is true in Greek philosophy. Consequently, he was anxious to find some way of correlating and harmonizing biblically revealed truth with the teachings of the philosophers. As a Jewish believer considering the claims of Greek philosophy, Philo was confronted with problems very similar to those posed for a Christian by scientific theories of evolution in our day.<\/p>\nThe method that Philo used to harmonize Scripture with the teachings of the philosophers was allegorical interpretation. This method of interpretation had been practiced by many before Philo, and many others followed his example. Through the use of this method, Genesis could be read as a contemporary myth about the human condition and man’s search for salvation, rather than as an ancient and somewhat crude legend (as the Greeks would see it). The proper reading of the text gives not ancient history and geography but philosophical and moral truth. According to Philo, Moses—both because he was divinely instructed and because he had attained the summit of philosophy—did not resort to mythical fictions, as poets and sophists do; he was able to make ideas visible. By using allegorical interpretation, Philo found in the historical narrative and ceremonial law an inward, spiritual meaning that incorporates the truth he found in Greek thought.<\/p>\nIn dealing with the conception of God, Philo approached Greek views critically and rejected what was opposed to Scripture. However, in dealing with the structure and composition of the world, Scripture is quite vague, and so Philo felt free to adopt whatever seemed most reasonable in the writings of the philosophers. He believed that God is the source of both the Mosaic law and the truths of Greek philosophy. The human mind is made in the image of the divine Logos, and so it has some capacity to receive and discover truths about realities beyond the sensible.<\/p>\nAmong the philosophers, Philo found Plato’s view closest to the truth. God existed from eternity without a world, and after he made the world, he continued to exist above and beyond it. God is the active cause, and this world is passive, incapable of life and motion by itself, but a most perfect masterpiece when set in motion, shaped, and quickened by God. Moreover, God does not neglect his creation but cares for it and preserves it. This care is called providence. While the Greeks had spoken of a universal providence that preserves natural processes, for Philo providence acquired a new meaning. It is God’s care for individual beings, so that it includes the power to suspend the laws of nature.<\/p>\nGod is one but is the source of all multiplicity. He is immutable and self-sufficient and hence does not need the world. Creation has its source in his goodness. Although Moses said that the world was created in six days, God must be thought of as doing all things simultaneously. The account of six days serves to show that there is order in things. The visible world was created out of nonbeing, from nothing. All the available matter was used in creation, so the world is unique. The world was created by God’s will, and it may be imperishable. Philo thought that Plato followed Moses in thinking that the world was created by God.<\/p>\nConcerning the doctrine of the Logos, Philo is both dependent upon and yet critical of the Greek philosophers. Plato had affirmed that there are eternal ideas to which the Craftsman or Maker looked when forming the world. Philo could not accept this position, because God alone is eternal. He harmonized the two views by affirming that from eternity the ideas existed as thoughts of God, but they became a fully formed intelligible world only when God willed to create the visible world. The universe of the ideas, which has no location other than the divine reason, is the pattern according to which the sensible world was made.<\/p>\nTo Philo, the Logos is much more than just the instrument by which the visible world was made. It is also described as “the idea of ideas,” the first-begotten Son of the uncreated Father and “second God,” the archetype of human reason. The Logos is the vital power that holds together the entire hierarchy of created beings. As God’s viceroy, he mediates revelation to the created order. He stands on the frontier between Creator and creature. He is the high priest who intercedes with God on behalf of mortals. He appeared in the burning bush and dwelt in Moses. Some think that the Logos is God, but he is really God’s image. While one can be quite certain that the Logos was not a person for Philo, the exact status of this power in relation to God is by no means clear.<\/p>\nVarious aspects of this teaching have been taken up by Christian writers, most notably John, who taught that the Logos (the Word) is the instrument by means of which God created the world (see Jn 1:1-4). About the origins of this view much less is known. It appears that the notion of the Logos was current in Hellenistic Judaism. Its function in Philo’s thought seems to indicate that it was philosophical considerations, rather than biblical ones, that were most significant in his teaching.<\/p>\nPhilo had other views about the creation. He believed that while the heavenly bodies are living creatures endowed with mind and not susceptible to evil, man is of a mixed nature, liable to failure. He can be both wise and foolish, just and unjust. God made all good things by himself, but man, because he is liable to both good and evil, must have been made by lesser deities. This is why we are told by Moses that God said, “Let us<\/em> make man” (Gn 1:26, emphasis added). In the case of man, then, being created involved a Fall. Here also there are two steps in Creation. First, there is man created after the divine image, and this is an idea or type, an object of thought only, incorporeal, neither male nor female, and by nature incorruptible (Gn 1:26). Later it says that “God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life” (Gn 2:7). This man became an object of sense perception, consisting of body and soul, man or woman, by nature mortal. Woman became for man the beginning of blameworthy life. When man and woman saw each other, desire was aroused, and this desire produced bodily pleasure. This pleasure is the beginning of wrongs and violation of law. The Garden of Eden is also meant to be taken symbolically rather than literally. There never have been trees of life or of understanding, nor is it likely that any will ever appear on earth. The tree of life signifies reverence toward God; the tree of knowledge of good and evil signifies moral prudence.<\/p>\nOne sees in Philo, then, a tendency to dualism in which spirit is good and matter evil, a tendency derived from Platonism and read into the OT. This led Philo to agree with the Stoics that the only good is the good of the soul. God gives us the world to use, not to possess. To rise to the eternal world of the mind, a man must suppress all responses to the sensible world. In general, Philo tended toward a world-denying asceticism.<\/p>\nThe only temple worthy of God is a pure soul. True religion consists in inner devotion rather than externals. In this life the soul is a pilgrim, like Abraham or like the Israelites wandering in the desert. Through spiritual self-discipline, the soul comes to realize that the body is a major obstacle to perfection. The goal of this spirituality is to draw near to God, who has drawn the mind to himself. God is knowable by the mind, but he is unknowable in himself. We can know only that he is, not what he is. For Philo, the soul in its search for perfection ultimately comes to discover that it must cease to rely on itself and must acknowledge that virtue is a gift of God. The man who has discovered his own limitations comes to know God and his own dependence upon God.<\/p>\nAlthough Josephus borrowed some from Philo, Philo’s greatest influence was on Christian writers. Hellenistic Judaism became less significant as the Judaism of the rabbis became the norm during the next two centuries. By contrast, second- and third-century Christians had much in common with Philo. Parts of his work were translated into Latin and Armenian. Clement and Origen, among the Greek fathers, and Ambrose, among the Latin fathers, were especially indebted to him.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>PHILO*, Judaeus<\/span><\/h3>\nHellenistic Jewish philosopher (c. 25 BC<\/span>–AD<\/span> 40) whose thought presents the first major confrontation of biblical faith with Greek thought.<\/p>\nSon of a prominent Alexandrian family, Philo was educated both in the Jewish faith and in Greek philosophy and culture. Of the events of his life we know little, except that in AD<\/span> 40 he headed a delegation from the Jewish community in Alexandria to the emperor Caligula in Rome. Ethnic tension in Alexandria had grown as the Jewish populace increased and prospered. The tension erupted in AD<\/span> 42 into riots by the Greeks and the expulsion of Jews from the Gentile sections into which they had spread. Jewish commercial success, particularly in the wheat trade, led to intensified anti-Semitism. Out of the riots came two apologetic treatises by Philo Judaeus, Against Flaccus<\/em> (Flaccus was governing in Alexandria) and Embassy to Caligula<\/em> (Caligula was emperor in Rome).<\/p>\nThe Jewish community in Alexandria was thoroughly Hellenized. Even the Scriptures were read in the Greek translation called the Septuagint. In spite of the fact that these Jews were living and participating in Greek culture, they remained orthodox. Philo was no exception. On the one hand, he carefully observed the Mosaic law and held that it is the infallibly revealed will of God, both for God’s chosen people—the Jews—and for the Gentiles. On the other hand, Philo was very Greek. He probably knew Hebrew only imperfectly and received a liberal education under Greek tutors. His Bible was the OT, especially the Pentateuch, which he held to be most authoritative, but he read it in Greek translation. Because he held that the Septuagint was divinely inspired, Philo had no need to refer to the original Hebrew text.<\/p>\nTo understand Philo’s work, one must recognize that the need to come to terms with Greek culture stemmed not merely from practical necessity but also from the fact that Judaism is a missionary religion. Jews could not simply turn their backs on the Greek world, for the prophets had called Israel to be a light to the Gentiles. From his studies Philo was also convinced that there is much that is true in Greek philosophy. Consequently, he was anxious to find some way of correlating and harmonizing biblically revealed truth with the teachings of the philosophers. As a Jewish believer considering the claims of Greek philosophy, Philo was confronted with problems very similar to those posed for a Christian by scientific theories of evolution in our day.<\/p>\nThe method that Philo used to harmonize Scripture with the teachings of the philosophers was allegorical interpretation. This method of interpretation had been practiced by many before Philo, and many others followed his example. Through the use of this method, Genesis could be read as a contemporary myth about the human condition and man’s search for salvation, rather than as an ancient and somewhat crude legend (as the Greeks would see it). The proper reading of the text gives not ancient history and geography but philosophical and moral truth. According to Philo, Moses—both because he was divinely instructed and because he had attained the summit of philosophy—did not resort to mythical fictions, as poets and sophists do; he was able to make ideas visible. By using allegorical interpretation, Philo found in the historical narrative and ceremonial law an inward, spiritual meaning that incorporates the truth he found in Greek thought.<\/p>\nIn dealing with the conception of God, Philo approached Greek views critically and rejected what was opposed to Scripture. However, in dealing with the structure and composition of the world, Scripture is quite vague, and so Philo felt free to adopt whatever seemed most reasonable in the writings of the philosophers. He believed that God is the source of both the Mosaic law and the truths of Greek philosophy. The human mind is made in the image of the divine Logos, and so it has some capacity to receive and discover truths about realities beyond the sensible.<\/p>\nAmong the philosophers, Philo found Plato’s view closest to the truth. God existed from eternity without a world, and after he made the world, he continued to exist above and beyond it. God is the active cause, and this world is passive, incapable of life and motion by itself, but a most perfect masterpiece when set in motion, shaped, and quickened by God. Moreover, God does not neglect his creation but cares for it and preserves it. This care is called providence. While the Greeks had spoken of a universal providence that preserves natural processes, for Philo providence acquired a new meaning. It is God’s care for individual beings, so that it includes the power to suspend the laws of nature.<\/p>\nGod is one but is the source of all multiplicity. He is immutable and self-sufficient and hence does not need the world. Creation has its source in his goodness. Although Moses said that the world was created in six days, God must be thought of as doing all things simultaneously. The account of six days serves to show that there is order in things. The visible world was created out of nonbeing, from nothing. All the available matter was used in creation, so the world is unique. The world was created by God’s will, and it may be imperishable. Philo thought that Plato followed Moses in thinking that the world was created by God.<\/p>\nConcerning the doctrine of the Logos, Philo is both dependent upon and yet critical of the Greek philosophers. Plato had affirmed that there are eternal ideas to which the Craftsman or Maker looked when forming the world. Philo could not accept this position, because God alone is eternal. He harmonized the two views by affirming that from eternity the ideas existed as thoughts of God, but they became a fully formed intelligible world only when God willed to create the visible world. The universe of the ideas, which has no location other than the divine reason, is the pattern according to which the sensible world was made.<\/p>\nTo Philo, the Logos is much more than just the instrument by which the visible world was made. It is also described as “the idea of ideas,” the first-begotten Son of the uncreated Father and “second God,” the archetype of human reason. The Logos is the vital power that holds together the entire hierarchy of created beings. As God’s viceroy, he mediates revelation to the created order. He stands on the frontier between Creator and creature. He is the high priest who intercedes with God on behalf of mortals. He appeared in the burning bush and dwelt in Moses. Some think that the Logos is God, but he is really God’s image. While one can be quite certain that the Logos was not a person for Philo, the exact status of this power in relation to God is by no means clear.<\/p>\nVarious aspects of this teaching have been taken up by Christian writers, most notably John, who taught that the Logos (the Word) is the instrument by means of which God created the world (see Jn 1:1-4). About the origins of this view much less is known. It appears that the notion of the Logos was current in Hellenistic Judaism. Its function in Philo’s thought seems to indicate that it was philosophical considerations, rather than biblical ones, that were most significant in his teaching.<\/p>\nPhilo had other views about the creation. He believed that while the heavenly bodies are living creatures endowed with mind and not susceptible to evil, man is of a mixed nature, liable to failure. He can be both wise and foolish, just and unjust. God made all good things by himself, but man, because he is liable to both good and evil, must have been made by lesser deities. This is why we are told by Moses that God said, “Let us<\/em> make man” (Gn 1:26, emphasis added). In the case of man, then, being created involved a Fall. Here also there are two steps in Creation. First, there is man created after the divine image, and this is an idea or type, an object of thought only, incorporeal, neither male nor female, and by nature incorruptible (Gn 1:26). Later it says that “God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life” (Gn 2:7). This man became an object of sense perception, consisting of body and soul, man or woman, by nature mortal. Woman became for man the beginning of blameworthy life. When man and woman saw each other, desire was aroused, and this desire produced bodily pleasure. This pleasure is the beginning of wrongs and violation of law. The Garden of Eden is also meant to be taken symbolically rather than literally. There never have been trees of life or of understanding, nor is it likely that any will ever appear on earth. The tree of life signifies reverence toward God; the tree of knowledge of good and evil signifies moral prudence.<\/p>\nOne sees in Philo, then, a tendency to dualism in which spirit is good and matter evil, a tendency derived from Platonism and read into the OT. This led Philo to agree with the Stoics that the only good is the good of the soul. God gives us the world to use, not to possess. To rise to the eternal world of the mind, a man must suppress all responses to the sensible world. In general, Philo tended toward a world-denying asceticism.<\/p>\nThe only temple worthy of God is a pure soul. True religion consists in inner devotion rather than externals. In this life the soul is a pilgrim, like Abraham or like the Israelites wandering in the desert. Through spiritual self-discipline, the soul comes to realize that the body is a major obstacle to perfection. The goal of this spirituality is to draw near to God, who has drawn the mind to himself. God is knowable by the mind, but he is unknowable in himself. We can know only that he is, not what he is. For Philo, the soul in its search for perfection ultimately comes to discover that it must cease to rely on itself and must acknowledge that virtue is a gift of God. The man who has discovered his own limitations comes to know God and his own dependence upon God.<\/p>\nAlthough Josephus borrowed some from Philo, Philo’s greatest influence was on Christian writers. Hellenistic Judaism became less significant as the Judaism of the rabbis became the norm during the next two centuries. By contrast, second- and third-century Christians had much in common with Philo. Parts of his work were translated into Latin and Armenian. Clement and Origen, among the Greek fathers, and Ambrose, among the Latin fathers, were especially indebted to him.<\/p>","summary_ro":"PHILO*, Judaeus Hellenistic Jewish philosopher (c. 25 BC–AD 40) whose thought presents the first major confrontation of biblical faith with Greek thought. Son of a prominent Alexandrian family, Philo was educated both in the Jewish faith and in Greek philosophy and culture. Of the events of his life we know little, except that in AD 40 he headed a delegation from the Jewish community in Alexandria to the emperor Caligula in Rome. Ethnic tension in Alexandria had grown as the Jewish populace i...","summary_en":"PHILO*, Judaeus Hellenistic Jewish philosopher (c. 25 BC–AD 40) whose thought presents the first major confrontation of biblical faith with Greek thought. Son of a prominent Alexandrian family, Philo was educated both in the Jewish faith and in Greek philosophy and culture. Of the events of his life we know little, except that in AD 40 he headed a delegation from the Jewish community in Alexandria to the emperor Caligula in Rome. Ethnic tension in Alexandria had grown as the Jewish populace i...","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":30977,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Pottery","title_en":"Pottery","content_ro":"<h3>POTTERY<\/h3>\nThe manufacture of clayware and earthenware.<\/p>\nHistory and Development<\/p>\nThe first pottery was made by hand, molded into the desired shape and dried in the sun. There are no records describing the work of the ancient potter and his or her place in society, although the walls of tombs and palaces in Egypt abound with pictures of potters at work and a great deal can be learned by observing the activities portrayed. The first potters are thought to have been women who, out of necessity, produced vessels for food preparation, while the men were out trying to bring in the food. This still seems to be the pattern in places like Africa, Anatolia, Kurdistan, and the southwestern United States. Eventually, the making of pottery became a profession, apparently practiced by certain people in a large village and often by itinerant craftsmen moving from village to village making pottery to meet the demand and then moving on.<\/p>\n\nThe discovery that moved pottery making from an occasional activity of a housewife to that of a profession was the invention of the potter’s wheel. The speed with which vessels could then be made industrialized the craft, and it eventually became primarily a male occupation, although there is evidence that people (one would assume women) continued to make some vessels at home. Until the discovery of the potter’s wheel, the techniques of making pots by laying coils of clay, one on top of the other, was the predominant method used, especially for large vessels. The first potter’s wheel found in excavations in the lands of the Bible come from Ur in Sumer around 3500 to 3000 BC<\/span>. It may have been developed in emerging urban settlements due to a greater market for pottery. Jeremiah speaks of a potter’s workshop in the sixth century BC<\/span>: “So I did as he told me and found the potter working at his wheel. But the jar he was making did not turn out as he had hoped, so the potter squashed the jar into a lump of clay and started again” (Jer 18:3-4, nlt<\/span>). There is evidence in Greece of large workshops in the classical period employing more than 50 workers.<\/p>\nClay must be spun at least 100 revolutions a minute to create the centrifugal force necessary to “throw” the vessel. The oldest wheels were made of two stones, a lower one with a hole in the center and an upper one with a protrusion that fits into the lower hole, allowing the upper stone to be turned. The upper stone, with a larger board attached to it on which the vessel rested, was undoubtedly turned by an apprentice. By the Hellenistic period, after 300 BC<\/span>, the foot wheel was invented.<\/p>\nAnother technique used in ancient pottery making was the mold. Molds were carved out of soft stone or made from clay for use in mass production of the same kind of vessel. Lamp molds are rather common in museums of the Middle East from the Hellenistic and Roman periods. Small oil lamps were made in two parts in the molds, an upper half and lower half, and then fused together before firing. Herodian lamps also had spatulated spouts that were formed independently of the other two parts.<\/p>\nThe amount of diversity in both the size and shape of ancient pottery is remarkable. An average ancient home would have within it large vessels (amphorae and pithoi) to hold liquids such as wine or water. These were pointed on the bottom and designed originally to lie against the slope of a ship’s hull while being transported. In homes of the common people they were partially set into the ground and leaned against the wall. In taverns in Pompeii and Herculaneum they were stored in wooden racks. Large, open-mouthed jars would be partially buried in the ground to keep the liquid contained in them cool. Also, grains of various kinds could be kept in these, some of which were four feet (1.2 meters) in height and three feet (.9 meter) wide. Smaller water decanters holding a quart (.9 liter) or more were commonly used. Globular jugs were used to serve wine, having spouts that prevented spilling the precious liquid. Round canteens, with handles on either shoulder, were used to carry water on a journey. Bowls and dishes were common in various sizes and depths in ancient homes. Large-mouth dishes known as kraters were used for drinking. Cooking was done in medium-sized (about one gallon, or 3.8 liters) pots with rounded bottoms that would sit easily in the fire or in a dug-out place in the floor after being taken from the fire. They also had two looped handles, which allowed them to be hung over the fire.<\/p>\nVessels were painted in classical Greece with vivid descriptions of religion, sex, warfare, and community life. Earlier vessels of Minoan and Mycenaean cultures contain beautiful artwork in the form of plants, animals, and marine life as well as geometric designs. From earliest times in the Middle East, variations in design were created by the use of dark and light shades of slip painted or poured randomly on vessels.<\/p>\nPottery in Scripture<\/p>\nThere are many references to the potter and his work in the Bible. Typical are the following: “Israel, can I not do to you as this potter has done to his clay? As the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are you in my hand” (Jer 18:6, nlt<\/span>); “Lord<\/span>, you are our Father. We are the clay, and you are the potter. We are all formed by your hand” (Is 64:8, nlt<\/span>). In the Creation story God is portrayed as a potter making man from the ground (Gn 2:7). His absolute sovereignty in the election of Israel is argued by Paul (Rom 9:20-21) from an illustration used by Isaiah (Is 45:9) concerning a pot arguing with its potter: “Does a clay pot ever argue with its maker? Does the clay dispute with the one who shapes it, saying, ‘Stop, you are doing it wrong!’ Does the pot exclaim, ‘How clumsy can you be!’ ” (nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nJeremiah graphically prophesied the destruction of Jerusalem by breaking a potter’s earthen flask into so many pieces that it could not be restored (Jer 19:11). The Jews, at the time of the destruction, though precious in God’s sight, were “treated like pots of clay” (Lam 4:2)—an expression of their human frailty; they could be easily broken and destroyed.<\/p>\nA broken pottery vessel in the ancient world was considered so worthless that the pieces were swept aside or thrown out the window and a new one made. The potter’s art was widely known and vessels were readily available at a cheap price. People normally did not transport their vessels when they moved. It was easier to make or buy new ones than to try to carry them, especially the larger ones. Broken pieces, however, were not without some use. Job scraped the secretion from his sores with a potsherd, which is a broken piece of pottery (Jb 2:8). At a much later time, potsherds were used to write notes on and were called ostraca. The psalmist spoke of his strength as having dried up like a potsherd (Ps 22:15)—a reference to the lack of moisture in a dried and fired pottery vessel. The eventual defeat of polytheistic and idolatrous pagan nations is described as vessels of pottery being dashed to the ground and broken to pieces by the righteous (Ps 2:9; Rv 2:27).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Archaeology and the Bible; Brick, Brick Kiln; Inscriptions.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>POTTERY<\/h3>\nThe manufacture of clayware and earthenware.<\/p>\nHistory and Development<\/p>\nThe first pottery was made by hand, molded into the desired shape and dried in the sun. There are no records describing the work of the ancient potter and his or her place in society, although the walls of tombs and palaces in Egypt abound with pictures of potters at work and a great deal can be learned by observing the activities portrayed. The first potters are thought to have been women who, out of necessity, produced vessels for food preparation, while the men were out trying to bring in the food. This still seems to be the pattern in places like Africa, Anatolia, Kurdistan, and the southwestern United States. Eventually, the making of pottery became a profession, apparently practiced by certain people in a large village and often by itinerant craftsmen moving from village to village making pottery to meet the demand and then moving on.<\/p>\n\nThe discovery that moved pottery making from an occasional activity of a housewife to that of a profession was the invention of the potter’s wheel. The speed with which vessels could then be made industrialized the craft, and it eventually became primarily a male occupation, although there is evidence that people (one would assume women) continued to make some vessels at home. Until the discovery of the potter’s wheel, the techniques of making pots by laying coils of clay, one on top of the other, was the predominant method used, especially for large vessels. The first potter’s wheel found in excavations in the lands of the Bible come from Ur in Sumer around 3500 to 3000 BC<\/span>. It may have been developed in emerging urban settlements due to a greater market for pottery. Jeremiah speaks of a potter’s workshop in the sixth century BC<\/span>: “So I did as he told me and found the potter working at his wheel. But the jar he was making did not turn out as he had hoped, so the potter squashed the jar into a lump of clay and started again” (Jer 18:3-4, nlt<\/span>). There is evidence in Greece of large workshops in the classical period employing more than 50 workers.<\/p>\nClay must be spun at least 100 revolutions a minute to create the centrifugal force necessary to “throw” the vessel. The oldest wheels were made of two stones, a lower one with a hole in the center and an upper one with a protrusion that fits into the lower hole, allowing the upper stone to be turned. The upper stone, with a larger board attached to it on which the vessel rested, was undoubtedly turned by an apprentice. By the Hellenistic period, after 300 BC<\/span>, the foot wheel was invented.<\/p>\nAnother technique used in ancient pottery making was the mold. Molds were carved out of soft stone or made from clay for use in mass production of the same kind of vessel. Lamp molds are rather common in museums of the Middle East from the Hellenistic and Roman periods. Small oil lamps were made in two parts in the molds, an upper half and lower half, and then fused together before firing. Herodian lamps also had spatulated spouts that were formed independently of the other two parts.<\/p>\nThe amount of diversity in both the size and shape of ancient pottery is remarkable. An average ancient home would have within it large vessels (amphorae and pithoi) to hold liquids such as wine or water. These were pointed on the bottom and designed originally to lie against the slope of a ship’s hull while being transported. In homes of the common people they were partially set into the ground and leaned against the wall. In taverns in Pompeii and Herculaneum they were stored in wooden racks. Large, open-mouthed jars would be partially buried in the ground to keep the liquid contained in them cool. Also, grains of various kinds could be kept in these, some of which were four feet (1.2 meters) in height and three feet (.9 meter) wide. Smaller water decanters holding a quart (.9 liter) or more were commonly used. Globular jugs were used to serve wine, having spouts that prevented spilling the precious liquid. Round canteens, with handles on either shoulder, were used to carry water on a journey. Bowls and dishes were common in various sizes and depths in ancient homes. Large-mouth dishes known as kraters were used for drinking. Cooking was done in medium-sized (about one gallon, or 3.8 liters) pots with rounded bottoms that would sit easily in the fire or in a dug-out place in the floor after being taken from the fire. They also had two looped handles, which allowed them to be hung over the fire.<\/p>\nVessels were painted in classical Greece with vivid descriptions of religion, sex, warfare, and community life. Earlier vessels of Minoan and Mycenaean cultures contain beautiful artwork in the form of plants, animals, and marine life as well as geometric designs. From earliest times in the Middle East, variations in design were created by the use of dark and light shades of slip painted or poured randomly on vessels.<\/p>\nPottery in Scripture<\/p>\nThere are many references to the potter and his work in the Bible. Typical are the following: “Israel, can I not do to you as this potter has done to his clay? As the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are you in my hand” (Jer 18:6, nlt<\/span>); “Lord<\/span>, you are our Father. We are the clay, and you are the potter. We are all formed by your hand” (Is 64:8, nlt<\/span>). In the Creation story God is portrayed as a potter making man from the ground (Gn 2:7). His absolute sovereignty in the election of Israel is argued by Paul (Rom 9:20-21) from an illustration used by Isaiah (Is 45:9) concerning a pot arguing with its potter: “Does a clay pot ever argue with its maker? Does the clay dispute with the one who shapes it, saying, ‘Stop, you are doing it wrong!’ Does the pot exclaim, ‘How clumsy can you be!’ ” (nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nJeremiah graphically prophesied the destruction of Jerusalem by breaking a potter’s earthen flask into so many pieces that it could not be restored (Jer 19:11). The Jews, at the time of the destruction, though precious in God’s sight, were “treated like pots of clay” (Lam 4:2)—an expression of their human frailty; they could be easily broken and destroyed.<\/p>\nA broken pottery vessel in the ancient world was considered so worthless that the pieces were swept aside or thrown out the window and a new one made. The potter’s art was widely known and vessels were readily available at a cheap price. People normally did not transport their vessels when they moved. It was easier to make or buy new ones than to try to carry them, especially the larger ones. Broken pieces, however, were not without some use. Job scraped the secretion from his sores with a potsherd, which is a broken piece of pottery (Jb 2:8). At a much later time, potsherds were used to write notes on and were called ostraca. The psalmist spoke of his strength as having dried up like a potsherd (Ps 22:15)—a reference to the lack of moisture in a dried and fired pottery vessel. The eventual defeat of polytheistic and idolatrous pagan nations is described as vessels of pottery being dashed to the ground and broken to pieces by the righteous (Ps 2:9; Rv 2:27).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Archaeology and the Bible; Brick, Brick Kiln; Inscriptions.<\/p>","summary_ro":"POTTERY The manufacture of clayware and earthenware. History and Development The first pottery was made by hand, molded into the desired shape and dried in the sun. There are no records describing the work of the ancient potter and his or her place in society, although the walls of tombs and palaces in Egypt abound with pictures of potters at work and a great deal can be learned by observing the activities portrayed. The first potters are thought to have been women who, out of necessity, prod...","summary_en":"POTTERY The manufacture of clayware and earthenware. History and Development The first pottery was made by hand, molded into the desired shape and dried in the sun. There are no records describing the work of the ancient potter and his or her place in society, although the walls of tombs and palaces in Egypt abound with pictures of potters at work and a great deal can be learned by observing the activities portrayed. The first potters are thought to have been women who, out of necessity, prod...","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":34288,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Coming of Christ*, Second","title_en":"Coming of Christ*, Second","content_ro":"<h3>SECOND COMING OF CHRIST*<\/h3>\nThe return of Jesus Christ to earth to complete the work of salvation.<\/p>\nTerms Used<\/p>\nThe doctrine is expressed by verbs such as “come,” “descend,” “appear,” and “is revealed” with Christ as the subject (e.g., “I will come again,” Jn 14:3; “the Lord himself will descend,” 1 Thes 4:16; “when he appears,” 1 Jn 2:28; 3:2; “the day when the Son of man is revealed,” Lk 17:30; “when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven,” 2 Thes 1:7). It is expressed also by a variety of nouns, principally by “coming” (which is the regular translation of the Greek word parousia<\/span>,<\/em> meaning “presence,” “visit,” “arrival,” “advent,” especially of a royal or distinguished person) but also by “appearing” (as in 2 Tm 4:8; Ti 2:13), “revealing,” or “revelation” (1 Cor 1:7). These different verbs and nouns point to the same event but highlight different aspects of it, especially the manifestation of God’s glory in Christ when he comes. The time of this event is repeatedly referred to as “the Day,” sometimes absolutely (as in Rom 13:12; 1 Cor 3:13; Heb 10:25), more often with a qualification, such as “the day of Christ” (Phil 1:10; 2:16), “the day of the Lord” (1 Thes 5:2; 2 Thes 2:2), “the day of the Lord Jesus” (1 Cor 5:5; 2 Cor 1:14), “the day of Jesus Christ” (Phil 1:6), and “the day of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor 1:8). When such expressions are used, there is often some reference to the judgment to be passed at the coming of Christ: his day is “the day of judgment” (1 Jn 4:17) or “the day of wrath” (Rom 2:5). For the people of God, however, it is “the day of redemption” (Eph 4:30).<\/p>\nThe Proclamation of the New Testament<\/p>\nThat the second coming of Christ was an essential element in the gospel as preached in the apostolic age is clear from many NT writings (quoted below from the rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\nThe origin of the Second Coming is found in the teachings of Jesus before his death. Speaking of himself as the Son of Man, Jesus said, “The day when the Son of man is revealed” (Lk 17:30) he will come “in clouds with great power and glory” (Mk 13:26). This language is derived from the OT, especially from Daniel’s vision in which “one like a son of man” is brought “with the clouds of heaven” to receive everlasting dominion from the Ancient of Days (Dn 7:13-14). A cloud or clouds regularly enveloped the divine glory in the OT (as in Ex 40:34; 1 Kgs 8:10-11); their mention in connection with the coming of the Son of Man indicates that, when he comes, the glory of God will be manifested in him. Jesus’ last reference to his second coming came at his trial before the Jewish authorities when, asked by the high priest to say whether or not he was “the Christ, the Son of the Blessed,” he replied, “I am; and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven” (Mk 14:61-62).<\/p>\nAfter the Gospels, the rest of the NT affirms the eventuality of Christ’s second coming. The record of Acts begins with the angels’ assurance at the ascension of Christ that “this Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11). The summaries of apostolic addresses that the book contains make repeated references to Jesus as “the one ordained by God to be judge of the living and the dead” (10:42; cf. 17:31).<\/p>\nWriting to his converts in Thessalonica (c. AD<\/span> 51) a few weeks after they first heard and believed the gospel, Paul reminds them how they had “turned to God from idols, to serve a living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come” (1 Thes 1:9-10). Here Jesus’ expected deliverance of his people from end-time judgment is put on the same plane as his historical resurrection; the Christian way of life embraces both serving God and waiting for Christ. This note of waiting for Christ is repeated and amplified several times in this short letter. A few years later Paul uses similar language when writing to his converts in Corinth (cf. Acts 18:1-18): “You are not lacking in any spiritual gift, as you wait for the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor 1:7). And in what may have been his last letter he speaks of “the crown of righteousness” that the Lord will award him “on that Day, and not only to me,” he adds, “but also to all who have loved his appearing” (2 Tm 4:8). To love his appearing and to wait for him are two different ways of expressing the same attitude.<\/p>\nThe writer to the Hebrews encourages his readers with the assurance that in a little while “the coming one shall come and shall not tarry” (Heb 10:37). James says that “the coming of the Lord is at hand” (Jas 5:8). Peter speaks of the time “when the chief Shepherd is manifested” (1 Pt 5:4). The Revelation to John ends with the risen Lord’s promise, “Surely I am coming soon,” and the church’s response, “Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!” (Rv 22:20).<\/p>\nThe Second Coming and the Resurrection<\/p>\nIn 1 Thessalonians, written not more than 20 years after the death and resurrection of Christ, his coming again is presented by way of comfort and encouragement to those whose Christian friends had died. Paul had been compelled to leave Thessalonica before he had time to give his converts there as much teaching as they required, and when some of their number died shortly after his departure, their friends wondered if they would suffer some serious disadvantage at the Second Coming, in contrast to those who would still be alive to greet the returning Lord. No, says Paul, “those who have fallen asleep” will suffer no disadvantage. On the contrary, the first thing to happen when “the Lord himself will descend from heaven” is that “the dead in Christ will rise.” Only after that will those who survive until then be caught away to join them and be forever “with the Lord” (1 Thes 4:15-17). Fuller information on the same subject is given in 1 Corinthians, written about five years later. There the resurrection of believers is the full harvest that was inaugurated by the resurrection of Christ: “Christ the first fruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ” (1 Cor 15:23). An additional revelation is imparted: not only will each believer who has died be raised in a “spiritual body” (v 44) but also those who are still alive will be “changed” so as to have bodies suitable for life in resurrection. For dead and living believers alike, Paul proclaimed that “as we have borne the image of the man of dust [i.e., Adam; cf. Gn 2:7], we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven [i.e., the risen Christ]” (1 Cor 15:49). To the same effect, Paul writes (a few years later still) in Philippians 3:20-21 that from heaven “we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will change our lowly body to be like his glorious body.” A deeper unveiling of what this will involve is made in Romans 8:18-23, where the resurrection of the people of Christ is the catalyst for the liberation and glorious renewal of all creation.<\/p>\n<h5>The Second Coming and Judgment<\/h5>\nThe association of judgment with the Second Coming arises in Jesus’ teaching in the Gospels. The association is equally plain in the epistles of the NT. Paul, in particular, put the subject on a personal level. He forbade premature judgment of fellow Christians: “Do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes” (1 Cor 4:5). The Lord will conduct an investigation that will bring to light the hidden motives of the heart. Paul knew that his own apostolic work would be assessed on “the day of Christ” (Phil 2:16; 1 Thes 2:19). Elsewhere, Paul urges his converts to bear in mind that they, with himself, must appear before the divine tribunal, variously called “the judgment seat of God” (where “each of us shall give account of himself,” Rom 14:10-12) or “the judgment seat of Christ” (where each will “receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body,” 2 Cor 5:10). It seems clear that this judgment is to take place at the second coming of Christ, who will then “judge the living and the dead” (2 Tm 4:1). Because Paul was writing to Christians, he tended to concentrate on the judgment or assessment that the believers would experience at the Lord’s return. But he also made it plain that the same coming would bring judgment to those who opposed the Christian faith (2 Thes 1:6-10). This is made explicit in Acts 17:31, where Paul told the Athenians that God “has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed.”<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Day of the Lord; Eschatology; Judgment; Judgment Seat; Last Days; Rapture; Resurrection; Revelation, Book of; Tribulation.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SECOND COMING OF CHRIST*<\/h3>\nThe return of Jesus Christ to earth to complete the work of salvation.<\/p>\nTerms Used<\/p>\nThe doctrine is expressed by verbs such as “come,” “descend,” “appear,” and “is revealed” with Christ as the subject (e.g., “I will come again,” Jn 14:3; “the Lord himself will descend,” 1 Thes 4:16; “when he appears,” 1 Jn 2:28; 3:2; “the day when the Son of man is revealed,” Lk 17:30; “when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven,” 2 Thes 1:7). It is expressed also by a variety of nouns, principally by “coming” (which is the regular translation of the Greek word parousia<\/span>,<\/em> meaning “presence,” “visit,” “arrival,” “advent,” especially of a royal or distinguished person) but also by “appearing” (as in 2 Tm 4:8; Ti 2:13), “revealing,” or “revelation” (1 Cor 1:7). These different verbs and nouns point to the same event but highlight different aspects of it, especially the manifestation of God’s glory in Christ when he comes. The time of this event is repeatedly referred to as “the Day,” sometimes absolutely (as in Rom 13:12; 1 Cor 3:13; Heb 10:25), more often with a qualification, such as “the day of Christ” (Phil 1:10; 2:16), “the day of the Lord” (1 Thes 5:2; 2 Thes 2:2), “the day of the Lord Jesus” (1 Cor 5:5; 2 Cor 1:14), “the day of Jesus Christ” (Phil 1:6), and “the day of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor 1:8). When such expressions are used, there is often some reference to the judgment to be passed at the coming of Christ: his day is “the day of judgment” (1 Jn 4:17) or “the day of wrath” (Rom 2:5). For the people of God, however, it is “the day of redemption” (Eph 4:30).<\/p>\nThe Proclamation of the New Testament<\/p>\nThat the second coming of Christ was an essential element in the gospel as preached in the apostolic age is clear from many NT writings (quoted below from the rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\nThe origin of the Second Coming is found in the teachings of Jesus before his death. Speaking of himself as the Son of Man, Jesus said, “The day when the Son of man is revealed” (Lk 17:30) he will come “in clouds with great power and glory” (Mk 13:26). This language is derived from the OT, especially from Daniel’s vision in which “one like a son of man” is brought “with the clouds of heaven” to receive everlasting dominion from the Ancient of Days (Dn 7:13-14). A cloud or clouds regularly enveloped the divine glory in the OT (as in Ex 40:34; 1 Kgs 8:10-11); their mention in connection with the coming of the Son of Man indicates that, when he comes, the glory of God will be manifested in him. Jesus’ last reference to his second coming came at his trial before the Jewish authorities when, asked by the high priest to say whether or not he was “the Christ, the Son of the Blessed,” he replied, “I am; and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven” (Mk 14:61-62).<\/p>\nAfter the Gospels, the rest of the NT affirms the eventuality of Christ’s second coming. The record of Acts begins with the angels’ assurance at the ascension of Christ that “this Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11). The summaries of apostolic addresses that the book contains make repeated references to Jesus as “the one ordained by God to be judge of the living and the dead” (10:42; cf. 17:31).<\/p>\nWriting to his converts in Thessalonica (c. AD<\/span> 51) a few weeks after they first heard and believed the gospel, Paul reminds them how they had “turned to God from idols, to serve a living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come” (1 Thes 1:9-10). Here Jesus’ expected deliverance of his people from end-time judgment is put on the same plane as his historical resurrection; the Christian way of life embraces both serving God and waiting for Christ. This note of waiting for Christ is repeated and amplified several times in this short letter. A few years later Paul uses similar language when writing to his converts in Corinth (cf. Acts 18:1-18): “You are not lacking in any spiritual gift, as you wait for the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor 1:7). And in what may have been his last letter he speaks of “the crown of righteousness” that the Lord will award him “on that Day, and not only to me,” he adds, “but also to all who have loved his appearing” (2 Tm 4:8). To love his appearing and to wait for him are two different ways of expressing the same attitude.<\/p>\nThe writer to the Hebrews encourages his readers with the assurance that in a little while “the coming one shall come and shall not tarry” (Heb 10:37). James says that “the coming of the Lord is at hand” (Jas 5:8). Peter speaks of the time “when the chief Shepherd is manifested” (1 Pt 5:4). The Revelation to John ends with the risen Lord’s promise, “Surely I am coming soon,” and the church’s response, “Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!” (Rv 22:20).<\/p>\nThe Second Coming and the Resurrection<\/p>\nIn 1 Thessalonians, written not more than 20 years after the death and resurrection of Christ, his coming again is presented by way of comfort and encouragement to those whose Christian friends had died. Paul had been compelled to leave Thessalonica before he had time to give his converts there as much teaching as they required, and when some of their number died shortly after his departure, their friends wondered if they would suffer some serious disadvantage at the Second Coming, in contrast to those who would still be alive to greet the returning Lord. No, says Paul, “those who have fallen asleep” will suffer no disadvantage. On the contrary, the first thing to happen when “the Lord himself will descend from heaven” is that “the dead in Christ will rise.” Only after that will those who survive until then be caught away to join them and be forever “with the Lord” (1 Thes 4:15-17). Fuller information on the same subject is given in 1 Corinthians, written about five years later. There the resurrection of believers is the full harvest that was inaugurated by the resurrection of Christ: “Christ the first fruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ” (1 Cor 15:23). An additional revelation is imparted: not only will each believer who has died be raised in a “spiritual body” (v 44) but also those who are still alive will be “changed” so as to have bodies suitable for life in resurrection. For dead and living believers alike, Paul proclaimed that “as we have borne the image of the man of dust [i.e., Adam; cf. Gn 2:7], we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven [i.e., the risen Christ]” (1 Cor 15:49). To the same effect, Paul writes (a few years later still) in Philippians 3:20-21 that from heaven “we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will change our lowly body to be like his glorious body.” A deeper unveiling of what this will involve is made in Romans 8:18-23, where the resurrection of the people of Christ is the catalyst for the liberation and glorious renewal of all creation.<\/p>\n<h5>The Second Coming and Judgment<\/h5>\nThe association of judgment with the Second Coming arises in Jesus’ teaching in the Gospels. The association is equally plain in the epistles of the NT. Paul, in particular, put the subject on a personal level. He forbade premature judgment of fellow Christians: “Do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes” (1 Cor 4:5). The Lord will conduct an investigation that will bring to light the hidden motives of the heart. Paul knew that his own apostolic work would be assessed on “the day of Christ” (Phil 2:16; 1 Thes 2:19). Elsewhere, Paul urges his converts to bear in mind that they, with himself, must appear before the divine tribunal, variously called “the judgment seat of God” (where “each of us shall give account of himself,” Rom 14:10-12) or “the judgment seat of Christ” (where each will “receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body,” 2 Cor 5:10). It seems clear that this judgment is to take place at the second coming of Christ, who will then “judge the living and the dead” (2 Tm 4:1). Because Paul was writing to Christians, he tended to concentrate on the judgment or assessment that the believers would experience at the Lord’s return. But he also made it plain that the same coming would bring judgment to those who opposed the Christian faith (2 Thes 1:6-10). This is made explicit in Acts 17:31, where Paul told the Athenians that God “has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed.”<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Day of the Lord; Eschatology; Judgment; Judgment Seat; Last Days; Rapture; Resurrection; Revelation, Book of; Tribulation.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SECOND COMING OF CHRIST* The return of Jesus Christ to earth to complete the work of salvation. Terms Used The doctrine is expressed by verbs such as “come,” “descend,” “appear,” and “is revealed” with Christ as the subject (e.g., “I will come again,” Jn 14:3; “the Lord himself will descend,” 1 Thes 4:16; “when he appears,” 1 Jn 2:28; 3:2; “the day when the Son of man is revealed,” Lk 17:30; “when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven,” 2 Thes 1:7). It is expressed also by a variety of nouns...","summary_en":"SECOND COMING OF CHRIST* The return of Jesus Christ to earth to complete the work of salvation. Terms Used The doctrine is expressed by verbs such as “come,” “descend,” “appear,” and “is revealed” with Christ as the subject (e.g., “I will come again,” Jn 14:3; “the Lord himself will descend,” 1 Thes 4:16; “when he appears,” 1 Jn 2:28; 3:2; “the day when the Son of man is revealed,” Lk 17:30; “when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven,” 2 Thes 1:7). It is expressed also by a variety of nouns...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":35962,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Soul","title_en":"Soul","content_ro":"<h3>SOUL<\/h3>\nTerm translating the Greek word psuche<\/span> and the Hebrew nephesh<\/span>.<\/em><\/p>\nThe Greek philosopher Plato (fourth century BC<\/span>) perceived the soul as the eternal element in humans; whereas the body perishes at death, the soul is indestructible. At death the soul enters another body; if it has been wicked in this life, it may be sent into an inferior human being or even an animal or bird. By means of transmigration from one body to another, the soul is eventually purged of evil. In the early centuries of the Christian era, Gnosticism also taught that the body was the prison house of the soul. Redemption comes to those initiated into the Gnostic secrets, leading to the release of the soul from the body.<\/p>\nBiblical thought about the soul is different. In the OT the soul signifies that which is vital to humans in the broadest sense. The Hebrew and Greek words for soul often can be translated as “life”; occasionally, they can be used for the life of creatures (Gn 1:20; Lv 11:10). “Soul for soul” means “life for life” (Ex 21:23). In legal writings, a soul refers to a person in relation to a particular law (e.g., “If a soul shall sin . . . ,” Lv 4:2, kjv<\/span>). When people were counted, they were counted as souls, that is, persons (Ex 1:5; Dt 10:22).<\/p>\nIn a narrower sense, the soul denotes human emotions and inner powers. People are called to love God with all their heart and soul (Dt 13:3). Knowledge and understanding (Ps 139:14), thought (1 Sm 20:3), love (1 Sm 18:1), and memory (Lam 3:20) all originate in the soul. Here the soul comes close to what today would be called the self, one’s person, personality, or ego.<\/p>\nThere is no suggestion in the OT of the transmigration of the soul as an immaterial, immortal entity. Man is a unity of body and soul—terms that describe not so much two separate entities in a person as much as one person from different standpoints. Hence, in the description of man’s creation in Genesis 2:7, the phrase “a living soul” (kjv<\/span>) is better translated as “a living being.” The thought is not that men and women became souls,<\/em> for clearly they had bodies. The use of the word in the original draws attention to the vital aspect of humans as “living beings.” The Hebrew view of the unity of the person may help to explain why people in the OT had only a shadowy view of life after death, for it would be difficult to conceive how people could exist without a body (Pss 16:10; 49:15; 88:3-12). Where hope of an afterlife exists, it is not because of the intrinsic character of the soul itself (as in Plato). It is grounded in confidence in the God who has power over death and the belief that communion with him cannot be broken even by death (Ex 3:6; 1 Sm 2:6; Jb 19:25-26; Pss 16:10-11; 73:24-25; Is 25:8; 26:19; Dn 12:2; Hos 6:1-3; 13:14).<\/p>\nIn the NT the word for soul (psuche<\/span>) has a range of meanings similar to that in the OT. Often it is synonymous with life itself. Followers of Jesus are said to have risked their lives (souls) for his sake (Acts 15:26; cf. Jn 13:37; Rom 16:4; Phil 2:30). As the Son of Man, Jesus came not to be served but to serve and to give his life (soul) as a ransom for many (Mt 20:28; Mk 10:45). As the Good Shepherd, he lays down his life (soul) for the sheep (Jn 10:14, 17-18). In Luke 14:26 the condition of discipleship is to hate one’s soul, that is, to be willing to deny oneself to the point of losing one’s life for Christ’s sake (cf. Lk 9:23; Rv 12:11).<\/p>\nFrequently “soul” can mean “person” (Acts 2:43; 3:23; 7:14; Rom 2:9; 13:1; 1 Pt 3:20). The expression “every living soul” (Rv 16:3, kjv<\/span>) reflects the vital aspect of living beings. As in the OT, the soul can denote not only the vital aspect of the person on the physical level, but it can also connote one’s emotional energies. It denotes the person himself, the seat of his or her emotions, one’s inmost being. For example, when Jesus was agonizing about his death, he spoke of his soul being crushed (Mt 26:38; Mk 14:34; cf. Ps 42:6). In an entirely different setting, Jesus promised rest to the souls of those who come to him (Mt 11:29). Here, as elsewhere, “soul” denotes the essential person (cf. Lk 2:35; 2 Cor 1:23; 2 Thes 2:8; 3 Jn 1:2).<\/p>\nSeveral passages place the soul alongside the spirit. Luke 1:46 is probably a case of Hebrew poetic parallelism, which expresses the same idea in two different ways. Both terms denote Mary as a person in the depths of her being. Similarly, in Hebrews 4:12, dividing the soul and the spirit is a graphic way of saying how the Word of God probes the inmost recesses of our being. The prayer in 1 Thessalonians 5:23—that the readers may be kept blameless in spirit, soul, and body—is a way of speaking of the whole being. Here soul probably suggests physical existence, as in Genesis 2:7 and 1 Corinthians 2:14, whereas spirit may imply the higher or “spiritual” side of life.<\/p>\nIn other passages, the emotions, the will, and even the mind come to the fore, though in each case there is the accompanying idea of a person’s inmost being. People are to love God with all the soul (Mt 22:37; Mk 12:30; cf. Dt 6:5). The expression “from the soul” (Eph 6:6; Col 3:23) means “from the heart,” with all one’s being. In Philippians 1:27 believers are called to be of one mind (cf. Acts 4:32; 14:2). Passages that speak of the soul in relation to salvation include Matthew 10:28; Luke 12:5; Hebrews 6:19; 10:39; 12:3; 13:7; James 1:21; 5:20; 1 Peter 1:9, 22-23; 2:25; 4:19; and Revelation 6:9; 20:4. Such passages speak of the soul either to stress the essential human being, as distinct from the physical body, or to express man’s continued existence with God prior to the resurrection.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Man; Spirit of Man.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SOUL<\/h3>\nTerm translating the Greek word psuche<\/span> and the Hebrew nephesh<\/span>.<\/em><\/p>\nThe Greek philosopher Plato (fourth century BC<\/span>) perceived the soul as the eternal element in humans; whereas the body perishes at death, the soul is indestructible. At death the soul enters another body; if it has been wicked in this life, it may be sent into an inferior human being or even an animal or bird. By means of transmigration from one body to another, the soul is eventually purged of evil. In the early centuries of the Christian era, Gnosticism also taught that the body was the prison house of the soul. Redemption comes to those initiated into the Gnostic secrets, leading to the release of the soul from the body.<\/p>\nBiblical thought about the soul is different. In the OT the soul signifies that which is vital to humans in the broadest sense. The Hebrew and Greek words for soul often can be translated as “life”; occasionally, they can be used for the life of creatures (Gn 1:20; Lv 11:10). “Soul for soul” means “life for life” (Ex 21:23). In legal writings, a soul refers to a person in relation to a particular law (e.g., “If a soul shall sin . . . ,” Lv 4:2, kjv<\/span>). When people were counted, they were counted as souls, that is, persons (Ex 1:5; Dt 10:22).<\/p>\nIn a narrower sense, the soul denotes human emotions and inner powers. People are called to love God with all their heart and soul (Dt 13:3). Knowledge and understanding (Ps 139:14), thought (1 Sm 20:3), love (1 Sm 18:1), and memory (Lam 3:20) all originate in the soul. Here the soul comes close to what today would be called the self, one’s person, personality, or ego.<\/p>\nThere is no suggestion in the OT of the transmigration of the soul as an immaterial, immortal entity. Man is a unity of body and soul—terms that describe not so much two separate entities in a person as much as one person from different standpoints. Hence, in the description of man’s creation in Genesis 2:7, the phrase “a living soul” (kjv<\/span>) is better translated as “a living being.” The thought is not that men and women became souls,<\/em> for clearly they had bodies. The use of the word in the original draws attention to the vital aspect of humans as “living beings.” The Hebrew view of the unity of the person may help to explain why people in the OT had only a shadowy view of life after death, for it would be difficult to conceive how people could exist without a body (Pss 16:10; 49:15; 88:3-12). Where hope of an afterlife exists, it is not because of the intrinsic character of the soul itself (as in Plato). It is grounded in confidence in the God who has power over death and the belief that communion with him cannot be broken even by death (Ex 3:6; 1 Sm 2:6; Jb 19:25-26; Pss 16:10-11; 73:24-25; Is 25:8; 26:19; Dn 12:2; Hos 6:1-3; 13:14).<\/p>\nIn the NT the word for soul (psuche<\/span>) has a range of meanings similar to that in the OT. Often it is synonymous with life itself. Followers of Jesus are said to have risked their lives (souls) for his sake (Acts 15:26; cf. Jn 13:37; Rom 16:4; Phil 2:30). As the Son of Man, Jesus came not to be served but to serve and to give his life (soul) as a ransom for many (Mt 20:28; Mk 10:45). As the Good Shepherd, he lays down his life (soul) for the sheep (Jn 10:14, 17-18). In Luke 14:26 the condition of discipleship is to hate one’s soul, that is, to be willing to deny oneself to the point of losing one’s life for Christ’s sake (cf. Lk 9:23; Rv 12:11).<\/p>\nFrequently “soul” can mean “person” (Acts 2:43; 3:23; 7:14; Rom 2:9; 13:1; 1 Pt 3:20). The expression “every living soul” (Rv 16:3, kjv<\/span>) reflects the vital aspect of living beings. As in the OT, the soul can denote not only the vital aspect of the person on the physical level, but it can also connote one’s emotional energies. It denotes the person himself, the seat of his or her emotions, one’s inmost being. For example, when Jesus was agonizing about his death, he spoke of his soul being crushed (Mt 26:38; Mk 14:34; cf. Ps 42:6). In an entirely different setting, Jesus promised rest to the souls of those who come to him (Mt 11:29). Here, as elsewhere, “soul” denotes the essential person (cf. Lk 2:35; 2 Cor 1:23; 2 Thes 2:8; 3 Jn 1:2).<\/p>\nSeveral passages place the soul alongside the spirit. Luke 1:46 is probably a case of Hebrew poetic parallelism, which expresses the same idea in two different ways. Both terms denote Mary as a person in the depths of her being. Similarly, in Hebrews 4:12, dividing the soul and the spirit is a graphic way of saying how the Word of God probes the inmost recesses of our being. The prayer in 1 Thessalonians 5:23—that the readers may be kept blameless in spirit, soul, and body—is a way of speaking of the whole being. Here soul probably suggests physical existence, as in Genesis 2:7 and 1 Corinthians 2:14, whereas spirit may imply the higher or “spiritual” side of life.<\/p>\nIn other passages, the emotions, the will, and even the mind come to the fore, though in each case there is the accompanying idea of a person’s inmost being. People are to love God with all the soul (Mt 22:37; Mk 12:30; cf. Dt 6:5). The expression “from the soul” (Eph 6:6; Col 3:23) means “from the heart,” with all one’s being. In Philippians 1:27 believers are called to be of one mind (cf. Acts 4:32; 14:2). Passages that speak of the soul in relation to salvation include Matthew 10:28; Luke 12:5; Hebrews 6:19; 10:39; 12:3; 13:7; James 1:21; 5:20; 1 Peter 1:9, 22-23; 2:25; 4:19; and Revelation 6:9; 20:4. Such passages speak of the soul either to stress the essential human being, as distinct from the physical body, or to express man’s continued existence with God prior to the resurrection.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Man; Spirit of Man.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SOUL Term translating the Greek word psuche and the Hebrew nephesh. The Greek philosopher Plato (fourth century BC) perceived the soul as the eternal element in humans; whereas the body perishes at death, the soul is indestructible. At death the soul enters another body; if it has been wicked in this life, it may be sent into an inferior human being or even an animal or bird. By means of transmigration from one body to another, the soul is eventually purged of evil. In the early centuries of ...","summary_en":"SOUL Term translating the Greek word psuche and the Hebrew nephesh. The Greek philosopher Plato (fourth century BC) perceived the soul as the eternal element in humans; whereas the body perishes at death, the soul is indestructible. At death the soul enters another body; if it has been wicked in this life, it may be sent into an inferior human being or even an animal or bird. By means of transmigration from one body to another, the soul is eventually purged of evil. In the early centuries of ...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":36043,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Spirit of God","title_en":"Spirit of God","content_ro":"<h3>SPIRIT OF GOD<\/h3>\nDescription of God in action, God in motion. The word “spirit” (Hebrew, ruach<\/span>;<\/em> Greek, pneuma<\/span>) is the word used from ancient times to describe and explain the experience of divine power working in, upon, and around people.<\/p>\nIn the Old Testament<\/p>\nThere are three basic meanings evident in the use of “spirit” from the earliest Hebrew writings: It was a wind from God, it was the breath of life, and it was a spirit of ecstasy.<\/p>\nFirst, it was a wind from God (the same Hebrew word translated “Spirit” in Gn 1:2) that caused the waters of the Flood to subside (8:1). A wind from God blew locusts over Egypt (Ex 10:13) and quail over the camp of Israel. The blast of his nostrils separated the waters of the Red Sea at the exodus (14:21).<\/p>\nSecond, it was the breath of God that made man a living being (Gn 2:7). It is one of the earliest perceptions of Hebrew faith that humans live only because of the stirring of the divine breath or spirit within them (Gn 6:3; Jb 33:4; 34:14-15; Ps 104:29-30). Later, a clearer distinction was drawn between divine Spirit and human spirit, and between spirit and soul, but at the earliest stage these were all more or less perceived to be synonymous manifestations of the same divine power, the source of all life—animal as well as human (Gn 7:15, 22; see Eccl 3:19-21).<\/p>\nThird, there were occasions when this divine power seemed to overtake and possess an individual fully, so that his or her words or actions far transcended those of normal behavior. Such a person was clearly marked as an agent of God’s purpose and given respect. This was apparently how leaders were recognized in the premonarchy period—Othniel (Jgs 3:10), Gideon (6:34), Jephthah (11:29), and the first king, Saul (1 Sm 11:6), as well. So, too, the earliest prophets were those whose inspiration came in ecstasy (1 Sm 19:20-24).<\/p>\nIn the earlier stages of Hebrew thought, ecstatic experience was seen as the direct effect of divine power. This was true even when the ecstasy was recognized as evil in character, as in the case of Saul’s seizure by the Spirit (1 Sm 16:14-16). A spirit from God could be for evil as well as for good (see Jgs 9:23; 1 Kgs 22:19-23).<\/p>\n<h5>In the Writings of the Prophets<\/h5>\nFor Isaiah, the spirit was that which characterized God and distinguished him and his actions from human affairs (Is 31:3). Later, the adjective “holy” appeared as that which distinguished the Spirit of God from any other spirit, human or divine (Ps 51:11; Is 63:10-11).<\/p>\nThe problem of false prophecy emphasized the danger of assuming that every message delivered in ecstasy was the word of the Lord. Thus, tests of prophecy evaluated the content of the message delivered or the character of the prophet’s life, not the degree or quality of inspiration (see Dt 13:1-5; 18:22; Jer 23:14; Mi 3:5). This sense of a need to discriminate between true and false inspiration and to distinguish the word of God from the merely ecstatic oracle may help to explain the otherwise puzzling reluctance of the major eighth- and seventh-century BC<\/span> prophets to attribute their inspiration to the Spirit.<\/p>\n<h5>In the Exilic and Postexilic Writings<\/h5>\nIn exilic and postexilic literature, the role of the Spirit is narrowed to two major functions: that of the prophetic Spirit and that of the Spirit of the age to come.<\/p>\nThe later prophets again spoke of the Spirit in explicit terms as the inspirer of prophecy (see Ez 3:1-4, 22-24; Hg 2:5; Zec 4:6). As they looked back to the preexilic period, these prophets freely attributed the inspiration of “the former prophets” to the Spirit as well (Zec 7:12).<\/p>\nThis tendency to exalt the Spirit’s role as the inspirer of prophecy became steadily stronger in the period between the OT and NT, until in rabbinic Judaism the Spirit was almost exclusively the inspirer of the prophetic writings now regarded as Scripture.<\/p>\nThe other understanding of the Spirit’s role during exilic and postexilic times was that the Spirit would be the manifestation of the power of God in the age to come. That eschatological hope of divine power effecting a final cleansing and a renewed creation is rooted principally in Isaiah’s prophecies (Is 4:4; 32:15; 44:3-4). Isaiah speaks of one anointed by the Spirit to accomplish complete and final salvation (11:2; 42:1; 61:1). Elsewhere, the same longing is expressed in terms of the Spirit being freely dispensed to all Israel (Ez 39:29; Jl 2:28-29; Zec 12:10) in the new covenant (Jer 31:31-34; Ez 36:26-27).<\/p>\nIn the period prior to Jesus, the understanding of the Spirit as the Spirit of prophecy and as the Spirit of the age to come had developed into the widespread dogma that the Spirit was no longer to be experienced in the present. The Spirit had been known in the past as the inspirer of prophetic writings, but after Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, the Spirit had withdrawn (1 Macc 4:44-46; 9:27; 2 Bar 85:1-3; see also Ps 74:9; Zec 13:2-6). The Spirit would be known again in the age of the Messiah, but in the interim the Spirit was absent from Israel. Even the great Hillel (learned Jewish leader and teacher, 60? BC<\/span>–AD<\/span> 20?), a near contemporary of Jesus, had not received the Spirit—though if anyone was worthy of the Spirit, it was he. There is a tradition that at a meeting of Hillel and other wise men, a voice from heaven said, “Among those here present is one who would have deserved the Holy Spirit to rest upon him, if his time had been worthy of it.” The wise men all looked at Hillel.<\/p>\nThe consequence of this accepted dearth of the Spirit was that the Spirit in effect became subordinated to the law. The Spirit was the inspirer of the law, but since the Spirit could no longer be experienced directly, the law became the sole voice of the Spirit. It was this increasing dominance of the law and its authoritative interpreters that provided the background for the mission of Jesus and the initial spread of Christianity.<\/p>\nIn the New Testament<\/p>\nIf we are to understand the NT’s teaching on the Spirit, we must recognize both its continuity and discontinuity with the OT. At many points NT usage cannot be fully understood except against the background of OT concepts or passages. For example, the ambiguity of John 3:8 (“wind,” “Spirit”), 2 Thessalonians 2:8 (“breath”), and Revelation 11:11 (“breath of life”) takes us back to the basic Hebrew meanings of “spirit.” Acts 8:39 and Revelation 17:3 and 21:10 reflect the same conception of the Spirit that we find in 1 Kings 18:12, 2 Kings 2:16, and Ezekiel 3:14. The NT writers generally share the rabbinic view that Scripture has the authority of the Spirit behind it (see Mk 12:36; Acts 28:25; Heb 3:7; 2 Pt 1:21). The principal continuity is that the NT brings the fulfillment of what the OT writers looked forward to. At the same time, Christianity is not simply fulfilled Judaism. Jesus’ coming and his giving of his Spirit to live within his believers marks off the new faith as something new and distinct.<\/p>\n<h5>The Spirit of the New Age<\/h5>\nThe most striking feature of Jesus’ ministry and of the message of the earliest Christians was their conviction and proclamation that the blessings of the new age were already present, that the eschatological Spirit had already been poured out. With the exception of the Essenes at Qumran, no other group or individual within the Jewish religion of that time had dared to make such a bold claim. The prophets and the rabbis looked for a messianic age yet to come, and the apocalyptic writers warned of its imminent arrival, but none thought of it as already present. Even John the Baptist spoke only of one about to come and of the Spirit’s operation in the imminent future (Mk 1:8). But for Jesus and first-century Christians, the longed for hope was a living reality, and the claim carried with it the exciting sense of being in “the last days.” Without some recognition of that eschatological dimension of the Christians’ faith and life, we cannot understand this teaching on, and experience of, the Spirit.<\/p>\nJesus clearly thought of his teachings and healings as fulfillment of the prophetic hope (Mt 12:41-42; 13:16-17; Lk 17:20-21). In particular, he saw himself as the one anointed by the Spirit to provide salvation (Mt 5:3-6; 11:5; Lk 4:17-19). So, too, Jesus understood his exorcisms as the effect of the power of God and as manifestations of the end-time rule of God (Mt 12:27-28; Mk 3:22-26). The Gospel writers, especially Luke, emphasize the eschatological character of Jesus’ life and ministry by stressing the role of the Spirit in his birth (Mt 1:18; Lk 1:35, 41, 67; 2:25-27), his baptism (Mk 1:9-10; Acts 10:38), and his ministry (Mt 4:1; 12:18; Mk 1:12; Lk 4:1, 14; 10:21; Jn 3:34).<\/p>\nThe Christian church began with the in-breathing of the Holy Spirit on the day of Christ’s resurrection (Jn 20:22), followed by the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost “in the last days.” The overwhelming experience of vision and inspired utterance was taken as proof positive that the new age prophesied by Joel had now arrived (Acts 2:2-5, 17-18). Similarly, in Hebrews the gift of the Spirit is spoken of as “the powers of the age to come” (Heb 6:4-5). More striking still is Paul’s understanding of the Spirit as the guarantee of God’s complete salvation (2 Cor 1:22; 5:5; Eph 1:13-14), and as the first installment of the believer’s inheritance of God’s kingdom (Rom 8:15-17; 1 Cor 6:9-11; 15:42-50; Gal 4:6-7; 5:16-18, 21-23; Eph 1:13-14). The Spirit is here again thought of as the power of the age to come, as that power (which will characterize God’s rule at the end of time) already shaping and transforming the lives of believers.<\/p>\nFor Paul, this means also that the gift of the Spirit is but the beginning of a lifelong process that will not end until the believer’s whole person is brought under the Spirit’s power (Rom 8:11, 23; 1 Cor 15:44-49; 2 Cor 3:18; 5:1-5). It also means that the present experience of faith is one of lifelong tension between what God has already begun to bring about in the believer’s life and what has not yet been brought under God’s grace (Phil 1:6). It is this tension between life “in the Spirit” and life “in the flesh” (see Gal 2:20) that comes to poignant expression in Romans 7:24 and 2 Corinthians 5:2-4.<\/p>\n<h5>The Spirit of New Life<\/h5>\nSince the Spirit is the mark of the new age, it is not surprising that the NT writers understood the gift of the Spirit to be that which brings an individual into the new age. John the Baptist described the way the coming one would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire (Mt 3:11). According to Acts 1:5 and 11:16, this imagery was taken up by Jesus, and the promise is seen as fulfilled at Pentecost—the outpouring of the Spirit here being understood as the risen Christ’s action in drawing his disciples into the new age (Acts 2:17, 33).<\/p>\nIt seems to be one of Luke’s aims in the book of Acts to highlight the central importance of the gift of the Spirit in conversion-initiation—it is that decisive “gift of the Holy Spirit” that makes one a Christian (Acts 2:38-39). People could have been followers of Jesus on earth, but it was only when they received the gift of the Spirit that they could be said to have “believed in the Lord Jesus Christ” (11:16-17). When the Spirit’s presence was manifested in and upon a person’s life, that was recognized by Peter as proof enough that God had accepted that person, even though he or she had not yet made any formal profession of faith or been baptized (10:44-48; 11:15-18; 15:7-9). So too Apollos, already aglow with the Spirit (18:25), even though his knowledge of “the way of God” was slightly defective (vv 24-26), apparently was not required to supplement his “baptism of John” with Christian baptism. However, the 12 so-called disciples at Ephesus proved by their very ignorance of the Spirit that they were not yet disciples of the Lord Jesus (19:1-6). Paul asked these 12 men, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” (19:2).<\/p>\nThis accords with Paul’s emphasis in his letters. Belief and reception of the Spirit go together: to receive the Spirit is to begin the Christian life (Gal 3:2-3); to be baptized in the Spirit is to become a member of the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:13); to “have the Spirit of Christ” is to belong to Christ (Rom 8:9-11); to receive the Spirit is tantamount to becoming a child of God (Rom 8:14-17; Gal 4:6-7). The Spirit so characterizes the new age and the life of the new age that only the gift of the Spirit can bring a person into the new age to experience the life of the new age. For the Spirit is distinctively and peculiarly the life-giver; the Spirit indeed is<\/em> the life of the new age (Rom 8:2, 6, 10; 1 Cor 15:45; 2 Cor 3:6; Gal 5:25).<\/p>\nIn just the same way in John’s writings, the Spirit is characteristically the life-giving Spirit (Jn 6:63), the power from above, the seed of divine life that brings about the new birth (Jn 3:3-8; 1 Jn 3:9), and a river of living water that brings life when one believes in Christ (Jn 7:37-39; so also 4:10, 14). Or again, reception of the Spirit in John 20:22 is depicted as a new creation analogous to Genesis 2:7. Consequently, in 1 John 3:24 and 4:13, possession and experience of the Spirit count as one of the “tests of life” listed in that letter.<\/p>\n<h5>Manifestations of the Spirit<\/h5>\nIt will be clear from what has already been said that when the first Christians, like the ancient Hebrews, spoke of the Spirit, they were thinking of experiences of divine power. In the NT, as in the OT, “Spirit” is the word used to explain the experience of new life and vitality (see above), of liberation from legalism (e.g., Rom 8:2; 2 Cor 3:17), of spiritual refreshing and renewal (cf. e.g., Is 32:15; Ez 39:29 with Jn 7:37-39; Rom 5:5; 1 Cor 12:13; 1 Tm 3:5-6). It is important to realize how wide a range of experiences were attributed to the Spirit: ecstatic experiences (Acts 2:24; 10:43-47; 19:6; cf. 10:10; 22:17—“in ecstasy”; 2 Cor 12:1-4; Rv 1:10), emotional experiences (e.g., love—Rom 5:5; joy—Acts 13:52; 1 Thes 1:6; see also Gal 5:22; Phil 2:1-2), experiences of illumination (2 Cor 3:14-17; Eph 1:17-18; Heb 6:4-5; 1 Jn 2:20-21), and experiences issuing in moral transformation (1 Cor 6:9-11). Likewise, when Paul speaks of spiritual gifts, called charismata<\/span> (acts or words that bring divine grace to concrete expression), he evidently has a wide range of actual events in mind: inspired speech (1 Cor 12:8-10; 1 Thes 1:5), miracles and healings (1 Cor 12:9; Gal 3:5; cf. Heb 2:4), and various acts of service and help, of counsel and administration, and of aid and mercy (Rom 12:7-8; 1 Cor 12:28).<\/p>\nIn talking thus of the Spirit in terms of experience, we should not overemphasize particular experiences or manifestations, as though earliest Christianity consisted of a sequence of mountaintop experiences or spiritual highs. There clearly were such experiences, indeed a wide range of experiences, but no one experience is singled out to be sought by all (except prophecy). There is no distinctively second (or third) experience of the Spirit in the NT, and Paul warned against overvaluing particular manifestations of the Spirit (1 Cor 14:6-19; 2 Cor 12:1-10; cf. Mk 8:11-13). Where particular experiences are valued, it is as manifestations of a more sustained experience, particular expressions of an underlying relationship (cf. Acts 6:3-5; 11:24—“full of the Spirit”; Eph 5:18). What we are in touch with here is the vigor of the experiential dimension of earliest Christianity. If the Spirit is the breath of the new life in Christ (cf. Ez 37:9-10, 14; Jn 20:22; 1 Cor 15:45), then presumably the analogy extends further, and the experience of the Spirit is like the experience of breathing: one is not conscious of it all the time, but if one is not conscious of it, at least sometimes, something is wrong.<\/p>\n<h5>The Fellowship of the Spirit<\/h5>\nIt was out of this shared experience of the Spirit that the earliest Christian community grew and developed, for this is what “the fellowship [koinonia<\/span>] of the Spirit” properly means: common participation in the same Spirit (Phil 2:1; cf. Acts 2:42; 1 Cor 1:4-9). It was the gift of the Spirit that brought those in Samaria, Caesarea, and elsewhere effectively into the community of the Spirit (Act 8, 10). So also, it was the experience of the one Spirit that provided the unifying bond in the churches of Paul’s mission (1 Cor 12:13; Eph 4:3-4; Phil 2:1-2). Here we see the real importance of the divine manifestations of the Spirit for Paul: it is out of the diversity of these particular manifestations that the body of Christ grows in unity (Rom 12:4-8; 1 Cor 12:12-17; Eph 4:4-16).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SPIRIT OF GOD<\/h3>\nDescription of God in action, God in motion. The word “spirit” (Hebrew, ruach<\/span>;<\/em> Greek, pneuma<\/span>) is the word used from ancient times to describe and explain the experience of divine power working in, upon, and around people.<\/p>\nIn the Old Testament<\/p>\nThere are three basic meanings evident in the use of “spirit” from the earliest Hebrew writings: It was a wind from God, it was the breath of life, and it was a spirit of ecstasy.<\/p>\nFirst, it was a wind from God (the same Hebrew word translated “Spirit” in Gn 1:2) that caused the waters of the Flood to subside (8:1). A wind from God blew locusts over Egypt (Ex 10:13) and quail over the camp of Israel. The blast of his nostrils separated the waters of the Red Sea at the exodus (14:21).<\/p>\nSecond, it was the breath of God that made man a living being (Gn 2:7). It is one of the earliest perceptions of Hebrew faith that humans live only because of the stirring of the divine breath or spirit within them (Gn 6:3; Jb 33:4; 34:14-15; Ps 104:29-30). Later, a clearer distinction was drawn between divine Spirit and human spirit, and between spirit and soul, but at the earliest stage these were all more or less perceived to be synonymous manifestations of the same divine power, the source of all life—animal as well as human (Gn 7:15, 22; see Eccl 3:19-21).<\/p>\nThird, there were occasions when this divine power seemed to overtake and possess an individual fully, so that his or her words or actions far transcended those of normal behavior. Such a person was clearly marked as an agent of God’s purpose and given respect. This was apparently how leaders were recognized in the premonarchy period—Othniel (Jgs 3:10), Gideon (6:34), Jephthah (11:29), and the first king, Saul (1 Sm 11:6), as well. So, too, the earliest prophets were those whose inspiration came in ecstasy (1 Sm 19:20-24).<\/p>\nIn the earlier stages of Hebrew thought, ecstatic experience was seen as the direct effect of divine power. This was true even when the ecstasy was recognized as evil in character, as in the case of Saul’s seizure by the Spirit (1 Sm 16:14-16). A spirit from God could be for evil as well as for good (see Jgs 9:23; 1 Kgs 22:19-23).<\/p>\n<h5>In the Writings of the Prophets<\/h5>\nFor Isaiah, the spirit was that which characterized God and distinguished him and his actions from human affairs (Is 31:3). Later, the adjective “holy” appeared as that which distinguished the Spirit of God from any other spirit, human or divine (Ps 51:11; Is 63:10-11).<\/p>\nThe problem of false prophecy emphasized the danger of assuming that every message delivered in ecstasy was the word of the Lord. Thus, tests of prophecy evaluated the content of the message delivered or the character of the prophet’s life, not the degree or quality of inspiration (see Dt 13:1-5; 18:22; Jer 23:14; Mi 3:5). This sense of a need to discriminate between true and false inspiration and to distinguish the word of God from the merely ecstatic oracle may help to explain the otherwise puzzling reluctance of the major eighth- and seventh-century BC<\/span> prophets to attribute their inspiration to the Spirit.<\/p>\n<h5>In the Exilic and Postexilic Writings<\/h5>\nIn exilic and postexilic literature, the role of the Spirit is narrowed to two major functions: that of the prophetic Spirit and that of the Spirit of the age to come.<\/p>\nThe later prophets again spoke of the Spirit in explicit terms as the inspirer of prophecy (see Ez 3:1-4, 22-24; Hg 2:5; Zec 4:6). As they looked back to the preexilic period, these prophets freely attributed the inspiration of “the former prophets” to the Spirit as well (Zec 7:12).<\/p>\nThis tendency to exalt the Spirit’s role as the inspirer of prophecy became steadily stronger in the period between the OT and NT, until in rabbinic Judaism the Spirit was almost exclusively the inspirer of the prophetic writings now regarded as Scripture.<\/p>\nThe other understanding of the Spirit’s role during exilic and postexilic times was that the Spirit would be the manifestation of the power of God in the age to come. That eschatological hope of divine power effecting a final cleansing and a renewed creation is rooted principally in Isaiah’s prophecies (Is 4:4; 32:15; 44:3-4). Isaiah speaks of one anointed by the Spirit to accomplish complete and final salvation (11:2; 42:1; 61:1). Elsewhere, the same longing is expressed in terms of the Spirit being freely dispensed to all Israel (Ez 39:29; Jl 2:28-29; Zec 12:10) in the new covenant (Jer 31:31-34; Ez 36:26-27).<\/p>\nIn the period prior to Jesus, the understanding of the Spirit as the Spirit of prophecy and as the Spirit of the age to come had developed into the widespread dogma that the Spirit was no longer to be experienced in the present. The Spirit had been known in the past as the inspirer of prophetic writings, but after Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, the Spirit had withdrawn (1 Macc 4:44-46; 9:27; 2 Bar 85:1-3; see also Ps 74:9; Zec 13:2-6). The Spirit would be known again in the age of the Messiah, but in the interim the Spirit was absent from Israel. Even the great Hillel (learned Jewish leader and teacher, 60? BC<\/span>–AD<\/span> 20?), a near contemporary of Jesus, had not received the Spirit—though if anyone was worthy of the Spirit, it was he. There is a tradition that at a meeting of Hillel and other wise men, a voice from heaven said, “Among those here present is one who would have deserved the Holy Spirit to rest upon him, if his time had been worthy of it.” The wise men all looked at Hillel.<\/p>\nThe consequence of this accepted dearth of the Spirit was that the Spirit in effect became subordinated to the law. The Spirit was the inspirer of the law, but since the Spirit could no longer be experienced directly, the law became the sole voice of the Spirit. It was this increasing dominance of the law and its authoritative interpreters that provided the background for the mission of Jesus and the initial spread of Christianity.<\/p>\nIn the New Testament<\/p>\nIf we are to understand the NT’s teaching on the Spirit, we must recognize both its continuity and discontinuity with the OT. At many points NT usage cannot be fully understood except against the background of OT concepts or passages. For example, the ambiguity of John 3:8 (“wind,” “Spirit”), 2 Thessalonians 2:8 (“breath”), and Revelation 11:11 (“breath of life”) takes us back to the basic Hebrew meanings of “spirit.” Acts 8:39 and Revelation 17:3 and 21:10 reflect the same conception of the Spirit that we find in 1 Kings 18:12, 2 Kings 2:16, and Ezekiel 3:14. The NT writers generally share the rabbinic view that Scripture has the authority of the Spirit behind it (see Mk 12:36; Acts 28:25; Heb 3:7; 2 Pt 1:21). The principal continuity is that the NT brings the fulfillment of what the OT writers looked forward to. At the same time, Christianity is not simply fulfilled Judaism. Jesus’ coming and his giving of his Spirit to live within his believers marks off the new faith as something new and distinct.<\/p>\n<h5>The Spirit of the New Age<\/h5>\nThe most striking feature of Jesus’ ministry and of the message of the earliest Christians was their conviction and proclamation that the blessings of the new age were already present, that the eschatological Spirit had already been poured out. With the exception of the Essenes at Qumran, no other group or individual within the Jewish religion of that time had dared to make such a bold claim. The prophets and the rabbis looked for a messianic age yet to come, and the apocalyptic writers warned of its imminent arrival, but none thought of it as already present. Even John the Baptist spoke only of one about to come and of the Spirit’s operation in the imminent future (Mk 1:8). But for Jesus and first-century Christians, the longed for hope was a living reality, and the claim carried with it the exciting sense of being in “the last days.” Without some recognition of that eschatological dimension of the Christians’ faith and life, we cannot understand this teaching on, and experience of, the Spirit.<\/p>\nJesus clearly thought of his teachings and healings as fulfillment of the prophetic hope (Mt 12:41-42; 13:16-17; Lk 17:20-21). In particular, he saw himself as the one anointed by the Spirit to provide salvation (Mt 5:3-6; 11:5; Lk 4:17-19). So, too, Jesus understood his exorcisms as the effect of the power of God and as manifestations of the end-time rule of God (Mt 12:27-28; Mk 3:22-26). The Gospel writers, especially Luke, emphasize the eschatological character of Jesus’ life and ministry by stressing the role of the Spirit in his birth (Mt 1:18; Lk 1:35, 41, 67; 2:25-27), his baptism (Mk 1:9-10; Acts 10:38), and his ministry (Mt 4:1; 12:18; Mk 1:12; Lk 4:1, 14; 10:21; Jn 3:34).<\/p>\nThe Christian church began with the in-breathing of the Holy Spirit on the day of Christ’s resurrection (Jn 20:22), followed by the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost “in the last days.” The overwhelming experience of vision and inspired utterance was taken as proof positive that the new age prophesied by Joel had now arrived (Acts 2:2-5, 17-18). Similarly, in Hebrews the gift of the Spirit is spoken of as “the powers of the age to come” (Heb 6:4-5). More striking still is Paul’s understanding of the Spirit as the guarantee of God’s complete salvation (2 Cor 1:22; 5:5; Eph 1:13-14), and as the first installment of the believer’s inheritance of God’s kingdom (Rom 8:15-17; 1 Cor 6:9-11; 15:42-50; Gal 4:6-7; 5:16-18, 21-23; Eph 1:13-14). The Spirit is here again thought of as the power of the age to come, as that power (which will characterize God’s rule at the end of time) already shaping and transforming the lives of believers.<\/p>\nFor Paul, this means also that the gift of the Spirit is but the beginning of a lifelong process that will not end until the believer’s whole person is brought under the Spirit’s power (Rom 8:11, 23; 1 Cor 15:44-49; 2 Cor 3:18; 5:1-5). It also means that the present experience of faith is one of lifelong tension between what God has already begun to bring about in the believer’s life and what has not yet been brought under God’s grace (Phil 1:6). It is this tension between life “in the Spirit” and life “in the flesh” (see Gal 2:20) that comes to poignant expression in Romans 7:24 and 2 Corinthians 5:2-4.<\/p>\n<h5>The Spirit of New Life<\/h5>\nSince the Spirit is the mark of the new age, it is not surprising that the NT writers understood the gift of the Spirit to be that which brings an individual into the new age. John the Baptist described the way the coming one would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire (Mt 3:11). According to Acts 1:5 and 11:16, this imagery was taken up by Jesus, and the promise is seen as fulfilled at Pentecost—the outpouring of the Spirit here being understood as the risen Christ’s action in drawing his disciples into the new age (Acts 2:17, 33).<\/p>\nIt seems to be one of Luke’s aims in the book of Acts to highlight the central importance of the gift of the Spirit in conversion-initiation—it is that decisive “gift of the Holy Spirit” that makes one a Christian (Acts 2:38-39). People could have been followers of Jesus on earth, but it was only when they received the gift of the Spirit that they could be said to have “believed in the Lord Jesus Christ” (11:16-17). When the Spirit’s presence was manifested in and upon a person’s life, that was recognized by Peter as proof enough that God had accepted that person, even though he or she had not yet made any formal profession of faith or been baptized (10:44-48; 11:15-18; 15:7-9). So too Apollos, already aglow with the Spirit (18:25), even though his knowledge of “the way of God” was slightly defective (vv 24-26), apparently was not required to supplement his “baptism of John” with Christian baptism. However, the 12 so-called disciples at Ephesus proved by their very ignorance of the Spirit that they were not yet disciples of the Lord Jesus (19:1-6). Paul asked these 12 men, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” (19:2).<\/p>\nThis accords with Paul’s emphasis in his letters. Belief and reception of the Spirit go together: to receive the Spirit is to begin the Christian life (Gal 3:2-3); to be baptized in the Spirit is to become a member of the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:13); to “have the Spirit of Christ” is to belong to Christ (Rom 8:9-11); to receive the Spirit is tantamount to becoming a child of God (Rom 8:14-17; Gal 4:6-7). The Spirit so characterizes the new age and the life of the new age that only the gift of the Spirit can bring a person into the new age to experience the life of the new age. For the Spirit is distinctively and peculiarly the life-giver; the Spirit indeed is<\/em> the life of the new age (Rom 8:2, 6, 10; 1 Cor 15:45; 2 Cor 3:6; Gal 5:25).<\/p>\nIn just the same way in John’s writings, the Spirit is characteristically the life-giving Spirit (Jn 6:63), the power from above, the seed of divine life that brings about the new birth (Jn 3:3-8; 1 Jn 3:9), and a river of living water that brings life when one believes in Christ (Jn 7:37-39; so also 4:10, 14). Or again, reception of the Spirit in John 20:22 is depicted as a new creation analogous to Genesis 2:7. Consequently, in 1 John 3:24 and 4:13, possession and experience of the Spirit count as one of the “tests of life” listed in that letter.<\/p>\n<h5>Manifestations of the Spirit<\/h5>\nIt will be clear from what has already been said that when the first Christians, like the ancient Hebrews, spoke of the Spirit, they were thinking of experiences of divine power. In the NT, as in the OT, “Spirit” is the word used to explain the experience of new life and vitality (see above), of liberation from legalism (e.g., Rom 8:2; 2 Cor 3:17), of spiritual refreshing and renewal (cf. e.g., Is 32:15; Ez 39:29 with Jn 7:37-39; Rom 5:5; 1 Cor 12:13; 1 Tm 3:5-6). It is important to realize how wide a range of experiences were attributed to the Spirit: ecstatic experiences (Acts 2:24; 10:43-47; 19:6; cf. 10:10; 22:17—“in ecstasy”; 2 Cor 12:1-4; Rv 1:10), emotional experiences (e.g., love—Rom 5:5; joy—Acts 13:52; 1 Thes 1:6; see also Gal 5:22; Phil 2:1-2), experiences of illumination (2 Cor 3:14-17; Eph 1:17-18; Heb 6:4-5; 1 Jn 2:20-21), and experiences issuing in moral transformation (1 Cor 6:9-11). Likewise, when Paul speaks of spiritual gifts, called charismata<\/span> (acts or words that bring divine grace to concrete expression), he evidently has a wide range of actual events in mind: inspired speech (1 Cor 12:8-10; 1 Thes 1:5), miracles and healings (1 Cor 12:9; Gal 3:5; cf. Heb 2:4), and various acts of service and help, of counsel and administration, and of aid and mercy (Rom 12:7-8; 1 Cor 12:28).<\/p>\nIn talking thus of the Spirit in terms of experience, we should not overemphasize particular experiences or manifestations, as though earliest Christianity consisted of a sequence of mountaintop experiences or spiritual highs. There clearly were such experiences, indeed a wide range of experiences, but no one experience is singled out to be sought by all (except prophecy). There is no distinctively second (or third) experience of the Spirit in the NT, and Paul warned against overvaluing particular manifestations of the Spirit (1 Cor 14:6-19; 2 Cor 12:1-10; cf. Mk 8:11-13). Where particular experiences are valued, it is as manifestations of a more sustained experience, particular expressions of an underlying relationship (cf. Acts 6:3-5; 11:24—“full of the Spirit”; Eph 5:18). What we are in touch with here is the vigor of the experiential dimension of earliest Christianity. If the Spirit is the breath of the new life in Christ (cf. Ez 37:9-10, 14; Jn 20:22; 1 Cor 15:45), then presumably the analogy extends further, and the experience of the Spirit is like the experience of breathing: one is not conscious of it all the time, but if one is not conscious of it, at least sometimes, something is wrong.<\/p>\n<h5>The Fellowship of the Spirit<\/h5>\nIt was out of this shared experience of the Spirit that the earliest Christian community grew and developed, for this is what “the fellowship [koinonia<\/span>] of the Spirit” properly means: common participation in the same Spirit (Phil 2:1; cf. Acts 2:42; 1 Cor 1:4-9). It was the gift of the Spirit that brought those in Samaria, Caesarea, and elsewhere effectively into the community of the Spirit (Act 8, 10). So also, it was the experience of the one Spirit that provided the unifying bond in the churches of Paul’s mission (1 Cor 12:13; Eph 4:3-4; Phil 2:1-2). Here we see the real importance of the divine manifestations of the Spirit for Paul: it is out of the diversity of these particular manifestations that the body of Christ grows in unity (Rom 12:4-8; 1 Cor 12:12-17; Eph 4:4-16).<\/p>","summary_ro":"SPIRIT OF GOD Description of God in action, God in motion. The word “spirit” (Hebrew, ruach; Greek, pneuma) is the word used from ancient times to describe and explain the experience of divine power working in, upon, and around people. In the Old Testament There are three basic meanings evident in the use of “spirit” from the earliest Hebrew writings: It was a wind from God, it was the breath of life, and it was a spirit of ecstasy. First, it was a wind from God (the same Hebrew word translat...","summary_en":"SPIRIT OF GOD Description of God in action, God in motion. The word “spirit” (Hebrew, ruach; Greek, pneuma) is the word used from ancient times to describe and explain the experience of divine power working in, upon, and around people. In the Old Testament There are three basic meanings evident in the use of “spirit” from the earliest Hebrew writings: It was a wind from God, it was the breath of life, and it was a spirit of ecstasy. First, it was a wind from God (the same Hebrew word translat...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":36228,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Spirit of Jesus Christ","title_en":"Spirit of Jesus Christ","content_ro":"<h3>SPIRIT OF JESUS CHRIST<\/h3>\nThe Spirit as identified with Jesus Christ.<\/p>\nThe most important development and element in earliest Christian understanding of the Spirit is that the Spirit is now the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Acts 16:7; Rom 8:9; Gal 4:6; Phil 1:19; 1 Pt 1:11; see also Jn 7:38; 15:26; 16:7; 19:30; Rv 3:1; 5:6). The Spirit is to be identified as the Spirit that bears witness to Jesus (Jn 15:26; 16:13-15; Acts 5:32; 1 Cor 12:3; 1 Jn 4:2; 5:7-8; Rv 19:10), but also, and more profoundly, as the Spirit that inspired and empowered Jesus himself. This Spirit became available to the believers after Christ’s resurrection.<\/p>\n The apostles John and Paul were quite clear in their writings about Christ becoming spirit through resurrection. The keynote verses penned by John are John 6:63; 7:37-39; 14:16-18; 20:22; and 1 John 3:24; 4:13. The critical passages written by Paul are Romans 8:9-10; 1 Corinthians 15:45; 2 Corinthians 3:17-18; and 1 Corinthians 6:17.<\/p>\nRevelation concerning the Spirit of Jesus is progressive in the Gospel of John. John does not tell us from the beginning that people could not actually receive eternal life until the hour of Christ’s glorification. Throughout the Gospel, Jesus declares to various people that he can give them eternal life if they would believe in him. He promises them the water of life, the bread of life, and the light of life. But no one could really partake of these until after the Lord had risen. As a foretaste, as a sample, they could receive life via the Lord’s words because his words were themselves spirit and life (Jn 6:63); however, it was not until the Spirit would become available that believers could actually become the recipients of the divine, eternal life. After the Lord’s discourse in John 6, Jesus said, “It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh profits nothing” (v 63). In the flesh Jesus could not give them the bread of life, but when the Spirit became available, they could have life. Again, Jesus offered the water of life—even life flowing like rivers of living water—to the Jews assembled at the Feast of Tabernacles. He told them to come and drink of him. But no one could, then and there, come and drink of him. So John added a note: “But this he spoke concerning the Spirit, for the Spirit was not yet because Jesus was not yet glorified” (7:39). Once Jesus would be glorified through resurrection, the Spirit of the glorified Jesus would be available for people to drink. In John 6, Jesus offered himself as the bread of life to be eaten by people; and in John 7, he offered himself as the water of life to refresh men. But no one could eat him or drink him until he became spirit, as was intimated in John 6:63 and then stated plainly in John 7:39.<\/p>\n\nIn John 14:16-18, Jesus went one step further in identifying himself with the Spirit. He told the disciples that he would give them another Comforter. Then he told them that they should know who this Comforter was because he was, then and there, abiding with them and would, in the near future, be in them. Who else but Jesus was abiding with them at that time? Then after telling the disciples that the Comforter would come to them, he said, “I am coming to you.” First he said that the Comforter would come to them and abide in them, and then in the same breath he said that he would come to them and abide in them (see 14:20). In short, the coming of the Comforter to the disciples was one and the same as the coming of Jesus to the disciples. The Comforter who was dwelling with the disciples that night was the Spirit in Christ; the Comforter who would be in the disciples (after the resurrection) would be Christ in the Spirit.<\/p>\nOn the evening of the resurrection, the Lord Jesus appeared to the disciples and then breathed into them the Holy Spirit. This inbreathing, reminiscent of God’s breathing into Adam the breath of life (Gn 2:7), became the fulfillment of all that had been promised and anticipated earlier in John’s Gospel. Through this impartation, the disciples became regenerated and indwelt by the Spirit of Jesus Christ. This historical event marked the genesis of the new creation. Jesus could now be realized as the bread of life, the water of life, and the light of life. The believers now possessed his divine, eternal, risen life. From that time forward, Christ as spirit indwelt his believers. Thus, in his first epistle John could say, “And hereby we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit whom he gave to us” (1 Jn 3:24), and again, “Hereby we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit” (4:13).<\/p>\nThe apostles had quite an adjustment to make after Christ’s resurrection. They had become so accustomed to his physical presence that it was difficult for them to learn how to live by his spiritual, indwelling presence. All through the 40 days after his resurrection, from the time the apostles received the inbreathing of the Spirit, Christ was teaching the disciples to make the transfer. He would physically appear and then disappear intermittently. His appearances were very frequent in the beginning and then they steadily diminished. His aim was to guide the apostles into knowing him in his invisible presence. However, this was so new to them that he had to keep appearing to them in order to strengthen and reassure them. But his real desire was to help them live by faith and not by sight. When he appeared to the disciples as they were all together the second time, with Thomas present, he chided Thomas for his unbelief. Then he prounounced this blessing, “Blessed are those who do not see me and yet believe” (Jn 20:29).<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul was such a “blessed” one. He did not know Christ in the flesh. He knew only the risen Christ (2 Cor 5:15-16). In this regard, he had an advantage over the early apostles. They had a great adjustment to make, but from the very beginning, Paul knew the risen Christ as Spirit. Paul became the forerunner of all those Christians who have never seen Jesus in the flesh and who have come to experience him in the Spirit. Yes, Paul had seen the risen Lord; he was the last one to do so (1 Cor 15:8). And from that time onward he realized that Jesus was a glorified man, exalted far above all. Paul wrote much concerning this, but his writings did not leave the far-above-all Jesus far away because this was not what Paul experienced. Any experienced Christian should be able to testify that the Christ in the heavens is also the Christ in the heart.<\/p>\nIn his writings, Paul often speaks of the Spirit and Christ synonymously. This is evident in Romans 8:9-10. The terms “Spirit of God,” “Spirit of Christ,” and “Christ” are all used interchangeably. The Spirit of God is the Spirit of Christ, and the Spirit of Christ is Christ. In these verses, it is evident that Paul identified the Spirit with Christ because in Christian experience they are absolutely identical. There is no such thing as an experience of Christ apart from the Spirit. The separation and\/or distinction does exist in Trinitarian theology—and for very good reasons—but the separation is nearly nonexistent in actual experience. Several of Paul’s statements are written from the vantage point of experience.<\/p>\nIn 1 Corinthians 15:45, Paul says that the risen Jesus became life-giving spirit. Notice the verse does not say Jesus became the Spirit, as if the second person of the Trinity became the third, but that Jesus became spirit in the sense that his mortal existence and form were metamorphosed into a spiritual existence and form. Jesus’ person was not changed through the resurrection, only his form. With this changed spiritual form, Jesus regained the essential state of being he had emptied himself of in becoming a man. Before he became a man, he subsisted in the form of God (Phil 2:6), which form is Spirit and thereby was united to the Spirit (the third of the Trinity), while still remaining distinct. Thus, when the scripture says that the Lord “became life-giving spirit,” it does not mean that the Son became the Holy Spirit. But it does indicate that Christ, via resurrection, appropriated a new, spiritual form (while still retaining a body—a glorified one) that enabled him to commence a new spiritual existence (see 1 Pt 3:18).<\/p>\nIn 2 Corinthians 3, Paul explains that the NT ministry is a ministry carried out by the Spirit of the living God (v 3), who is the Spirit that gives life (v 6). In fact, the whole NT economy is characterized as “the ministry of the Spirit” (v 8). At the same time, Paul emphasizes that the function of the NT ministry is to bring God’s people to see and experience the glorious Christ (3:3, 14, 16-18; 4:4-6). It is in this context that Paul boldly declares, “The Lord is the Spirit” (3:17). He who turns his heart to the Lord is, in effect, turning his heart to the Spirit. lf the Lord were not the Spirit abiding in the believers, how could they turn their hearts to him? And how could they be transformed into the same image? Second Corinthians 3:18 says, “But we all, with unveiled face mirroring the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord-Spirit.” According to the Greek, the last phrase of this verse could be rendered “the Lord, the Spirit” (see asv<\/span>) or “the Lord, who is the Spirit” (see rsv<\/span>, niv<\/span>) because the expression “the Spirit” is in direct apposition to “the Lord” (i.e., it is a further description of the Lord). Thus, the Lord is the Spirit.<\/p>\nIn conclusion, when the Scriptures identify the Spirit with Christ and vice versa, the identification is not equivocation. Christ is not the Holy Spirit. Christ and the Spirit are distinct persons of the Trinity, as is affirmed by the overall teaching of the Word. But the Scriptures do identify Christ and the Spirit in the context of Christian experience. It would be accurate to say that Christians experience Christ through his Spirit, the Spirit of Christ. One cannot know Jesus apart from the Spirit or other than through the Spirit.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Resurrection.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SPIRIT OF JESUS CHRIST<\/h3>\nThe Spirit as identified with Jesus Christ.<\/p>\nThe most important development and element in earliest Christian understanding of the Spirit is that the Spirit is now the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Acts 16:7; Rom 8:9; Gal 4:6; Phil 1:19; 1 Pt 1:11; see also Jn 7:38; 15:26; 16:7; 19:30; Rv 3:1; 5:6). The Spirit is to be identified as the Spirit that bears witness to Jesus (Jn 15:26; 16:13-15; Acts 5:32; 1 Cor 12:3; 1 Jn 4:2; 5:7-8; Rv 19:10), but also, and more profoundly, as the Spirit that inspired and empowered Jesus himself. This Spirit became available to the believers after Christ’s resurrection.<\/p>\n The apostles John and Paul were quite clear in their writings about Christ becoming spirit through resurrection. The keynote verses penned by John are John 6:63; 7:37-39; 14:16-18; 20:22; and 1 John 3:24; 4:13. The critical passages written by Paul are Romans 8:9-10; 1 Corinthians 15:45; 2 Corinthians 3:17-18; and 1 Corinthians 6:17.<\/p>\nRevelation concerning the Spirit of Jesus is progressive in the Gospel of John. John does not tell us from the beginning that people could not actually receive eternal life until the hour of Christ’s glorification. Throughout the Gospel, Jesus declares to various people that he can give them eternal life if they would believe in him. He promises them the water of life, the bread of life, and the light of life. But no one could really partake of these until after the Lord had risen. As a foretaste, as a sample, they could receive life via the Lord’s words because his words were themselves spirit and life (Jn 6:63); however, it was not until the Spirit would become available that believers could actually become the recipients of the divine, eternal life. After the Lord’s discourse in John 6, Jesus said, “It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh profits nothing” (v 63). In the flesh Jesus could not give them the bread of life, but when the Spirit became available, they could have life. Again, Jesus offered the water of life—even life flowing like rivers of living water—to the Jews assembled at the Feast of Tabernacles. He told them to come and drink of him. But no one could, then and there, come and drink of him. So John added a note: “But this he spoke concerning the Spirit, for the Spirit was not yet because Jesus was not yet glorified” (7:39). Once Jesus would be glorified through resurrection, the Spirit of the glorified Jesus would be available for people to drink. In John 6, Jesus offered himself as the bread of life to be eaten by people; and in John 7, he offered himself as the water of life to refresh men. But no one could eat him or drink him until he became spirit, as was intimated in John 6:63 and then stated plainly in John 7:39.<\/p>\n\nIn John 14:16-18, Jesus went one step further in identifying himself with the Spirit. He told the disciples that he would give them another Comforter. Then he told them that they should know who this Comforter was because he was, then and there, abiding with them and would, in the near future, be in them. Who else but Jesus was abiding with them at that time? Then after telling the disciples that the Comforter would come to them, he said, “I am coming to you.” First he said that the Comforter would come to them and abide in them, and then in the same breath he said that he would come to them and abide in them (see 14:20). In short, the coming of the Comforter to the disciples was one and the same as the coming of Jesus to the disciples. The Comforter who was dwelling with the disciples that night was the Spirit in Christ; the Comforter who would be in the disciples (after the resurrection) would be Christ in the Spirit.<\/p>\nOn the evening of the resurrection, the Lord Jesus appeared to the disciples and then breathed into them the Holy Spirit. This inbreathing, reminiscent of God’s breathing into Adam the breath of life (Gn 2:7), became the fulfillment of all that had been promised and anticipated earlier in John’s Gospel. Through this impartation, the disciples became regenerated and indwelt by the Spirit of Jesus Christ. This historical event marked the genesis of the new creation. Jesus could now be realized as the bread of life, the water of life, and the light of life. The believers now possessed his divine, eternal, risen life. From that time forward, Christ as spirit indwelt his believers. Thus, in his first epistle John could say, “And hereby we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit whom he gave to us” (1 Jn 3:24), and again, “Hereby we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit” (4:13).<\/p>\nThe apostles had quite an adjustment to make after Christ’s resurrection. They had become so accustomed to his physical presence that it was difficult for them to learn how to live by his spiritual, indwelling presence. All through the 40 days after his resurrection, from the time the apostles received the inbreathing of the Spirit, Christ was teaching the disciples to make the transfer. He would physically appear and then disappear intermittently. His appearances were very frequent in the beginning and then they steadily diminished. His aim was to guide the apostles into knowing him in his invisible presence. However, this was so new to them that he had to keep appearing to them in order to strengthen and reassure them. But his real desire was to help them live by faith and not by sight. When he appeared to the disciples as they were all together the second time, with Thomas present, he chided Thomas for his unbelief. Then he prounounced this blessing, “Blessed are those who do not see me and yet believe” (Jn 20:29).<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul was such a “blessed” one. He did not know Christ in the flesh. He knew only the risen Christ (2 Cor 5:15-16). In this regard, he had an advantage over the early apostles. They had a great adjustment to make, but from the very beginning, Paul knew the risen Christ as Spirit. Paul became the forerunner of all those Christians who have never seen Jesus in the flesh and who have come to experience him in the Spirit. Yes, Paul had seen the risen Lord; he was the last one to do so (1 Cor 15:8). And from that time onward he realized that Jesus was a glorified man, exalted far above all. Paul wrote much concerning this, but his writings did not leave the far-above-all Jesus far away because this was not what Paul experienced. Any experienced Christian should be able to testify that the Christ in the heavens is also the Christ in the heart.<\/p>\nIn his writings, Paul often speaks of the Spirit and Christ synonymously. This is evident in Romans 8:9-10. The terms “Spirit of God,” “Spirit of Christ,” and “Christ” are all used interchangeably. The Spirit of God is the Spirit of Christ, and the Spirit of Christ is Christ. In these verses, it is evident that Paul identified the Spirit with Christ because in Christian experience they are absolutely identical. There is no such thing as an experience of Christ apart from the Spirit. The separation and\/or distinction does exist in Trinitarian theology—and for very good reasons—but the separation is nearly nonexistent in actual experience. Several of Paul’s statements are written from the vantage point of experience.<\/p>\nIn 1 Corinthians 15:45, Paul says that the risen Jesus became life-giving spirit. Notice the verse does not say Jesus became the Spirit, as if the second person of the Trinity became the third, but that Jesus became spirit in the sense that his mortal existence and form were metamorphosed into a spiritual existence and form. Jesus’ person was not changed through the resurrection, only his form. With this changed spiritual form, Jesus regained the essential state of being he had emptied himself of in becoming a man. Before he became a man, he subsisted in the form of God (Phil 2:6), which form is Spirit and thereby was united to the Spirit (the third of the Trinity), while still remaining distinct. Thus, when the scripture says that the Lord “became life-giving spirit,” it does not mean that the Son became the Holy Spirit. But it does indicate that Christ, via resurrection, appropriated a new, spiritual form (while still retaining a body—a glorified one) that enabled him to commence a new spiritual existence (see 1 Pt 3:18).<\/p>\nIn 2 Corinthians 3, Paul explains that the NT ministry is a ministry carried out by the Spirit of the living God (v 3), who is the Spirit that gives life (v 6). In fact, the whole NT economy is characterized as “the ministry of the Spirit” (v 8). At the same time, Paul emphasizes that the function of the NT ministry is to bring God’s people to see and experience the glorious Christ (3:3, 14, 16-18; 4:4-6). It is in this context that Paul boldly declares, “The Lord is the Spirit” (3:17). He who turns his heart to the Lord is, in effect, turning his heart to the Spirit. lf the Lord were not the Spirit abiding in the believers, how could they turn their hearts to him? And how could they be transformed into the same image? Second Corinthians 3:18 says, “But we all, with unveiled face mirroring the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord-Spirit.” According to the Greek, the last phrase of this verse could be rendered “the Lord, the Spirit” (see asv<\/span>) or “the Lord, who is the Spirit” (see rsv<\/span>, niv<\/span>) because the expression “the Spirit” is in direct apposition to “the Lord” (i.e., it is a further description of the Lord). Thus, the Lord is the Spirit.<\/p>\nIn conclusion, when the Scriptures identify the Spirit with Christ and vice versa, the identification is not equivocation. Christ is not the Holy Spirit. Christ and the Spirit are distinct persons of the Trinity, as is affirmed by the overall teaching of the Word. But the Scriptures do identify Christ and the Spirit in the context of Christian experience. It would be accurate to say that Christians experience Christ through his Spirit, the Spirit of Christ. One cannot know Jesus apart from the Spirit or other than through the Spirit.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Resurrection.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SPIRIT OF JESUS CHRIST The Spirit as identified with Jesus Christ. The most important development and element in earliest Christian understanding of the Spirit is that the Spirit is now the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Acts 16:7; Rom 8:9; Gal 4:6; Phil 1:19; 1 Pt 1:11; see also Jn 7:38; 15:26; 16:7; 19:30; Rv 3:1; 5:6). The Spirit is to be identified as the Spirit that bears witness to Jesus (Jn 15:26; 16:13-15; Acts 5:32; 1 Cor 12:3; 1 Jn 4:2; 5:7-8; Rv 19:10), but also, and more profoundly, as t...","summary_en":"SPIRIT OF JESUS CHRIST The Spirit as identified with Jesus Christ. The most important development and element in earliest Christian understanding of the Spirit is that the Spirit is now the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Acts 16:7; Rom 8:9; Gal 4:6; Phil 1:19; 1 Pt 1:11; see also Jn 7:38; 15:26; 16:7; 19:30; Rv 3:1; 5:6). The Spirit is to be identified as the Spirit that bears witness to Jesus (Jn 15:26; 16:13-15; Acts 5:32; 1 Cor 12:3; 1 Jn 4:2; 5:7-8; Rv 19:10), but also, and more profoundly, as t...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":42842,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:7","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:7","content_ro":"2:7<\/strong> In 1:1–2:3, creation happens at a distance, by divine command (“Let there be . . . and that is what happened”). In this account, the creative act is much more intimate (see also 2:8-9, 21-22). • from the dust of the ground:<\/em> In Hebrew, ’adamah<\/span> (“ground”) forms a wordplay with ’adam<\/span> (“man”). The earth remains the definitive reference point for humans, who in death return to dust (3:17-19; 4:11; Job 4:19; 10:8-9; Isa 29:16). • breathed . . . into the man’s nostrils:<\/em> God’s breath<\/em> is not imparted to other animals; only humans are formed in God’s image (Gen 1:27) and enjoy dialogue with their Creator (2:16-17; 3:8-13). They alone have spiritual awareness and moral conscience (see Job 32:8).<\/p>","content_en":"2:7<\/strong> In 1:1–2:3, creation happens at a distance, by divine command (“Let there be . . . and that is what happened”). In this account, the creative act is much more intimate (see also 2:8-9, 21-22). • from the dust of the ground:<\/em> In Hebrew, ’adamah<\/span> (“ground”) forms a wordplay with ’adam<\/span> (“man”). The earth remains the definitive reference point for humans, who in death return to dust (3:17-19; 4:11; Job 4:19; 10:8-9; Isa 29:16). • breathed . . . into the man’s nostrils:<\/em> God’s breath<\/em> is not imparted to other animals; only humans are formed in God’s image (Gen 1:27) and enjoy dialogue with their Creator (2:16-17; 3:8-13). They alone have spiritual awareness and moral conscience (see Job 32:8).<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:7 In 1:1–2:3, creation happens at a distance, by divine command (“Let there be . . . and that is what happened”). In this account, the creative act is much more intimate (see also 2:8-9, 21-22). • from the dust of the ground: In Hebrew, ’adamah (“ground”) forms a wordplay with ’adam (“man”). The earth remains the definitive reference point for humans, who in death return to dust (3:17-19; 4:11; Job 4:19; 10:8-9; Isa 29:16). • breathed . . . into the man’s nostrils: God’s breath is not impar...","summary_en":"2:7 In 1:1–2:3, creation happens at a distance, by divine command (“Let there be . . . and that is what happened”). In this account, the creative act is much more intimate (see also 2:8-9, 21-22). • from the dust of the ground: In Hebrew, ’adamah (“ground”) forms a wordplay with ’adam (“man”). The earth remains the definitive reference point for humans, who in death return to dust (3:17-19; 4:11; Job 4:19; 10:8-9; Isa 29:16). • breathed . . . into the man’s nostrils: God’s breath is not impar...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":70468,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:7","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:7","content_ro":"2:7<\/strong> In 1:1–2:3, creation happens at a distance, by divine command (“Let there be . . . and that is what happened”). In this account, the creative act is much more intimate (see also 2:8-9, 21-22). • from the dust of the ground:<\/em> In Hebrew, ’adamah<\/span> (“ground”) forms a wordplay with ’adam<\/span> (“man”). The earth remains the definitive reference point for humans, who in death return to dust (3:17-19; 4:11; Job 4:19; 10:8-9; Isa 29:16). • breathed . . . into the man’s nostrils:<\/em> God’s breath<\/em> is not imparted to other animals; only humans are formed in God’s image (Gen 1:27) and enjoy dialogue with their Creator (2:16-17; 3:8-13). They alone have spiritual awareness and moral conscience (see Job 32:8).<\/p>","content_en":"2:7<\/strong> In 1:1–2:3, creation happens at a distance, by divine command (“Let there be . . . and that is what happened”). In this account, the creative act is much more intimate (see also 2:8-9, 21-22). • from the dust of the ground:<\/em> In Hebrew, ’adamah<\/span> (“ground”) forms a wordplay with ’adam<\/span> (“man”). The earth remains the definitive reference point for humans, who in death return to dust (3:17-19; 4:11; Job 4:19; 10:8-9; Isa 29:16). • breathed . . . into the man’s nostrils:<\/em> God’s breath<\/em> is not imparted to other animals; only humans are formed in God’s image (Gen 1:27) and enjoy dialogue with their Creator (2:16-17; 3:8-13). They alone have spiritual awareness and moral conscience (see Job 32:8).<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:7 In 1:1–2:3, creation happens at a distance, by divine command (“Let there be . . . and that is what happened”). In this account, the creative act is much more intimate (see also 2:8-9, 21-22). • from the dust of the ground: In Hebrew, ’adamah (“ground”) forms a wordplay with ’adam (“man”). The earth remains the definitive reference point for humans, who in death return to dust (3:17-19; 4:11; Job 4:19; 10:8-9; Isa 29:16). • breathed . . . into the man’s nostrils: God’s breath is not impar...","summary_en":"2:7 In 1:1–2:3, creation happens at a distance, by divine command (“Let there be . . . and that is what happened”). In this account, the creative act is much more intimate (see also 2:8-9, 21-22). • from the dust of the ground: In Hebrew, ’adamah (“ground”) forms a wordplay with ’adam (“man”). The earth remains the definitive reference point for humans, who in death return to dust (3:17-19; 4:11; Job 4:19; 10:8-9; Isa 29:16). • breathed . . . into the man’s nostrils: God’s breath is not impar...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":98094,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:7","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:7","content_ro":"2:7<\/strong> In 1:1–2:3, creation happens at a distance, by divine command (“Let there be . . . and that is what happened”). In this account, the creative act is much more intimate (see also 2:8-9, 21-22). • from the dust of the ground:<\/em> In Hebrew, ’adamah<\/span> (“ground”) forms a wordplay with ’adam<\/span> (“man”). The earth remains the definitive reference point for humans, who in death return to dust (3:17-19; 4:11; Job 4:19; 10:8-9; Isa 29:16). • breathed . . . into the man’s nostrils:<\/em> God’s breath<\/em> is not imparted to other animals; only humans are formed in God’s image (Gen 1:27) and enjoy dialogue with their Creator (2:16-17; 3:8-13). They alone have spiritual awareness and moral conscience (see Job 32:8).<\/p>","content_en":"2:7<\/strong> In 1:1–2:3, creation happens at a distance, by divine command (“Let there be . . . and that is what happened”). In this account, the creative act is much more intimate (see also 2:8-9, 21-22). • from the dust of the ground:<\/em> In Hebrew, ’adamah<\/span> (“ground”) forms a wordplay with ’adam<\/span> (“man”). The earth remains the definitive reference point for humans, who in death return to dust (3:17-19; 4:11; Job 4:19; 10:8-9; Isa 29:16). • breathed . . . into the man’s nostrils:<\/em> God’s breath<\/em> is not imparted to other animals; only humans are formed in God’s image (Gen 1:27) and enjoy dialogue with their Creator (2:16-17; 3:8-13). They alone have spiritual awareness and moral conscience (see Job 32:8).<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:7 In 1:1–2:3, creation happens at a distance, by divine command (“Let there be . . . and that is what happened”). In this account, the creative act is much more intimate (see also 2:8-9, 21-22). • from the dust of the ground: In Hebrew, ’adamah (“ground”) forms a wordplay with ’adam (“man”). The earth remains the definitive reference point for humans, who in death return to dust (3:17-19; 4:11; Job 4:19; 10:8-9; Isa 29:16). • breathed . . . into the man’s nostrils: God’s breath is not impar...","summary_en":"2:7 In 1:1–2:3, creation happens at a distance, by divine command (“Let there be . . . and that is what happened”). In this account, the creative act is much more intimate (see also 2:8-9, 21-22). • from the dust of the ground: In Hebrew, ’adamah (“ground”) forms a wordplay with ’adam (“man”). The earth remains the definitive reference point for humans, who in death return to dust (3:17-19; 4:11; Job 4:19; 10:8-9; Isa 29:16). • breathed . . . into the man’s nostrils: God’s breath is not impar...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":125720,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:7","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:7","content_ro":"2:7<\/strong> In 1:1–2:3, creation happens at a distance, by divine command (“Let there be . . . and that is what happened”). In this account, the creative act is much more intimate (see also 2:8-9, 21-22). • from the dust of the ground:<\/em> In Hebrew, ’adamah<\/span> (“ground”) forms a wordplay with ’adam<\/span> (“man”). The earth remains the definitive reference point for humans, who in death return to dust (3:17-19; 4:11; Job 4:19; 10:8-9; Isa 29:16). • breathed . . . into the man’s nostrils:<\/em> God’s breath<\/em> is not imparted to other animals; only humans are formed in God’s image (Gen 1:27) and enjoy dialogue with their Creator (2:16-17; 3:8-13). They alone have spiritual awareness and moral conscience (see Job 32:8).<\/p>","content_en":"2:7<\/strong> In 1:1–2:3, creation happens at a distance, by divine command (“Let there be . . . and that is what happened”). In this account, the creative act is much more intimate (see also 2:8-9, 21-22). • from the dust of the ground:<\/em> In Hebrew, ’adamah<\/span> (“ground”) forms a wordplay with ’adam<\/span> (“man”). The earth remains the definitive reference point for humans, who in death return to dust (3:17-19; 4:11; Job 4:19; 10:8-9; Isa 29:16). • breathed . . . into the man’s nostrils:<\/em> God’s breath<\/em> is not imparted to other animals; only humans are formed in God’s image (Gen 1:27) and enjoy dialogue with their Creator (2:16-17; 3:8-13). They alone have spiritual awareness and moral conscience (see Job 32:8).<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:7 In 1:1–2:3, creation happens at a distance, by divine command (“Let there be . . . and that is what happened”). In this account, the creative act is much more intimate (see also 2:8-9, 21-22). • from the dust of the ground: In Hebrew, ’adamah (“ground”) forms a wordplay with ’adam (“man”). The earth remains the definitive reference point for humans, who in death return to dust (3:17-19; 4:11; Job 4:19; 10:8-9; Isa 29:16). • breathed . . . into the man’s nostrils: God’s breath is not impar...","summary_en":"2:7 In 1:1–2:3, creation happens at a distance, by divine command (“Let there be . . . and that is what happened”). In this account, the creative act is much more intimate (see also 2:8-9, 21-22). • from the dust of the ground: In Hebrew, ’adamah (“ground”) forms a wordplay with ’adam (“man”). The earth remains the definitive reference point for humans, who in death return to dust (3:17-19; 4:11; Job 4:19; 10:8-9; Isa 29:16). • breathed . . . into the man’s nostrils: God’s breath is not impar...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":60057,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Death","title_en":"Death","content_ro":"<h3>Death<\/h3>\nHumans are mortal, and death is the natural end of earthly life (Ps 90:1-6). Human identity began with the earth’s dust being animated by the breath of God (Gen 2:7). This passive state returns at death as God withdraws his breath and the human body collapses again into dust (3:19; Job 4:19-21; Isa 40:6-8). Human life depends entirely and continuously on the Creator of life—his breath is a gift that sustains us in life for as long as he grants it (Ps 104:29).<\/p>\nDeath entered the human race by sin and brought ruin to it; death comes suddenly, bringing mourning and an apparent end to hopes and dreams. Death is the severest penalty in human justice. In the Old Testament, the death penalty was a punishment for murder (Gen 9:6; Exod 21:12) or blasphemy (Lev 24:16; John 10:30-33)—violations that threatened the living community.<\/p>\nIn the Old Testament, the opposite of “the land of the living” (Ps 27:13) was Sheol,<\/em> the realm of the dead that was shrouded in darkness and silence (Job 10:21-22; Ps 94:17; Jon 2:6). Yet even in death, God’s people cannot be separated from his presence (see Prov 14:32). God is sovereign and rules over death (Deut 32:39).<\/p>\nWhile the Old Testament often speaks of death simply in terms of joining one’s ancestors—without specific reference to resurrection (see, e.g., Gen 49:29-33)—there are some allusions to resurrection (see Job 19:25-27; Isa 25:6-9; 26:19; Dan 12:2). Jewish belief in resurrection seems to have become more widespread during the intertestamental period, and resurrection is a prominent theme in the New Testament. Through Christ, God’s redeemed people will triumph over death (1 Cor 15:54-57), the last enemy to be destroyed (1 Cor 15:26). Death results from sin (Rom 5:12), and those who live in sin and refuse to turn to God will be punished in the lake of fire in what is called the second death (Rev 21:8). But Christ’s death defeated death, and his resurrection serves as the paradigm for all believers (Col 1:18). He is the Lord of the living and of the dead (Rom 14:9). The time of death—when the natural inclination is to mourn—should also be the time of the greatest demonstration of faith, for the recipient of God’s promises has a hope beyond the grave.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:15-17; 3:19; 6:17; 9:5-6; 49:29-33; Exod 21:12-17, 28-29; 23:7; 31:14-15; Lev 24:16; Deut 32:39; Job 10:18-22; 19:25-27; Pss 90:1-12; 94:17; Prov 14:32; Eccl 12:1-7; Isa 25:6-9; 26:19; 40:6-8; Dan 12:2-3; Mark 12:26-27; Rom 5:12-17; 1 Cor 15:20-26, 51-58; Rev 20:4-6, 11-15; 21:3-8<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Death<\/h3>\nHumans are mortal, and death is the natural end of earthly life (Ps 90:1-6). Human identity began with the earth’s dust being animated by the breath of God (Gen 2:7). This passive state returns at death as God withdraws his breath and the human body collapses again into dust (3:19; Job 4:19-21; Isa 40:6-8). Human life depends entirely and continuously on the Creator of life—his breath is a gift that sustains us in life for as long as he grants it (Ps 104:29).<\/p>\nDeath entered the human race by sin and brought ruin to it; death comes suddenly, bringing mourning and an apparent end to hopes and dreams. Death is the severest penalty in human justice. In the Old Testament, the death penalty was a punishment for murder (Gen 9:6; Exod 21:12) or blasphemy (Lev 24:16; John 10:30-33)—violations that threatened the living community.<\/p>\nIn the Old Testament, the opposite of “the land of the living” (Ps 27:13) was Sheol,<\/em> the realm of the dead that was shrouded in darkness and silence (Job 10:21-22; Ps 94:17; Jon 2:6). Yet even in death, God’s people cannot be separated from his presence (see Prov 14:32). God is sovereign and rules over death (Deut 32:39).<\/p>\nWhile the Old Testament often speaks of death simply in terms of joining one’s ancestors—without specific reference to resurrection (see, e.g., Gen 49:29-33)—there are some allusions to resurrection (see Job 19:25-27; Isa 25:6-9; 26:19; Dan 12:2). Jewish belief in resurrection seems to have become more widespread during the intertestamental period, and resurrection is a prominent theme in the New Testament. Through Christ, God’s redeemed people will triumph over death (1 Cor 15:54-57), the last enemy to be destroyed (1 Cor 15:26). Death results from sin (Rom 5:12), and those who live in sin and refuse to turn to God will be punished in the lake of fire in what is called the second death (Rev 21:8). But Christ’s death defeated death, and his resurrection serves as the paradigm for all believers (Col 1:18). He is the Lord of the living and of the dead (Rom 14:9). The time of death—when the natural inclination is to mourn—should also be the time of the greatest demonstration of faith, for the recipient of God’s promises has a hope beyond the grave.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:15-17; 3:19; 6:17; 9:5-6; 49:29-33; Exod 21:12-17, 28-29; 23:7; 31:14-15; Lev 24:16; Deut 32:39; Job 10:18-22; 19:25-27; Pss 90:1-12; 94:17; Prov 14:32; Eccl 12:1-7; Isa 25:6-9; 26:19; 40:6-8; Dan 12:2-3; Mark 12:26-27; Rom 5:12-17; 1 Cor 15:20-26, 51-58; Rev 20:4-6, 11-15; 21:3-8<\/p>","summary_ro":"Death Humans are mortal, and death is the natural end of earthly life (Ps 90:1-6). Human identity began with the earth’s dust being animated by the breath of God (Gen 2:7). This passive state returns at death as God withdraws his breath and the human body collapses again into dust (3:19; Job 4:19-21; Isa 40:6-8). Human life depends entirely and continuously on the Creator of life—his breath is a gift that sustains us in life for as long as he grants it (Ps 104:29). Death entered the human rac...","summary_en":"Death Humans are mortal, and death is the natural end of earthly life (Ps 90:1-6). Human identity began with the earth’s dust being animated by the breath of God (Gen 2:7). This passive state returns at death as God withdraws his breath and the human body collapses again into dust (3:19; Job 4:19-21; Isa 40:6-8). Human life depends entirely and continuously on the Creator of life—his breath is a gift that sustains us in life for as long as he grants it (Ps 104:29). Death entered the human rac...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":66165,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Holy Spirit’s Presence","title_en":"The Holy Spirit’s Presence","content_ro":"<h3>The Holy Spirit’s Presence<\/h3>\nThe book of Acts clearly highlights the presence and power of the Holy Spirit. Before the coming of the Spirit, Jesus spoke of the Spirit’s influence on his followers (1:8; see John 14:15-17, 26; 15:26; 16:7-15). The Spirit’s guidance was clear in the selection of Spirit-filled leaders to care for the needs of the Hellenistic widows (Acts 6:1-7) and in the appointing of Barnabas and Saul for missionary service (13:1-5). When the first church council met to consider the membership of Gentiles in the church, those present followed the Spirit’s direction (15:28). Christian workers such as Stephen and Philip were filled with the Spirit and preached by his power (6:1–8:40), and Paul’s ministry was charged with the Spirit’s energy from the beginning (9:17). In Acts, the growth, development, and expansion of the church took place entirely under the guidance and power of the Spirit (e.g., 2:4, 41-47; 4:31; 5:32; 8:15, 17, 29; 9:31). Because of the prominence of the Spirit’s work in Acts, the book has often been called “the Acts of the Holy Spirit.”<\/p>\nThe Holy Spirit works in many ways. He gives and restores life (Gen 2:7; Ps 104:24-30; Ezek 37:1-14; Joel 2:28-32; Rom 8:9-11). He calls and commissions workers for the service of Christ (Acts 13:2; 20:28) and guides God’s servants where and when he wants, to do as he desires (8:29; 9:15; 10:19-20; 11:12; 16:6; 1 Cor 2:13; 1 Pet 1:12). He inspired the writing of Scripture (2 Tim 3:16-17; 2 Pet 1:20-21), instructing the church in Christ’s message (John 14:26; 1 Cor 12:3). He bears witness to the power of the Good News in signs and wonders (Acts 14:3; Heb 2:4), and teaches the truths of Scripture to God’s people (Acts 1:16; Heb 9:8; 10:15-17; 1 Pet 1:11-12). He bears witness to Jesus and brings him glory (John 15:26; 16:13-14). He convicts people of their sinfulness and need for the Good News (John 16:8) and warns people against hardening their hearts (Heb 3:7-11, 15). He bestows gifts upon God’s people (1 Cor 12:4-11), and he energizes and equips them to share the Good News, serve the Lord, and work for the Kingdom of God.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nJohn 14:15-17, 26; 15:26; 16:7-15; Acts 1:8, 16; 2:4, 41-47; 4:31; 5:32; 6:1-7; 8:15, 17, 29; 9:15, 17, 31; 10:19-20; 11:12; 13:1-5; 14:3; 15:28; 16:6; 20:28; 1 Cor 2:13; 12:1-11; Eph 1:13-14; 2 Tim 3:16-17; Heb 2:4; 3:7-11, 15; 9:8; 10:15-17; 1 Pet 1:11-12; 2 Pet 1:20-21<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Holy Spirit’s Presence<\/h3>\nThe book of Acts clearly highlights the presence and power of the Holy Spirit. Before the coming of the Spirit, Jesus spoke of the Spirit’s influence on his followers (1:8; see John 14:15-17, 26; 15:26; 16:7-15). The Spirit’s guidance was clear in the selection of Spirit-filled leaders to care for the needs of the Hellenistic widows (Acts 6:1-7) and in the appointing of Barnabas and Saul for missionary service (13:1-5). When the first church council met to consider the membership of Gentiles in the church, those present followed the Spirit’s direction (15:28). Christian workers such as Stephen and Philip were filled with the Spirit and preached by his power (6:1–8:40), and Paul’s ministry was charged with the Spirit’s energy from the beginning (9:17). In Acts, the growth, development, and expansion of the church took place entirely under the guidance and power of the Spirit (e.g., 2:4, 41-47; 4:31; 5:32; 8:15, 17, 29; 9:31). Because of the prominence of the Spirit’s work in Acts, the book has often been called “the Acts of the Holy Spirit.”<\/p>\nThe Holy Spirit works in many ways. He gives and restores life (Gen 2:7; Ps 104:24-30; Ezek 37:1-14; Joel 2:28-32; Rom 8:9-11). He calls and commissions workers for the service of Christ (Acts 13:2; 20:28) and guides God’s servants where and when he wants, to do as he desires (8:29; 9:15; 10:19-20; 11:12; 16:6; 1 Cor 2:13; 1 Pet 1:12). He inspired the writing of Scripture (2 Tim 3:16-17; 2 Pet 1:20-21), instructing the church in Christ’s message (John 14:26; 1 Cor 12:3). He bears witness to the power of the Good News in signs and wonders (Acts 14:3; Heb 2:4), and teaches the truths of Scripture to God’s people (Acts 1:16; Heb 9:8; 10:15-17; 1 Pet 1:11-12). He bears witness to Jesus and brings him glory (John 15:26; 16:13-14). He convicts people of their sinfulness and need for the Good News (John 16:8) and warns people against hardening their hearts (Heb 3:7-11, 15). He bestows gifts upon God’s people (1 Cor 12:4-11), and he energizes and equips them to share the Good News, serve the Lord, and work for the Kingdom of God.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nJohn 14:15-17, 26; 15:26; 16:7-15; Acts 1:8, 16; 2:4, 41-47; 4:31; 5:32; 6:1-7; 8:15, 17, 29; 9:15, 17, 31; 10:19-20; 11:12; 13:1-5; 14:3; 15:28; 16:6; 20:28; 1 Cor 2:13; 12:1-11; Eph 1:13-14; 2 Tim 3:16-17; Heb 2:4; 3:7-11, 15; 9:8; 10:15-17; 1 Pet 1:11-12; 2 Pet 1:20-21<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Holy Spirit’s Presence The book of Acts clearly highlights the presence and power of the Holy Spirit. Before the coming of the Spirit, Jesus spoke of the Spirit’s influence on his followers (1:8; see John 14:15-17, 26; 15:26; 16:7-15). The Spirit’s guidance was clear in the selection of Spirit-filled leaders to care for the needs of the Hellenistic widows (Acts 6:1-7) and in the appointing of Barnabas and Saul for missionary service (13:1-5). When the first church council met to consider ...","summary_en":"The Holy Spirit’s Presence The book of Acts clearly highlights the presence and power of the Holy Spirit. Before the coming of the Spirit, Jesus spoke of the Spirit’s influence on his followers (1:8; see John 14:15-17, 26; 15:26; 16:7-15). The Spirit’s guidance was clear in the selection of Spirit-filled leaders to care for the needs of the Hellenistic widows (Acts 6:1-7) and in the appointing of Barnabas and Saul for missionary service (13:1-5). When the first church council met to consider ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":67496,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church","title_en":"Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church","content_ro":"<h3>Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church<\/h3>\nPaul’s words in 1 Timothy regarding women’s roles in the church were intended to correct what was happening in Ephesus, but the extent to which this passage applies to other situations is a subject of discussion. The possible understandings include the following three:<\/p>\nUniversal Interpretation.<\/em> Galatians 3:28 (“There is no longer . . . male and female”) does not negate creational gender distinctions and roles. Even if Galatians 3:28 represents the ideal of equality in God’s eternal Kingdom, gender roles should still be ordered as outlined in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 for as long as this creation continues. By way of comparison, Matthew 22:30 discusses the status of marriage in the new creation—it differs from the structure of this creation outlined in Genesis 2:23-24, and it applies to the present life only in a special and limited sense (see 1 Tim 4:3-5; Matt 19:11-12; 1 Cor 7:29-35). The structure of the new creation will be fully realized in the coming age, and it is not the ideal for the present time. Therefore, Christian women in all times and places must recognize their role in the created order of God. They must not teach men or exercise authority over men in the church (see also 1 Cor 11:2-16; 14:34-35).<\/p>\nPolemical Interpretation.<\/em> Paul was addressing a particular situation created by the false teaching within the Ephesian church (see 1 Tim 1:18-20; 4:1-5; cp. 2 Tim 3:6-9). Evidence suggests that this teaching was disturbing family relationships (see 1 Tim 4:3; Titus 1:11). It is possible that Ephesian women, caught up in the local heresy, were abusing Genesis 1–3 in their teaching. They might have been asserting female domination in the final resurrection (which, according to some of the Ephesians, had already occurred; 2 Tim 2:18) and accentuated Adam’s blame for the Fall. Paul corrects their misreadings by alluding to the biblical text, but his point is not to make a universal statement about the status of women in the church. His concern is merely to silence the false teachers in Ephesus, including the women among them. First Timothy 2:11-15 entails a rebuke with loss of privilege specifically for those false teachers.<\/p>\nCultural Interpretation.<\/em> Paul’s argument was not necessarily directed to a local problem in Ephesus, but it presupposes a strongly patriarchal society, both in concern for public decorum (women in their place, showing proper honor to men) and in handling Genesis 2:7, 22. This shows that Christians must respect cultural norms insofar as possible in their evangelistic mission (1 Cor 9:19-23). In addition, most women in that society had limited training as teachers. Their society, in contrast to many twenty-first-century societies, usually educated women poorly. Because of that culture’s patriarchal structure, women would not normally have qualified as teachers and leaders. First Timothy 2:11-15, therefore, reflects the notion that properly qualified people should lead and teach. At the same time, there are examples in Paul’s writings and in the early church of women participating in various facets of ministry (e.g., Acts 18:26; Rom 16:1-7; 1 Cor 11:5). This leads to questions about the universal applicability of Paul’s statements on women in the church.<\/p>\nChristians continue to discuss these complex issues. Many Christians today subscribe to a complementarian viewpoint, affirming distinct gender roles in the church, while many others take an egalitarian position, supporting the notion that men and women share equal roles in the church. All Christians affirm, however, the equality of men and women with respect to their identity as beloved children of God (see Galatians 3:26-28).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:23-24; Acts 18:26; Rom 16:1-7; 1 Cor 11:2-16; 14:34-35; Gal 3:28; 1 Tim 2:11-15<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church<\/h3>\nPaul’s words in 1 Timothy regarding women’s roles in the church were intended to correct what was happening in Ephesus, but the extent to which this passage applies to other situations is a subject of discussion. The possible understandings include the following three:<\/p>\nUniversal Interpretation.<\/em> Galatians 3:28 (“There is no longer . . . male and female”) does not negate creational gender distinctions and roles. Even if Galatians 3:28 represents the ideal of equality in God’s eternal Kingdom, gender roles should still be ordered as outlined in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 for as long as this creation continues. By way of comparison, Matthew 22:30 discusses the status of marriage in the new creation—it differs from the structure of this creation outlined in Genesis 2:23-24, and it applies to the present life only in a special and limited sense (see 1 Tim 4:3-5; Matt 19:11-12; 1 Cor 7:29-35). The structure of the new creation will be fully realized in the coming age, and it is not the ideal for the present time. Therefore, Christian women in all times and places must recognize their role in the created order of God. They must not teach men or exercise authority over men in the church (see also 1 Cor 11:2-16; 14:34-35).<\/p>\nPolemical Interpretation.<\/em> Paul was addressing a particular situation created by the false teaching within the Ephesian church (see 1 Tim 1:18-20; 4:1-5; cp. 2 Tim 3:6-9). Evidence suggests that this teaching was disturbing family relationships (see 1 Tim 4:3; Titus 1:11). It is possible that Ephesian women, caught up in the local heresy, were abusing Genesis 1–3 in their teaching. They might have been asserting female domination in the final resurrection (which, according to some of the Ephesians, had already occurred; 2 Tim 2:18) and accentuated Adam’s blame for the Fall. Paul corrects their misreadings by alluding to the biblical text, but his point is not to make a universal statement about the status of women in the church. His concern is merely to silence the false teachers in Ephesus, including the women among them. First Timothy 2:11-15 entails a rebuke with loss of privilege specifically for those false teachers.<\/p>\nCultural Interpretation.<\/em> Paul’s argument was not necessarily directed to a local problem in Ephesus, but it presupposes a strongly patriarchal society, both in concern for public decorum (women in their place, showing proper honor to men) and in handling Genesis 2:7, 22. This shows that Christians must respect cultural norms insofar as possible in their evangelistic mission (1 Cor 9:19-23). In addition, most women in that society had limited training as teachers. Their society, in contrast to many twenty-first-century societies, usually educated women poorly. Because of that culture’s patriarchal structure, women would not normally have qualified as teachers and leaders. First Timothy 2:11-15, therefore, reflects the notion that properly qualified people should lead and teach. At the same time, there are examples in Paul’s writings and in the early church of women participating in various facets of ministry (e.g., Acts 18:26; Rom 16:1-7; 1 Cor 11:5). This leads to questions about the universal applicability of Paul’s statements on women in the church.<\/p>\nChristians continue to discuss these complex issues. Many Christians today subscribe to a complementarian viewpoint, affirming distinct gender roles in the church, while many others take an egalitarian position, supporting the notion that men and women share equal roles in the church. All Christians affirm, however, the equality of men and women with respect to their identity as beloved children of God (see Galatians 3:26-28).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:23-24; Acts 18:26; Rom 16:1-7; 1 Cor 11:2-16; 14:34-35; Gal 3:28; 1 Tim 2:11-15<\/p>","summary_ro":"Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church Paul’s words in 1 Timothy regarding women’s roles in the church were intended to correct what was happening in Ephesus, but the extent to which this passage applies to other situations is a subject of discussion. The possible understandings include the following three: Universal Interpretation. Galatians 3:28 (“There is no longer . . . male and female”) does not negate creational gender distinctions and roles. Even if Galatians 3:28 represents the ide...","summary_en":"Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church Paul’s words in 1 Timothy regarding women’s roles in the church were intended to correct what was happening in Ephesus, but the extent to which this passage applies to other situations is a subject of discussion. The possible understandings include the following three: Universal Interpretation. Galatians 3:28 (“There is no longer . . . male and female”) does not negate creational gender distinctions and roles. Even if Galatians 3:28 represents the ide...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":87683,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Death","title_en":"Death","content_ro":"<h3>Death<\/h3>\nHumans are mortal, and death is the natural end of earthly life (Ps 90:1-6). Human identity began with the earth’s dust being animated by the breath of God (Gen 2:7). This passive state returns at death as God withdraws his breath and the human body collapses again into dust (3:19; Job 4:19-21; Isa 40:6-8). Human life depends entirely and continuously on the Creator of life—his breath is a gift that sustains us in life for as long as he grants it (Ps 104:29).<\/p>\nDeath entered the human race by sin and brought ruin to it; death comes suddenly, bringing mourning and an apparent end to hopes and dreams. Death is the severest penalty in human justice. In the Old Testament, the death penalty was a punishment for murder (Gen 9:6; Exod 21:12) or blasphemy (Lev 24:16; John 10:30-33)—violations that threatened the living community.<\/p>\nIn the Old Testament, the opposite of “the land of the living” (Ps 27:13) was Sheol,<\/em> the realm of the dead that was shrouded in darkness and silence (Job 10:21-22; Ps 94:17; Jon 2:6). Yet even in death, God’s people cannot be separated from his presence (see Prov 14:32). God is sovereign and rules over death (Deut 32:39).<\/p>\nWhile the Old Testament often speaks of death simply in terms of joining one’s ancestors—without specific reference to resurrection (see, e.g., Gen 49:29-33)—there are some allusions to resurrection (see Job 19:25-27; Isa 25:6-9; 26:19; Dan 12:2). Jewish belief in resurrection seems to have become more widespread during the intertestamental period, and resurrection is a prominent theme in the New Testament. Through Christ, God’s redeemed people will triumph over death (1 Cor 15:54-57), the last enemy to be destroyed (1 Cor 15:26). Death results from sin (Rom 5:12), and those who live in sin and refuse to turn to God will be punished in the lake of fire in what is called the second death (Rev 21:8). But Christ’s death defeated death, and his resurrection serves as the paradigm for all believers (Col 1:18). He is the Lord of the living and of the dead (Rom 14:9). The time of death—when the natural inclination is to mourn—should also be the time of the greatest demonstration of faith, for the recipient of God’s promises has a hope beyond the grave.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:15-17; 3:19; 6:17; 9:5-6; 49:29-33; Exod 21:12-17, 28-29; 23:7; 31:14-15; Lev 24:16; Deut 32:39; Job 10:18-22; 19:25-27; Pss 90:1-12; 94:17; Prov 14:32; Eccl 12:1-7; Isa 25:6-9; 26:19; 40:6-8; Dan 12:2-3; Mark 12:26-27; Rom 5:12-17; 1 Cor 15:20-26, 51-58; Rev 20:4-6, 11-15; 21:3-8<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Death<\/h3>\nHumans are mortal, and death is the natural end of earthly life (Ps 90:1-6). Human identity began with the earth’s dust being animated by the breath of God (Gen 2:7). This passive state returns at death as God withdraws his breath and the human body collapses again into dust (3:19; Job 4:19-21; Isa 40:6-8). Human life depends entirely and continuously on the Creator of life—his breath is a gift that sustains us in life for as long as he grants it (Ps 104:29).<\/p>\nDeath entered the human race by sin and brought ruin to it; death comes suddenly, bringing mourning and an apparent end to hopes and dreams. Death is the severest penalty in human justice. In the Old Testament, the death penalty was a punishment for murder (Gen 9:6; Exod 21:12) or blasphemy (Lev 24:16; John 10:30-33)—violations that threatened the living community.<\/p>\nIn the Old Testament, the opposite of “the land of the living” (Ps 27:13) was Sheol,<\/em> the realm of the dead that was shrouded in darkness and silence (Job 10:21-22; Ps 94:17; Jon 2:6). Yet even in death, God’s people cannot be separated from his presence (see Prov 14:32). God is sovereign and rules over death (Deut 32:39).<\/p>\nWhile the Old Testament often speaks of death simply in terms of joining one’s ancestors—without specific reference to resurrection (see, e.g., Gen 49:29-33)—there are some allusions to resurrection (see Job 19:25-27; Isa 25:6-9; 26:19; Dan 12:2). Jewish belief in resurrection seems to have become more widespread during the intertestamental period, and resurrection is a prominent theme in the New Testament. Through Christ, God’s redeemed people will triumph over death (1 Cor 15:54-57), the last enemy to be destroyed (1 Cor 15:26). Death results from sin (Rom 5:12), and those who live in sin and refuse to turn to God will be punished in the lake of fire in what is called the second death (Rev 21:8). But Christ’s death defeated death, and his resurrection serves as the paradigm for all believers (Col 1:18). He is the Lord of the living and of the dead (Rom 14:9). The time of death—when the natural inclination is to mourn—should also be the time of the greatest demonstration of faith, for the recipient of God’s promises has a hope beyond the grave.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:15-17; 3:19; 6:17; 9:5-6; 49:29-33; Exod 21:12-17, 28-29; 23:7; 31:14-15; Lev 24:16; Deut 32:39; Job 10:18-22; 19:25-27; Pss 90:1-12; 94:17; Prov 14:32; Eccl 12:1-7; Isa 25:6-9; 26:19; 40:6-8; Dan 12:2-3; Mark 12:26-27; Rom 5:12-17; 1 Cor 15:20-26, 51-58; Rev 20:4-6, 11-15; 21:3-8<\/p>","summary_ro":"Death Humans are mortal, and death is the natural end of earthly life (Ps 90:1-6). Human identity began with the earth’s dust being animated by the breath of God (Gen 2:7). This passive state returns at death as God withdraws his breath and the human body collapses again into dust (3:19; Job 4:19-21; Isa 40:6-8). Human life depends entirely and continuously on the Creator of life—his breath is a gift that sustains us in life for as long as he grants it (Ps 104:29). Death entered the human rac...","summary_en":"Death Humans are mortal, and death is the natural end of earthly life (Ps 90:1-6). Human identity began with the earth’s dust being animated by the breath of God (Gen 2:7). This passive state returns at death as God withdraws his breath and the human body collapses again into dust (3:19; Job 4:19-21; Isa 40:6-8). Human life depends entirely and continuously on the Creator of life—his breath is a gift that sustains us in life for as long as he grants it (Ps 104:29). Death entered the human rac...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":93791,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Holy Spirit’s Presence","title_en":"The Holy Spirit’s Presence","content_ro":"<h3>The Holy Spirit’s Presence<\/h3>\nThe book of Acts clearly highlights the presence and power of the Holy Spirit. Before the coming of the Spirit, Jesus spoke of the Spirit’s influence on his followers (1:8; see John 14:15-17, 26; 15:26; 16:7-15). The Spirit’s guidance was clear in the selection of Spirit-filled leaders to care for the needs of the Hellenistic widows (Acts 6:1-7) and in the appointing of Barnabas and Saul for missionary service (13:1-5). When the first church council met to consider the membership of Gentiles in the church, those present followed the Spirit’s direction (15:28). Christian workers such as Stephen and Philip were filled with the Spirit and preached by his power (6:1–8:40), and Paul’s ministry was charged with the Spirit’s energy from the beginning (9:17). In Acts, the growth, development, and expansion of the church took place entirely under the guidance and power of the Spirit (e.g., 2:4, 41-47; 4:31; 5:32; 8:15, 17, 29; 9:31). Because of the prominence of the Spirit’s work in Acts, the book has often been called “the Acts of the Holy Spirit.”<\/p>\nThe Holy Spirit works in many ways. He gives and restores life (Gen 2:7; Ps 104:24-30; Ezek 37:1-14; Joel 2:28-32; Rom 8:9-11). He calls and commissions workers for the service of Christ (Acts 13:2; 20:28) and guides God’s servants where and when he wants, to do as he desires (8:29; 9:15; 10:19-20; 11:12; 16:6; 1 Cor 2:13; 1 Pet 1:12). He inspired the writing of Scripture (2 Tim 3:16-17; 2 Pet 1:20-21), instructing the church in Christ’s message (John 14:26; 1 Cor 12:3). He bears witness to the power of the Good News in signs and wonders (Acts 14:3; Heb 2:4), and teaches the truths of Scripture to God’s people (Acts 1:16; Heb 9:8; 10:15-17; 1 Pet 1:11-12). He bears witness to Jesus and brings him glory (John 15:26; 16:13-14). He convicts people of their sinfulness and need for the Good News (John 16:8) and warns people against hardening their hearts (Heb 3:7-11, 15). He bestows gifts upon God’s people (1 Cor 12:4-11), and he energizes and equips them to share the Good News, serve the Lord, and work for the Kingdom of God.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nJohn 14:15-17, 26; 15:26; 16:7-15; Acts 1:8, 16; 2:4, 41-47; 4:31; 5:32; 6:1-7; 8:15, 17, 29; 9:15, 17, 31; 10:19-20; 11:12; 13:1-5; 14:3; 15:28; 16:6; 20:28; 1 Cor 2:13; 12:1-11; Eph 1:13-14; 2 Tim 3:16-17; Heb 2:4; 3:7-11, 15; 9:8; 10:15-17; 1 Pet 1:11-12; 2 Pet 1:20-21<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Holy Spirit’s Presence<\/h3>\nThe book of Acts clearly highlights the presence and power of the Holy Spirit. Before the coming of the Spirit, Jesus spoke of the Spirit’s influence on his followers (1:8; see John 14:15-17, 26; 15:26; 16:7-15). The Spirit’s guidance was clear in the selection of Spirit-filled leaders to care for the needs of the Hellenistic widows (Acts 6:1-7) and in the appointing of Barnabas and Saul for missionary service (13:1-5). When the first church council met to consider the membership of Gentiles in the church, those present followed the Spirit’s direction (15:28). Christian workers such as Stephen and Philip were filled with the Spirit and preached by his power (6:1–8:40), and Paul’s ministry was charged with the Spirit’s energy from the beginning (9:17). In Acts, the growth, development, and expansion of the church took place entirely under the guidance and power of the Spirit (e.g., 2:4, 41-47; 4:31; 5:32; 8:15, 17, 29; 9:31). Because of the prominence of the Spirit’s work in Acts, the book has often been called “the Acts of the Holy Spirit.”<\/p>\nThe Holy Spirit works in many ways. He gives and restores life (Gen 2:7; Ps 104:24-30; Ezek 37:1-14; Joel 2:28-32; Rom 8:9-11). He calls and commissions workers for the service of Christ (Acts 13:2; 20:28) and guides God’s servants where and when he wants, to do as he desires (8:29; 9:15; 10:19-20; 11:12; 16:6; 1 Cor 2:13; 1 Pet 1:12). He inspired the writing of Scripture (2 Tim 3:16-17; 2 Pet 1:20-21), instructing the church in Christ’s message (John 14:26; 1 Cor 12:3). He bears witness to the power of the Good News in signs and wonders (Acts 14:3; Heb 2:4), and teaches the truths of Scripture to God’s people (Acts 1:16; Heb 9:8; 10:15-17; 1 Pet 1:11-12). He bears witness to Jesus and brings him glory (John 15:26; 16:13-14). He convicts people of their sinfulness and need for the Good News (John 16:8) and warns people against hardening their hearts (Heb 3:7-11, 15). He bestows gifts upon God’s people (1 Cor 12:4-11), and he energizes and equips them to share the Good News, serve the Lord, and work for the Kingdom of God.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nJohn 14:15-17, 26; 15:26; 16:7-15; Acts 1:8, 16; 2:4, 41-47; 4:31; 5:32; 6:1-7; 8:15, 17, 29; 9:15, 17, 31; 10:19-20; 11:12; 13:1-5; 14:3; 15:28; 16:6; 20:28; 1 Cor 2:13; 12:1-11; Eph 1:13-14; 2 Tim 3:16-17; Heb 2:4; 3:7-11, 15; 9:8; 10:15-17; 1 Pet 1:11-12; 2 Pet 1:20-21<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Holy Spirit’s Presence The book of Acts clearly highlights the presence and power of the Holy Spirit. Before the coming of the Spirit, Jesus spoke of the Spirit’s influence on his followers (1:8; see John 14:15-17, 26; 15:26; 16:7-15). The Spirit’s guidance was clear in the selection of Spirit-filled leaders to care for the needs of the Hellenistic widows (Acts 6:1-7) and in the appointing of Barnabas and Saul for missionary service (13:1-5). When the first church council met to consider ...","summary_en":"The Holy Spirit’s Presence The book of Acts clearly highlights the presence and power of the Holy Spirit. Before the coming of the Spirit, Jesus spoke of the Spirit’s influence on his followers (1:8; see John 14:15-17, 26; 15:26; 16:7-15). The Spirit’s guidance was clear in the selection of Spirit-filled leaders to care for the needs of the Hellenistic widows (Acts 6:1-7) and in the appointing of Barnabas and Saul for missionary service (13:1-5). When the first church council met to consider ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":95122,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church","title_en":"Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church","content_ro":"<h3>Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church<\/h3>\nPaul’s words in 1 Timothy regarding women’s roles in the church were intended to correct what was happening in Ephesus, but the extent to which this passage applies to other situations is a subject of discussion. The possible understandings include the following three:<\/p>\nUniversal Interpretation.<\/em> Galatians 3:28 (“There is no longer . . . male and female”) does not negate creational gender distinctions and roles. Even if Galatians 3:28 represents the ideal of equality in God’s eternal Kingdom, gender roles should still be ordered as outlined in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 for as long as this creation continues. By way of comparison, Matthew 22:30 discusses the status of marriage in the new creation—it differs from the structure of this creation outlined in Genesis 2:23-24, and it applies to the present life only in a special and limited sense (see 1 Tim 4:3-5; Matt 19:11-12; 1 Cor 7:29-35). The structure of the new creation will be fully realized in the coming age, and it is not the ideal for the present time. Therefore, Christian women in all times and places must recognize their role in the created order of God. They must not teach men or exercise authority over men in the church (see also 1 Cor 11:2-16; 14:34-35).<\/p>\nPolemical Interpretation.<\/em> Paul was addressing a particular situation created by the false teaching within the Ephesian church (see 1 Tim 1:18-20; 4:1-5; cp. 2 Tim 3:6-9). Evidence suggests that this teaching was disturbing family relationships (see 1 Tim 4:3; Titus 1:11). It is possible that Ephesian women, caught up in the local heresy, were abusing Genesis 1–3 in their teaching. They might have been asserting female domination in the final resurrection (which, according to some of the Ephesians, had already occurred; 2 Tim 2:18) and accentuated Adam’s blame for the Fall. Paul corrects their misreadings by alluding to the biblical text, but his point is not to make a universal statement about the status of women in the church. His concern is merely to silence the false teachers in Ephesus, including the women among them. First Timothy 2:11-15 entails a rebuke with loss of privilege specifically for those false teachers.<\/p>\nCultural Interpretation.<\/em> Paul’s argument was not necessarily directed to a local problem in Ephesus, but it presupposes a strongly patriarchal society, both in concern for public decorum (women in their place, showing proper honor to men) and in handling Genesis 2:7, 22. This shows that Christians must respect cultural norms insofar as possible in their evangelistic mission (1 Cor 9:19-23). In addition, most women in that society had limited training as teachers. Their society, in contrast to many twenty-first-century societies, usually educated women poorly. Because of that culture’s patriarchal structure, women would not normally have qualified as teachers and leaders. First Timothy 2:11-15, therefore, reflects the notion that properly qualified people should lead and teach. At the same time, there are examples in Paul’s writings and in the early church of women participating in various facets of ministry (e.g., Acts 18:26; Rom 16:1-7; 1 Cor 11:5). This leads to questions about the universal applicability of Paul’s statements on women in the church.<\/p>\nChristians continue to discuss these complex issues. Many Christians today subscribe to a complementarian viewpoint, affirming distinct gender roles in the church, while many others take an egalitarian position, supporting the notion that men and women share equal roles in the church. All Christians affirm, however, the equality of men and women with respect to their identity as beloved children of God (see Galatians 3:26-28).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:23-24; Acts 18:26; Rom 16:1-7; 1 Cor 11:2-16; 14:34-35; Gal 3:28; 1 Tim 2:11-15<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church<\/h3>\nPaul’s words in 1 Timothy regarding women’s roles in the church were intended to correct what was happening in Ephesus, but the extent to which this passage applies to other situations is a subject of discussion. The possible understandings include the following three:<\/p>\nUniversal Interpretation.<\/em> Galatians 3:28 (“There is no longer . . . male and female”) does not negate creational gender distinctions and roles. Even if Galatians 3:28 represents the ideal of equality in God’s eternal Kingdom, gender roles should still be ordered as outlined in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 for as long as this creation continues. By way of comparison, Matthew 22:30 discusses the status of marriage in the new creation—it differs from the structure of this creation outlined in Genesis 2:23-24, and it applies to the present life only in a special and limited sense (see 1 Tim 4:3-5; Matt 19:11-12; 1 Cor 7:29-35). The structure of the new creation will be fully realized in the coming age, and it is not the ideal for the present time. Therefore, Christian women in all times and places must recognize their role in the created order of God. They must not teach men or exercise authority over men in the church (see also 1 Cor 11:2-16; 14:34-35).<\/p>\nPolemical Interpretation.<\/em> Paul was addressing a particular situation created by the false teaching within the Ephesian church (see 1 Tim 1:18-20; 4:1-5; cp. 2 Tim 3:6-9). Evidence suggests that this teaching was disturbing family relationships (see 1 Tim 4:3; Titus 1:11). It is possible that Ephesian women, caught up in the local heresy, were abusing Genesis 1–3 in their teaching. They might have been asserting female domination in the final resurrection (which, according to some of the Ephesians, had already occurred; 2 Tim 2:18) and accentuated Adam’s blame for the Fall. Paul corrects their misreadings by alluding to the biblical text, but his point is not to make a universal statement about the status of women in the church. His concern is merely to silence the false teachers in Ephesus, including the women among them. First Timothy 2:11-15 entails a rebuke with loss of privilege specifically for those false teachers.<\/p>\nCultural Interpretation.<\/em> Paul’s argument was not necessarily directed to a local problem in Ephesus, but it presupposes a strongly patriarchal society, both in concern for public decorum (women in their place, showing proper honor to men) and in handling Genesis 2:7, 22. This shows that Christians must respect cultural norms insofar as possible in their evangelistic mission (1 Cor 9:19-23). In addition, most women in that society had limited training as teachers. Their society, in contrast to many twenty-first-century societies, usually educated women poorly. Because of that culture’s patriarchal structure, women would not normally have qualified as teachers and leaders. First Timothy 2:11-15, therefore, reflects the notion that properly qualified people should lead and teach. At the same time, there are examples in Paul’s writings and in the early church of women participating in various facets of ministry (e.g., Acts 18:26; Rom 16:1-7; 1 Cor 11:5). This leads to questions about the universal applicability of Paul’s statements on women in the church.<\/p>\nChristians continue to discuss these complex issues. Many Christians today subscribe to a complementarian viewpoint, affirming distinct gender roles in the church, while many others take an egalitarian position, supporting the notion that men and women share equal roles in the church. All Christians affirm, however, the equality of men and women with respect to their identity as beloved children of God (see Galatians 3:26-28).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:23-24; Acts 18:26; Rom 16:1-7; 1 Cor 11:2-16; 14:34-35; Gal 3:28; 1 Tim 2:11-15<\/p>","summary_ro":"Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church Paul’s words in 1 Timothy regarding women’s roles in the church were intended to correct what was happening in Ephesus, but the extent to which this passage applies to other situations is a subject of discussion. The possible understandings include the following three: Universal Interpretation. Galatians 3:28 (“There is no longer . . . male and female”) does not negate creational gender distinctions and roles. Even if Galatians 3:28 represents the ide...","summary_en":"Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church Paul’s words in 1 Timothy regarding women’s roles in the church were intended to correct what was happening in Ephesus, but the extent to which this passage applies to other situations is a subject of discussion. The possible understandings include the following three: Universal Interpretation. Galatians 3:28 (“There is no longer . . . male and female”) does not negate creational gender distinctions and roles. Even if Galatians 3:28 represents the ide...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":115309,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Death","title_en":"Death","content_ro":"<h3>Death<\/h3>\nHumans are mortal, and death is the natural end of earthly life (Ps 90:1-6). Human identity began with the earth’s dust being animated by the breath of God (Gen 2:7). This passive state returns at death as God withdraws his breath and the human body collapses again into dust (3:19; Job 4:19-21; Isa 40:6-8). Human life depends entirely and continuously on the Creator of life—his breath is a gift that sustains us in life for as long as he grants it (Ps 104:29).<\/p>\nDeath entered the human race by sin and brought ruin to it; death comes suddenly, bringing mourning and an apparent end to hopes and dreams. Death is the severest penalty in human justice. In the Old Testament, the death penalty was a punishment for murder (Gen 9:6; Exod 21:12) or blasphemy (Lev 24:16; John 10:30-33)—violations that threatened the living community.<\/p>\nIn the Old Testament, the opposite of “the land of the living” (Ps 27:13) was Sheol,<\/em> the realm of the dead that was shrouded in darkness and silence (Job 10:21-22; Ps 94:17; Jon 2:6). Yet even in death, God’s people cannot be separated from his presence (see Prov 14:32). God is sovereign and rules over death (Deut 32:39).<\/p>\nWhile the Old Testament often speaks of death simply in terms of joining one’s ancestors—without specific reference to resurrection (see, e.g., Gen 49:29-33)—there are some allusions to resurrection (see Job 19:25-27; Isa 25:6-9; 26:19; Dan 12:2). Jewish belief in resurrection seems to have become more widespread during the intertestamental period, and resurrection is a prominent theme in the New Testament. Through Christ, God’s redeemed people will triumph over death (1 Cor 15:54-57), the last enemy to be destroyed (1 Cor 15:26). Death results from sin (Rom 5:12), and those who live in sin and refuse to turn to God will be punished in the lake of fire in what is called the second death (Rev 21:8). But Christ’s death defeated death, and his resurrection serves as the paradigm for all believers (Col 1:18). He is the Lord of the living and of the dead (Rom 14:9). The time of death—when the natural inclination is to mourn—should also be the time of the greatest demonstration of faith, for the recipient of God’s promises has a hope beyond the grave.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:15-17; 3:19; 6:17; 9:5-6; 49:29-33; Exod 21:12-17, 28-29; 23:7; 31:14-15; Lev 24:16; Deut 32:39; Job 10:18-22; 19:25-27; Pss 90:1-12; 94:17; Prov 14:32; Eccl 12:1-7; Isa 25:6-9; 26:19; 40:6-8; Dan 12:2-3; Mark 12:26-27; Rom 5:12-17; 1 Cor 15:20-26, 51-58; Rev 20:4-6, 11-15; 21:3-8<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Death<\/h3>\nHumans are mortal, and death is the natural end of earthly life (Ps 90:1-6). Human identity began with the earth’s dust being animated by the breath of God (Gen 2:7). This passive state returns at death as God withdraws his breath and the human body collapses again into dust (3:19; Job 4:19-21; Isa 40:6-8). Human life depends entirely and continuously on the Creator of life—his breath is a gift that sustains us in life for as long as he grants it (Ps 104:29).<\/p>\nDeath entered the human race by sin and brought ruin to it; death comes suddenly, bringing mourning and an apparent end to hopes and dreams. Death is the severest penalty in human justice. In the Old Testament, the death penalty was a punishment for murder (Gen 9:6; Exod 21:12) or blasphemy (Lev 24:16; John 10:30-33)—violations that threatened the living community.<\/p>\nIn the Old Testament, the opposite of “the land of the living” (Ps 27:13) was Sheol,<\/em> the realm of the dead that was shrouded in darkness and silence (Job 10:21-22; Ps 94:17; Jon 2:6). Yet even in death, God’s people cannot be separated from his presence (see Prov 14:32). God is sovereign and rules over death (Deut 32:39).<\/p>\nWhile the Old Testament often speaks of death simply in terms of joining one’s ancestors—without specific reference to resurrection (see, e.g., Gen 49:29-33)—there are some allusions to resurrection (see Job 19:25-27; Isa 25:6-9; 26:19; Dan 12:2). Jewish belief in resurrection seems to have become more widespread during the intertestamental period, and resurrection is a prominent theme in the New Testament. Through Christ, God’s redeemed people will triumph over death (1 Cor 15:54-57), the last enemy to be destroyed (1 Cor 15:26). Death results from sin (Rom 5:12), and those who live in sin and refuse to turn to God will be punished in the lake of fire in what is called the second death (Rev 21:8). But Christ’s death defeated death, and his resurrection serves as the paradigm for all believers (Col 1:18). He is the Lord of the living and of the dead (Rom 14:9). The time of death—when the natural inclination is to mourn—should also be the time of the greatest demonstration of faith, for the recipient of God’s promises has a hope beyond the grave.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:15-17; 3:19; 6:17; 9:5-6; 49:29-33; Exod 21:12-17, 28-29; 23:7; 31:14-15; Lev 24:16; Deut 32:39; Job 10:18-22; 19:25-27; Pss 90:1-12; 94:17; Prov 14:32; Eccl 12:1-7; Isa 25:6-9; 26:19; 40:6-8; Dan 12:2-3; Mark 12:26-27; Rom 5:12-17; 1 Cor 15:20-26, 51-58; Rev 20:4-6, 11-15; 21:3-8<\/p>","summary_ro":"Death Humans are mortal, and death is the natural end of earthly life (Ps 90:1-6). Human identity began with the earth’s dust being animated by the breath of God (Gen 2:7). This passive state returns at death as God withdraws his breath and the human body collapses again into dust (3:19; Job 4:19-21; Isa 40:6-8). Human life depends entirely and continuously on the Creator of life—his breath is a gift that sustains us in life for as long as he grants it (Ps 104:29). Death entered the human rac...","summary_en":"Death Humans are mortal, and death is the natural end of earthly life (Ps 90:1-6). Human identity began with the earth’s dust being animated by the breath of God (Gen 2:7). This passive state returns at death as God withdraws his breath and the human body collapses again into dust (3:19; Job 4:19-21; Isa 40:6-8). Human life depends entirely and continuously on the Creator of life—his breath is a gift that sustains us in life for as long as he grants it (Ps 104:29). Death entered the human rac...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":121417,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Holy Spirit’s Presence","title_en":"The Holy Spirit’s Presence","content_ro":"<h3>The Holy Spirit’s Presence<\/h3>\nThe book of Acts clearly highlights the presence and power of the Holy Spirit. Before the coming of the Spirit, Jesus spoke of the Spirit’s influence on his followers (1:8; see John 14:15-17, 26; 15:26; 16:7-15). The Spirit’s guidance was clear in the selection of Spirit-filled leaders to care for the needs of the Hellenistic widows (Acts 6:1-7) and in the appointing of Barnabas and Saul for missionary service (13:1-5). When the first church council met to consider the membership of Gentiles in the church, those present followed the Spirit’s direction (15:28). Christian workers such as Stephen and Philip were filled with the Spirit and preached by his power (6:1–8:40), and Paul’s ministry was charged with the Spirit’s energy from the beginning (9:17). In Acts, the growth, development, and expansion of the church took place entirely under the guidance and power of the Spirit (e.g., 2:4, 41-47; 4:31; 5:32; 8:15, 17, 29; 9:31). Because of the prominence of the Spirit’s work in Acts, the book has often been called “the Acts of the Holy Spirit.”<\/p>\nThe Holy Spirit works in many ways. He gives and restores life (Gen 2:7; Ps 104:24-30; Ezek 37:1-14; Joel 2:28-32; Rom 8:9-11). He calls and commissions workers for the service of Christ (Acts 13:2; 20:28) and guides God’s servants where and when he wants, to do as he desires (8:29; 9:15; 10:19-20; 11:12; 16:6; 1 Cor 2:13; 1 Pet 1:12). He inspired the writing of Scripture (2 Tim 3:16-17; 2 Pet 1:20-21), instructing the church in Christ’s message (John 14:26; 1 Cor 12:3). He bears witness to the power of the Good News in signs and wonders (Acts 14:3; Heb 2:4), and teaches the truths of Scripture to God’s people (Acts 1:16; Heb 9:8; 10:15-17; 1 Pet 1:11-12). He bears witness to Jesus and brings him glory (John 15:26; 16:13-14). He convicts people of their sinfulness and need for the Good News (John 16:8) and warns people against hardening their hearts (Heb 3:7-11, 15). He bestows gifts upon God’s people (1 Cor 12:4-11), and he energizes and equips them to share the Good News, serve the Lord, and work for the Kingdom of God.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nJohn 14:15-17, 26; 15:26; 16:7-15; Acts 1:8, 16; 2:4, 41-47; 4:31; 5:32; 6:1-7; 8:15, 17, 29; 9:15, 17, 31; 10:19-20; 11:12; 13:1-5; 14:3; 15:28; 16:6; 20:28; 1 Cor 2:13; 12:1-11; Eph 1:13-14; 2 Tim 3:16-17; Heb 2:4; 3:7-11, 15; 9:8; 10:15-17; 1 Pet 1:11-12; 2 Pet 1:20-21<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Holy Spirit’s Presence<\/h3>\nThe book of Acts clearly highlights the presence and power of the Holy Spirit. Before the coming of the Spirit, Jesus spoke of the Spirit’s influence on his followers (1:8; see John 14:15-17, 26; 15:26; 16:7-15). The Spirit’s guidance was clear in the selection of Spirit-filled leaders to care for the needs of the Hellenistic widows (Acts 6:1-7) and in the appointing of Barnabas and Saul for missionary service (13:1-5). When the first church council met to consider the membership of Gentiles in the church, those present followed the Spirit’s direction (15:28). Christian workers such as Stephen and Philip were filled with the Spirit and preached by his power (6:1–8:40), and Paul’s ministry was charged with the Spirit’s energy from the beginning (9:17). In Acts, the growth, development, and expansion of the church took place entirely under the guidance and power of the Spirit (e.g., 2:4, 41-47; 4:31; 5:32; 8:15, 17, 29; 9:31). Because of the prominence of the Spirit’s work in Acts, the book has often been called “the Acts of the Holy Spirit.”<\/p>\nThe Holy Spirit works in many ways. He gives and restores life (Gen 2:7; Ps 104:24-30; Ezek 37:1-14; Joel 2:28-32; Rom 8:9-11). He calls and commissions workers for the service of Christ (Acts 13:2; 20:28) and guides God’s servants where and when he wants, to do as he desires (8:29; 9:15; 10:19-20; 11:12; 16:6; 1 Cor 2:13; 1 Pet 1:12). He inspired the writing of Scripture (2 Tim 3:16-17; 2 Pet 1:20-21), instructing the church in Christ’s message (John 14:26; 1 Cor 12:3). He bears witness to the power of the Good News in signs and wonders (Acts 14:3; Heb 2:4), and teaches the truths of Scripture to God’s people (Acts 1:16; Heb 9:8; 10:15-17; 1 Pet 1:11-12). He bears witness to Jesus and brings him glory (John 15:26; 16:13-14). He convicts people of their sinfulness and need for the Good News (John 16:8) and warns people against hardening their hearts (Heb 3:7-11, 15). He bestows gifts upon God’s people (1 Cor 12:4-11), and he energizes and equips them to share the Good News, serve the Lord, and work for the Kingdom of God.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nJohn 14:15-17, 26; 15:26; 16:7-15; Acts 1:8, 16; 2:4, 41-47; 4:31; 5:32; 6:1-7; 8:15, 17, 29; 9:15, 17, 31; 10:19-20; 11:12; 13:1-5; 14:3; 15:28; 16:6; 20:28; 1 Cor 2:13; 12:1-11; Eph 1:13-14; 2 Tim 3:16-17; Heb 2:4; 3:7-11, 15; 9:8; 10:15-17; 1 Pet 1:11-12; 2 Pet 1:20-21<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Holy Spirit’s Presence The book of Acts clearly highlights the presence and power of the Holy Spirit. Before the coming of the Spirit, Jesus spoke of the Spirit’s influence on his followers (1:8; see John 14:15-17, 26; 15:26; 16:7-15). The Spirit’s guidance was clear in the selection of Spirit-filled leaders to care for the needs of the Hellenistic widows (Acts 6:1-7) and in the appointing of Barnabas and Saul for missionary service (13:1-5). When the first church council met to consider ...","summary_en":"The Holy Spirit’s Presence The book of Acts clearly highlights the presence and power of the Holy Spirit. Before the coming of the Spirit, Jesus spoke of the Spirit’s influence on his followers (1:8; see John 14:15-17, 26; 15:26; 16:7-15). The Spirit’s guidance was clear in the selection of Spirit-filled leaders to care for the needs of the Hellenistic widows (Acts 6:1-7) and in the appointing of Barnabas and Saul for missionary service (13:1-5). When the first church council met to consider ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":122748,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church","title_en":"Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church","content_ro":"<h3>Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church<\/h3>\nPaul’s words in 1 Timothy regarding women’s roles in the church were intended to correct what was happening in Ephesus, but the extent to which this passage applies to other situations is a subject of discussion. The possible understandings include the following three:<\/p>\nUniversal Interpretation.<\/em> Galatians 3:28 (“There is no longer . . . male and female”) does not negate creational gender distinctions and roles. Even if Galatians 3:28 represents the ideal of equality in God’s eternal Kingdom, gender roles should still be ordered as outlined in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 for as long as this creation continues. By way of comparison, Matthew 22:30 discusses the status of marriage in the new creation—it differs from the structure of this creation outlined in Genesis 2:23-24, and it applies to the present life only in a special and limited sense (see 1 Tim 4:3-5; Matt 19:11-12; 1 Cor 7:29-35). The structure of the new creation will be fully realized in the coming age, and it is not the ideal for the present time. Therefore, Christian women in all times and places must recognize their role in the created order of God. They must not teach men or exercise authority over men in the church (see also 1 Cor 11:2-16; 14:34-35).<\/p>\nPolemical Interpretation.<\/em> Paul was addressing a particular situation created by the false teaching within the Ephesian church (see 1 Tim 1:18-20; 4:1-5; cp. 2 Tim 3:6-9). Evidence suggests that this teaching was disturbing family relationships (see 1 Tim 4:3; Titus 1:11). It is possible that Ephesian women, caught up in the local heresy, were abusing Genesis 1–3 in their teaching. They might have been asserting female domination in the final resurrection (which, according to some of the Ephesians, had already occurred; 2 Tim 2:18) and accentuated Adam’s blame for the Fall. Paul corrects their misreadings by alluding to the biblical text, but his point is not to make a universal statement about the status of women in the church. His concern is merely to silence the false teachers in Ephesus, including the women among them. First Timothy 2:11-15 entails a rebuke with loss of privilege specifically for those false teachers.<\/p>\nCultural Interpretation.<\/em> Paul’s argument was not necessarily directed to a local problem in Ephesus, but it presupposes a strongly patriarchal society, both in concern for public decorum (women in their place, showing proper honor to men) and in handling Genesis 2:7, 22. This shows that Christians must respect cultural norms insofar as possible in their evangelistic mission (1 Cor 9:19-23). In addition, most women in that society had limited training as teachers. Their society, in contrast to many twenty-first-century societies, usually educated women poorly. Because of that culture’s patriarchal structure, women would not normally have qualified as teachers and leaders. First Timothy 2:11-15, therefore, reflects the notion that properly qualified people should lead and teach. At the same time, there are examples in Paul’s writings and in the early church of women participating in various facets of ministry (e.g., Acts 18:26; Rom 16:1-7; 1 Cor 11:5). This leads to questions about the universal applicability of Paul’s statements on women in the church.<\/p>\nChristians continue to discuss these complex issues. Many Christians today subscribe to a complementarian viewpoint, affirming distinct gender roles in the church, while many others take an egalitarian position, supporting the notion that men and women share equal roles in the church. All Christians affirm, however, the equality of men and women with respect to their identity as beloved children of God (see Galatians 3:26-28).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:23-24; Acts 18:26; Rom 16:1-7; 1 Cor 11:2-16; 14:34-35; Gal 3:28; 1 Tim 2:11-15<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church<\/h3>\nPaul’s words in 1 Timothy regarding women’s roles in the church were intended to correct what was happening in Ephesus, but the extent to which this passage applies to other situations is a subject of discussion. The possible understandings include the following three:<\/p>\nUniversal Interpretation.<\/em> Galatians 3:28 (“There is no longer . . . male and female”) does not negate creational gender distinctions and roles. Even if Galatians 3:28 represents the ideal of equality in God’s eternal Kingdom, gender roles should still be ordered as outlined in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 for as long as this creation continues. By way of comparison, Matthew 22:30 discusses the status of marriage in the new creation—it differs from the structure of this creation outlined in Genesis 2:23-24, and it applies to the present life only in a special and limited sense (see 1 Tim 4:3-5; Matt 19:11-12; 1 Cor 7:29-35). The structure of the new creation will be fully realized in the coming age, and it is not the ideal for the present time. Therefore, Christian women in all times and places must recognize their role in the created order of God. They must not teach men or exercise authority over men in the church (see also 1 Cor 11:2-16; 14:34-35).<\/p>\nPolemical Interpretation.<\/em> Paul was addressing a particular situation created by the false teaching within the Ephesian church (see 1 Tim 1:18-20; 4:1-5; cp. 2 Tim 3:6-9). Evidence suggests that this teaching was disturbing family relationships (see 1 Tim 4:3; Titus 1:11). It is possible that Ephesian women, caught up in the local heresy, were abusing Genesis 1–3 in their teaching. They might have been asserting female domination in the final resurrection (which, according to some of the Ephesians, had already occurred; 2 Tim 2:18) and accentuated Adam’s blame for the Fall. Paul corrects their misreadings by alluding to the biblical text, but his point is not to make a universal statement about the status of women in the church. His concern is merely to silence the false teachers in Ephesus, including the women among them. First Timothy 2:11-15 entails a rebuke with loss of privilege specifically for those false teachers.<\/p>\nCultural Interpretation.<\/em> Paul’s argument was not necessarily directed to a local problem in Ephesus, but it presupposes a strongly patriarchal society, both in concern for public decorum (women in their place, showing proper honor to men) and in handling Genesis 2:7, 22. This shows that Christians must respect cultural norms insofar as possible in their evangelistic mission (1 Cor 9:19-23). In addition, most women in that society had limited training as teachers. Their society, in contrast to many twenty-first-century societies, usually educated women poorly. Because of that culture’s patriarchal structure, women would not normally have qualified as teachers and leaders. First Timothy 2:11-15, therefore, reflects the notion that properly qualified people should lead and teach. At the same time, there are examples in Paul’s writings and in the early church of women participating in various facets of ministry (e.g., Acts 18:26; Rom 16:1-7; 1 Cor 11:5). This leads to questions about the universal applicability of Paul’s statements on women in the church.<\/p>\nChristians continue to discuss these complex issues. Many Christians today subscribe to a complementarian viewpoint, affirming distinct gender roles in the church, while many others take an egalitarian position, supporting the notion that men and women share equal roles in the church. All Christians affirm, however, the equality of men and women with respect to their identity as beloved children of God (see Galatians 3:26-28).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:23-24; Acts 18:26; Rom 16:1-7; 1 Cor 11:2-16; 14:34-35; Gal 3:28; 1 Tim 2:11-15<\/p>","summary_ro":"Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church Paul’s words in 1 Timothy regarding women’s roles in the church were intended to correct what was happening in Ephesus, but the extent to which this passage applies to other situations is a subject of discussion. The possible understandings include the following three: Universal Interpretation. Galatians 3:28 (“There is no longer . . . male and female”) does not negate creational gender distinctions and roles. Even if Galatians 3:28 represents the ide...","summary_en":"Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church Paul’s words in 1 Timothy regarding women’s roles in the church were intended to correct what was happening in Ephesus, but the extent to which this passage applies to other situations is a subject of discussion. The possible understandings include the following three: Universal Interpretation. Galatians 3:28 (“There is no longer . . . male and female”) does not negate creational gender distinctions and roles. Even if Galatians 3:28 represents the ide...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":142935,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Death","title_en":"Death","content_ro":"<h3>Death<\/h3>\nHumans are mortal, and death is the natural end of earthly life (Ps 90:1-6). Human identity began with the earth’s dust being animated by the breath of God (Gen 2:7). This passive state returns at death as God withdraws his breath and the human body collapses again into dust (3:19; Job 4:19-21; Isa 40:6-8). Human life depends entirely and continuously on the Creator of life—his breath is a gift that sustains us in life for as long as he grants it (Ps 104:29).<\/p>\nDeath entered the human race by sin and brought ruin to it; death comes suddenly, bringing mourning and an apparent end to hopes and dreams. Death is the severest penalty in human justice. In the Old Testament, the death penalty was a punishment for murder (Gen 9:6; Exod 21:12) or blasphemy (Lev 24:16; John 10:30-33)—violations that threatened the living community.<\/p>\nIn the Old Testament, the opposite of “the land of the living” (Ps 27:13) was Sheol,<\/em> the realm of the dead that was shrouded in darkness and silence (Job 10:21-22; Ps 94:17; Jon 2:6). Yet even in death, God’s people cannot be separated from his presence (see Prov 14:32). God is sovereign and rules over death (Deut 32:39).<\/p>\nWhile the Old Testament often speaks of death simply in terms of joining one’s ancestors—without specific reference to resurrection (see, e.g., Gen 49:29-33)—there are some allusions to resurrection (see Job 19:25-27; Isa 25:6-9; 26:19; Dan 12:2). Jewish belief in resurrection seems to have become more widespread during the intertestamental period, and resurrection is a prominent theme in the New Testament. Through Christ, God’s redeemed people will triumph over death (1 Cor 15:54-57), the last enemy to be destroyed (1 Cor 15:26). Death results from sin (Rom 5:12), and those who live in sin and refuse to turn to God will be punished in the lake of fire in what is called the second death (Rev 21:8). But Christ’s death defeated death, and his resurrection serves as the paradigm for all believers (Col 1:18). He is the Lord of the living and of the dead (Rom 14:9). The time of death—when the natural inclination is to mourn—should also be the time of the greatest demonstration of faith, for the recipient of God’s promises has a hope beyond the grave.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:15-17; 3:19; 6:17; 9:5-6; 49:29-33; Exod 21:12-17, 28-29; 23:7; 31:14-15; Lev 24:16; Deut 32:39; Job 10:18-22; 19:25-27; Pss 90:1-12; 94:17; Prov 14:32; Eccl 12:1-7; Isa 25:6-9; 26:19; 40:6-8; Dan 12:2-3; Mark 12:26-27; Rom 5:12-17; 1 Cor 15:20-26, 51-58; Rev 20:4-6, 11-15; 21:3-8<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Death<\/h3>\nHumans are mortal, and death is the natural end of earthly life (Ps 90:1-6). Human identity began with the earth’s dust being animated by the breath of God (Gen 2:7). This passive state returns at death as God withdraws his breath and the human body collapses again into dust (3:19; Job 4:19-21; Isa 40:6-8). Human life depends entirely and continuously on the Creator of life—his breath is a gift that sustains us in life for as long as he grants it (Ps 104:29).<\/p>\nDeath entered the human race by sin and brought ruin to it; death comes suddenly, bringing mourning and an apparent end to hopes and dreams. Death is the severest penalty in human justice. In the Old Testament, the death penalty was a punishment for murder (Gen 9:6; Exod 21:12) or blasphemy (Lev 24:16; John 10:30-33)—violations that threatened the living community.<\/p>\nIn the Old Testament, the opposite of “the land of the living” (Ps 27:13) was Sheol,<\/em> the realm of the dead that was shrouded in darkness and silence (Job 10:21-22; Ps 94:17; Jon 2:6). Yet even in death, God’s people cannot be separated from his presence (see Prov 14:32). God is sovereign and rules over death (Deut 32:39).<\/p>\nWhile the Old Testament often speaks of death simply in terms of joining one’s ancestors—without specific reference to resurrection (see, e.g., Gen 49:29-33)—there are some allusions to resurrection (see Job 19:25-27; Isa 25:6-9; 26:19; Dan 12:2). Jewish belief in resurrection seems to have become more widespread during the intertestamental period, and resurrection is a prominent theme in the New Testament. Through Christ, God’s redeemed people will triumph over death (1 Cor 15:54-57), the last enemy to be destroyed (1 Cor 15:26). Death results from sin (Rom 5:12), and those who live in sin and refuse to turn to God will be punished in the lake of fire in what is called the second death (Rev 21:8). But Christ’s death defeated death, and his resurrection serves as the paradigm for all believers (Col 1:18). He is the Lord of the living and of the dead (Rom 14:9). The time of death—when the natural inclination is to mourn—should also be the time of the greatest demonstration of faith, for the recipient of God’s promises has a hope beyond the grave.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:15-17; 3:19; 6:17; 9:5-6; 49:29-33; Exod 21:12-17, 28-29; 23:7; 31:14-15; Lev 24:16; Deut 32:39; Job 10:18-22; 19:25-27; Pss 90:1-12; 94:17; Prov 14:32; Eccl 12:1-7; Isa 25:6-9; 26:19; 40:6-8; Dan 12:2-3; Mark 12:26-27; Rom 5:12-17; 1 Cor 15:20-26, 51-58; Rev 20:4-6, 11-15; 21:3-8<\/p>","summary_ro":"Death Humans are mortal, and death is the natural end of earthly life (Ps 90:1-6). Human identity began with the earth’s dust being animated by the breath of God (Gen 2:7). This passive state returns at death as God withdraws his breath and the human body collapses again into dust (3:19; Job 4:19-21; Isa 40:6-8). Human life depends entirely and continuously on the Creator of life—his breath is a gift that sustains us in life for as long as he grants it (Ps 104:29). Death entered the human rac...","summary_en":"Death Humans are mortal, and death is the natural end of earthly life (Ps 90:1-6). Human identity began with the earth’s dust being animated by the breath of God (Gen 2:7). This passive state returns at death as God withdraws his breath and the human body collapses again into dust (3:19; Job 4:19-21; Isa 40:6-8). Human life depends entirely and continuously on the Creator of life—his breath is a gift that sustains us in life for as long as he grants it (Ps 104:29). Death entered the human rac...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":149043,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Holy Spirit’s Presence","title_en":"The Holy Spirit’s Presence","content_ro":"<h3>The Holy Spirit’s Presence<\/h3>\nThe book of Acts clearly highlights the presence and power of the Holy Spirit. Before the coming of the Spirit, Jesus spoke of the Spirit’s influence on his followers (1:8; see John 14:15-17, 26; 15:26; 16:7-15). The Spirit’s guidance was clear in the selection of Spirit-filled leaders to care for the needs of the Hellenistic widows (Acts 6:1-7) and in the appointing of Barnabas and Saul for missionary service (13:1-5). When the first church council met to consider the membership of Gentiles in the church, those present followed the Spirit’s direction (15:28). Christian workers such as Stephen and Philip were filled with the Spirit and preached by his power (6:1–8:40), and Paul’s ministry was charged with the Spirit’s energy from the beginning (9:17). In Acts, the growth, development, and expansion of the church took place entirely under the guidance and power of the Spirit (e.g., 2:4, 41-47; 4:31; 5:32; 8:15, 17, 29; 9:31). Because of the prominence of the Spirit’s work in Acts, the book has often been called “the Acts of the Holy Spirit.”<\/p>\nThe Holy Spirit works in many ways. He gives and restores life (Gen 2:7; Ps 104:24-30; Ezek 37:1-14; Joel 2:28-32; Rom 8:9-11). He calls and commissions workers for the service of Christ (Acts 13:2; 20:28) and guides God’s servants where and when he wants, to do as he desires (8:29; 9:15; 10:19-20; 11:12; 16:6; 1 Cor 2:13; 1 Pet 1:12). He inspired the writing of Scripture (2 Tim 3:16-17; 2 Pet 1:20-21), instructing the church in Christ’s message (John 14:26; 1 Cor 12:3). He bears witness to the power of the Good News in signs and wonders (Acts 14:3; Heb 2:4), and teaches the truths of Scripture to God’s people (Acts 1:16; Heb 9:8; 10:15-17; 1 Pet 1:11-12). He bears witness to Jesus and brings him glory (John 15:26; 16:13-14). He convicts people of their sinfulness and need for the Good News (John 16:8) and warns people against hardening their hearts (Heb 3:7-11, 15). He bestows gifts upon God’s people (1 Cor 12:4-11), and he energizes and equips them to share the Good News, serve the Lord, and work for the Kingdom of God.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nJohn 14:15-17, 26; 15:26; 16:7-15; Acts 1:8, 16; 2:4, 41-47; 4:31; 5:32; 6:1-7; 8:15, 17, 29; 9:15, 17, 31; 10:19-20; 11:12; 13:1-5; 14:3; 15:28; 16:6; 20:28; 1 Cor 2:13; 12:1-11; Eph 1:13-14; 2 Tim 3:16-17; Heb 2:4; 3:7-11, 15; 9:8; 10:15-17; 1 Pet 1:11-12; 2 Pet 1:20-21<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Holy Spirit’s Presence<\/h3>\nThe book of Acts clearly highlights the presence and power of the Holy Spirit. Before the coming of the Spirit, Jesus spoke of the Spirit’s influence on his followers (1:8; see John 14:15-17, 26; 15:26; 16:7-15). The Spirit’s guidance was clear in the selection of Spirit-filled leaders to care for the needs of the Hellenistic widows (Acts 6:1-7) and in the appointing of Barnabas and Saul for missionary service (13:1-5). When the first church council met to consider the membership of Gentiles in the church, those present followed the Spirit’s direction (15:28). Christian workers such as Stephen and Philip were filled with the Spirit and preached by his power (6:1–8:40), and Paul’s ministry was charged with the Spirit’s energy from the beginning (9:17). In Acts, the growth, development, and expansion of the church took place entirely under the guidance and power of the Spirit (e.g., 2:4, 41-47; 4:31; 5:32; 8:15, 17, 29; 9:31). Because of the prominence of the Spirit’s work in Acts, the book has often been called “the Acts of the Holy Spirit.”<\/p>\nThe Holy Spirit works in many ways. He gives and restores life (Gen 2:7; Ps 104:24-30; Ezek 37:1-14; Joel 2:28-32; Rom 8:9-11). He calls and commissions workers for the service of Christ (Acts 13:2; 20:28) and guides God’s servants where and when he wants, to do as he desires (8:29; 9:15; 10:19-20; 11:12; 16:6; 1 Cor 2:13; 1 Pet 1:12). He inspired the writing of Scripture (2 Tim 3:16-17; 2 Pet 1:20-21), instructing the church in Christ’s message (John 14:26; 1 Cor 12:3). He bears witness to the power of the Good News in signs and wonders (Acts 14:3; Heb 2:4), and teaches the truths of Scripture to God’s people (Acts 1:16; Heb 9:8; 10:15-17; 1 Pet 1:11-12). He bears witness to Jesus and brings him glory (John 15:26; 16:13-14). He convicts people of their sinfulness and need for the Good News (John 16:8) and warns people against hardening their hearts (Heb 3:7-11, 15). He bestows gifts upon God’s people (1 Cor 12:4-11), and he energizes and equips them to share the Good News, serve the Lord, and work for the Kingdom of God.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nJohn 14:15-17, 26; 15:26; 16:7-15; Acts 1:8, 16; 2:4, 41-47; 4:31; 5:32; 6:1-7; 8:15, 17, 29; 9:15, 17, 31; 10:19-20; 11:12; 13:1-5; 14:3; 15:28; 16:6; 20:28; 1 Cor 2:13; 12:1-11; Eph 1:13-14; 2 Tim 3:16-17; Heb 2:4; 3:7-11, 15; 9:8; 10:15-17; 1 Pet 1:11-12; 2 Pet 1:20-21<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Holy Spirit’s Presence The book of Acts clearly highlights the presence and power of the Holy Spirit. Before the coming of the Spirit, Jesus spoke of the Spirit’s influence on his followers (1:8; see John 14:15-17, 26; 15:26; 16:7-15). The Spirit’s guidance was clear in the selection of Spirit-filled leaders to care for the needs of the Hellenistic widows (Acts 6:1-7) and in the appointing of Barnabas and Saul for missionary service (13:1-5). When the first church council met to consider ...","summary_en":"The Holy Spirit’s Presence The book of Acts clearly highlights the presence and power of the Holy Spirit. Before the coming of the Spirit, Jesus spoke of the Spirit’s influence on his followers (1:8; see John 14:15-17, 26; 15:26; 16:7-15). The Spirit’s guidance was clear in the selection of Spirit-filled leaders to care for the needs of the Hellenistic widows (Acts 6:1-7) and in the appointing of Barnabas and Saul for missionary service (13:1-5). When the first church council met to consider ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":150374,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church","title_en":"Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church","content_ro":"<h3>Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church<\/h3>\nPaul’s words in 1 Timothy regarding women’s roles in the church were intended to correct what was happening in Ephesus, but the extent to which this passage applies to other situations is a subject of discussion. The possible understandings include the following three:<\/p>\nUniversal Interpretation.<\/em> Galatians 3:28 (“There is no longer . . . male and female”) does not negate creational gender distinctions and roles. Even if Galatians 3:28 represents the ideal of equality in God’s eternal Kingdom, gender roles should still be ordered as outlined in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 for as long as this creation continues. By way of comparison, Matthew 22:30 discusses the status of marriage in the new creation—it differs from the structure of this creation outlined in Genesis 2:23-24, and it applies to the present life only in a special and limited sense (see 1 Tim 4:3-5; Matt 19:11-12; 1 Cor 7:29-35). The structure of the new creation will be fully realized in the coming age, and it is not the ideal for the present time. Therefore, Christian women in all times and places must recognize their role in the created order of God. They must not teach men or exercise authority over men in the church (see also 1 Cor 11:2-16; 14:34-35).<\/p>\nPolemical Interpretation.<\/em> Paul was addressing a particular situation created by the false teaching within the Ephesian church (see 1 Tim 1:18-20; 4:1-5; cp. 2 Tim 3:6-9). Evidence suggests that this teaching was disturbing family relationships (see 1 Tim 4:3; Titus 1:11). It is possible that Ephesian women, caught up in the local heresy, were abusing Genesis 1–3 in their teaching. They might have been asserting female domination in the final resurrection (which, according to some of the Ephesians, had already occurred; 2 Tim 2:18) and accentuated Adam’s blame for the Fall. Paul corrects their misreadings by alluding to the biblical text, but his point is not to make a universal statement about the status of women in the church. His concern is merely to silence the false teachers in Ephesus, including the women among them. First Timothy 2:11-15 entails a rebuke with loss of privilege specifically for those false teachers.<\/p>\nCultural Interpretation.<\/em> Paul’s argument was not necessarily directed to a local problem in Ephesus, but it presupposes a strongly patriarchal society, both in concern for public decorum (women in their place, showing proper honor to men) and in handling Genesis 2:7, 22. This shows that Christians must respect cultural norms insofar as possible in their evangelistic mission (1 Cor 9:19-23). In addition, most women in that society had limited training as teachers. Their society, in contrast to many twenty-first-century societies, usually educated women poorly. Because of that culture’s patriarchal structure, women would not normally have qualified as teachers and leaders. First Timothy 2:11-15, therefore, reflects the notion that properly qualified people should lead and teach. At the same time, there are examples in Paul’s writings and in the early church of women participating in various facets of ministry (e.g., Acts 18:26; Rom 16:1-7; 1 Cor 11:5). This leads to questions about the universal applicability of Paul’s statements on women in the church.<\/p>\nChristians continue to discuss these complex issues. Many Christians today subscribe to a complementarian viewpoint, affirming distinct gender roles in the church, while many others take an egalitarian position, supporting the notion that men and women share equal roles in the church. All Christians affirm, however, the equality of men and women with respect to their identity as beloved children of God (see Galatians 3:26-28).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:23-24; Acts 18:26; Rom 16:1-7; 1 Cor 11:2-16; 14:34-35; Gal 3:28; 1 Tim 2:11-15<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church<\/h3>\nPaul’s words in 1 Timothy regarding women’s roles in the church were intended to correct what was happening in Ephesus, but the extent to which this passage applies to other situations is a subject of discussion. The possible understandings include the following three:<\/p>\nUniversal Interpretation.<\/em> Galatians 3:28 (“There is no longer . . . male and female”) does not negate creational gender distinctions and roles. Even if Galatians 3:28 represents the ideal of equality in God’s eternal Kingdom, gender roles should still be ordered as outlined in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 for as long as this creation continues. By way of comparison, Matthew 22:30 discusses the status of marriage in the new creation—it differs from the structure of this creation outlined in Genesis 2:23-24, and it applies to the present life only in a special and limited sense (see 1 Tim 4:3-5; Matt 19:11-12; 1 Cor 7:29-35). The structure of the new creation will be fully realized in the coming age, and it is not the ideal for the present time. Therefore, Christian women in all times and places must recognize their role in the created order of God. They must not teach men or exercise authority over men in the church (see also 1 Cor 11:2-16; 14:34-35).<\/p>\nPolemical Interpretation.<\/em> Paul was addressing a particular situation created by the false teaching within the Ephesian church (see 1 Tim 1:18-20; 4:1-5; cp. 2 Tim 3:6-9). Evidence suggests that this teaching was disturbing family relationships (see 1 Tim 4:3; Titus 1:11). It is possible that Ephesian women, caught up in the local heresy, were abusing Genesis 1–3 in their teaching. They might have been asserting female domination in the final resurrection (which, according to some of the Ephesians, had already occurred; 2 Tim 2:18) and accentuated Adam’s blame for the Fall. Paul corrects their misreadings by alluding to the biblical text, but his point is not to make a universal statement about the status of women in the church. His concern is merely to silence the false teachers in Ephesus, including the women among them. First Timothy 2:11-15 entails a rebuke with loss of privilege specifically for those false teachers.<\/p>\nCultural Interpretation.<\/em> Paul’s argument was not necessarily directed to a local problem in Ephesus, but it presupposes a strongly patriarchal society, both in concern for public decorum (women in their place, showing proper honor to men) and in handling Genesis 2:7, 22. This shows that Christians must respect cultural norms insofar as possible in their evangelistic mission (1 Cor 9:19-23). In addition, most women in that society had limited training as teachers. Their society, in contrast to many twenty-first-century societies, usually educated women poorly. Because of that culture’s patriarchal structure, women would not normally have qualified as teachers and leaders. First Timothy 2:11-15, therefore, reflects the notion that properly qualified people should lead and teach. At the same time, there are examples in Paul’s writings and in the early church of women participating in various facets of ministry (e.g., Acts 18:26; Rom 16:1-7; 1 Cor 11:5). This leads to questions about the universal applicability of Paul’s statements on women in the church.<\/p>\nChristians continue to discuss these complex issues. Many Christians today subscribe to a complementarian viewpoint, affirming distinct gender roles in the church, while many others take an egalitarian position, supporting the notion that men and women share equal roles in the church. All Christians affirm, however, the equality of men and women with respect to their identity as beloved children of God (see Galatians 3:26-28).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:23-24; Acts 18:26; Rom 16:1-7; 1 Cor 11:2-16; 14:34-35; Gal 3:28; 1 Tim 2:11-15<\/p>","summary_ro":"Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church Paul’s words in 1 Timothy regarding women’s roles in the church were intended to correct what was happening in Ephesus, but the extent to which this passage applies to other situations is a subject of discussion. The possible understandings include the following three: Universal Interpretation. Galatians 3:28 (“There is no longer . . . male and female”) does not negate creational gender distinctions and roles. Even if Galatians 3:28 represents the ide...","summary_en":"Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church Paul’s words in 1 Timothy regarding women’s roles in the church were intended to correct what was happening in Ephesus, but the extent to which this passage applies to other situations is a subject of discussion. The possible understandings include the following three: Universal Interpretation. Galatians 3:28 (“There is no longer . . . male and female”) does not negate creational gender distinctions and roles. Even if Galatians 3:28 represents the ide...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"8":[{"id":471,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Adam (Person)","title_en":"Adam (Person)","content_ro":"<h3>ADAM (Person<\/span>)<\/h3>\nFirst man and father of the human race. Adam’s role in biblical history is important not only in OT considerations but also in understanding the meaning of salvation and the person and work of Jesus Christ.<\/p>\nThe creation of Adam and the first woman, Eve, is recited in two accounts in the book of Genesis. The intent of the first account (1:26-31) is to present the first pair in their relationship to God and to the rest of the created order. It teaches that with regard to God the first humans were created male and female in God’s image with his specific mandate to populate and rule over the earth. With regard to the rest of creation the first humans were, on one hand, part of it, being created on the same day as other land animals; on the other hand, they were distinctly above it, being the culmination of the creation process and sole bearers of God’s image.<\/p>\nThe intent of the second account is much more specific (2:4–3:24); it seeks to explain the origin of the present human condition of sin and death and to set the stage for the drama of redemption. The story treats in detail aspects of Adam’s creation omitted from the first story. For example, it tells of the formation of Adam from the dust of the ground and of his receiving the breath of life from God (2:7). It recounts the planting of the Garden and the responsibility given to Adam to cultivate it (2:8-15). God’s instruction to Adam that the fruit of every tree in the Garden was his for food, except one, is carefully recorded, as well as the solemn warning that the fruit of the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” was never to be eaten, under the pain of death (2:16-17). Adam’s loneliness after naming the animals and not finding a suitable companion is also described, thus introducing the creation of the first woman (2:18-22). The creation of Eve from Adam’s rib poignantly portrays the essential unity of spirit and purpose of the sexes intended by God.<\/p>\nThe story does not end on such a positive note, however. It moves on to record the great deception Satan played upon Eve through the serpent. By clever insinuations and distortion of God’s original commandment (cf. 3:1 with 2:16-17), the serpent tricked Eve into eating the forbidden fruit and sharing it with Adam. Eve seems to have eaten because she was deceived (1 Tm 2:14), Adam out of a willful and conscious rebellion. Ironically, the two beings originally created in God’s image and likeness believed that they could become “like” God by disobeying him (Gn 3:5).<\/p>\nThe effects of their disobedience were immediate, though not at all what Adam had expected. For the first time a barrier of shame disrupted the unity of man and woman (3:7). More important, a barrier of real moral guilt was erected between the first couple and God. The story relates that when God came looking for Adam after his rebellion, he was hiding among the trees, already aware of his separation from God (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam threw the blame on Eve and, by implication, back on God: “It was the woman you gave me who brought me the fruit” (3:12, nlt<\/span>). Eve in turn blamed the serpent (3:13).<\/p>\nAccording to the story in Genesis, God held all three responsible and informed each one of the calamitous consequences of their rebellion (3:14-19). The two great mandates, originally signs of pure blessing, became mixed with curse and pain—the earth could now be populated only through the woman’s birth pangs and could be subdued only by the man’s labor and perspiration (3:16-18). Further, the unity of man and woman would be strained by man’s subjugation of her, or possibly by the beginning of a struggle for dominance between them (3:16b can be taken both ways). Finally, God pronounced the ultimate consequence: as he had originally warned, Adam and Eve were to die. Someday the breath of life would be taken from them, and their bodies would return to the dust from which they were made (3:19). That very day they also experienced a “spiritual” death; they were separated from God, the giver of life, and from the tree of life, the symbol of eternal life (3:22). God sent them out of Eden, and there was no way back. The entrance to paradise was blocked by the cherubim and flaming sword (3:23-24). Only God could restore what they had lost.<\/p>\nThe story is not devoid of hope. God was merciful even then. He made them garments of skin to cover their bodies and promised that someday the power of Satan behind the serpent would be crushed by the woman’s “seed” (Gn 3:15; cf. Rom 16:20). Many scholars consider that promise to be the first biblical mention of redemption.<\/p>\nThe Significance of Adam<\/p>\nAdam’s significance is based upon several assumptions, the first being that he was a historical individual. That assumption was made by many OT writers (Gn 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7). The NT writers agreed (Lk 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tm 2:13-14; Jude 1:14). Equally essential to Adam’s significance is a second assumption, that he was more than an individual. To begin with, the Hebrew word adam<\/span> (more correctly ’a–dha–m<\/span>) is not merely a proper name. Even in the Genesis story it is not used as a name until Genesis 4:25. The word is one of several Hebrew words meaning “man” and is the generic term for “human race.” In the vast majority of cases it refers either to a male individual (Lv 1:2; Jos 14:15; Neh 9:29; Is 56:2) or to humanity in general (Ex 4:11; Nm 12:3; 16:29; Dt 4:28; 1 Kgs 4:31; Jb 7:20; 14:1). The generic, collective sense of the word adam<\/span> is also behind the phrase “children (or sons) of men” (2 Sm 7:14; Pss 11:4; 12:1; 14:2; 53:2; 90:3; Eccl 1:13; 2:3). That phrase, literally “sons of adam<\/span>,”<\/em> simply means “men” or “human beings,” and when it is used the entire human race is in view. Indeed, the universalistic human connotation of the word adam<\/span> indicates a concern in the OT going far beyond Israel’s nationalistic hopes and its God—to all the earth’s people and the Lord of all nations (Gn 9:5-7; Dt 5:24; 8:3; 1 Kgs 8:38-39; Pss 8:4; 89:48; 107:8-31; Prv 12:14; Mi 6:8).<\/p>\nIt is no accident, then, that the first man was named “Adam” or “Man.” The name intimates that to speak about Adam is somehow also to speak about the entire human race. Such usage can perhaps best be understood through the ancient concept of corporate personality and representation familiar to the Hebrews and other Near Eastern peoples. Modern thinking emphasizes the individual; existence of the social group and all social relationships has been seen as secondary to, and dependent upon, the existence and desire of the individual. The Hebrew understanding was quite different. Though the separate personality of the individual was appreciated (Jer 31:29-30; Ez 18:4), there was a strong tendency to see the social group (family, tribe, nation) as a single organism with a corporate identity of its own. Likewise the group representative was seen as the embodiment or personification of the corporate personality of the group. Within the representative the essential qualities and characteristics of the social group resided in such a way that the actions and decisions of the representative were binding on the entire group. If the group was a family, the father was usually considered the corporate representative; for good or for ill his family, and sometimes his descendants, received the results of his actions (Gn 17:1-8; cf. Gn 20:1-9, 18; Ex 20:5-6; Jos 7:24-25; Rom 11:28; Heb 7:1-10).<\/p>\nAs the original man and father of humankind, in whose image all succeeding generations would be born (Gn 5:3), Adam was the corporate representative of humanity. The creation accounts themselves give the impression that the mandates of Genesis 1:26-30 (cf. Gn 9:1, 7; Pss 8:5-7; 104:14) as well as the curses of Genesis 3:16-19 (cf. Ps 90:3; Eccl 12:7; Is 13:8; 21:3) were meant not only for Adam (and Eve) but, through him, for the entire race.<\/p>\nIn Romans 5:12-21 the apostle Paul contrasted the death and condemnation brought upon humanity by Adam’s disobedience with the life and justification given to humanity through Christ’s obedience. More explicitly, in 1 Corinthians 15:45-50 (rsv<\/span>), Paul called Christ the “last Adam,” “second man,” and the “man of heaven” in juxtaposition to the “first Adam,” the “first man,” and the “man of dust.”<\/p>\nFor Paul, the human race was divided into two groups in the persons of Adam and Christ. Those who remain “incorporated” in Adam are the “old” humanity, bearing the image of the “man of dust” and partaking of his sin and alienation from God and Creation (Rom 5:12-19; 8:20-22). But those who are incorporated into Christ by faith become Christ’s “body” (Rom 12:4-5; 1 Cor 12:12-13, 27; Eph 1:22-23; Col 1:18); they are recreated in Christ’s image (Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 3:18); they become one “new man” (Eph 2:15; 4:24; Col 3:9-10, kjv<\/span>); and they partake of the new creation (2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The old barriers raised by Adam are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16). For Paul, the functional similarity of Adam and Christ as representatives meant that Christ had restored what Adam had lost.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Eve; Man, Old and New; New Creation, New Creature.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>ADAM (Person<\/span>)<\/h3>\nFirst man and father of the human race. Adam’s role in biblical history is important not only in OT considerations but also in understanding the meaning of salvation and the person and work of Jesus Christ.<\/p>\nThe creation of Adam and the first woman, Eve, is recited in two accounts in the book of Genesis. The intent of the first account (1:26-31) is to present the first pair in their relationship to God and to the rest of the created order. It teaches that with regard to God the first humans were created male and female in God’s image with his specific mandate to populate and rule over the earth. With regard to the rest of creation the first humans were, on one hand, part of it, being created on the same day as other land animals; on the other hand, they were distinctly above it, being the culmination of the creation process and sole bearers of God’s image.<\/p>\nThe intent of the second account is much more specific (2:4–3:24); it seeks to explain the origin of the present human condition of sin and death and to set the stage for the drama of redemption. The story treats in detail aspects of Adam’s creation omitted from the first story. For example, it tells of the formation of Adam from the dust of the ground and of his receiving the breath of life from God (2:7). It recounts the planting of the Garden and the responsibility given to Adam to cultivate it (2:8-15). God’s instruction to Adam that the fruit of every tree in the Garden was his for food, except one, is carefully recorded, as well as the solemn warning that the fruit of the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” was never to be eaten, under the pain of death (2:16-17). Adam’s loneliness after naming the animals and not finding a suitable companion is also described, thus introducing the creation of the first woman (2:18-22). The creation of Eve from Adam’s rib poignantly portrays the essential unity of spirit and purpose of the sexes intended by God.<\/p>\nThe story does not end on such a positive note, however. It moves on to record the great deception Satan played upon Eve through the serpent. By clever insinuations and distortion of God’s original commandment (cf. 3:1 with 2:16-17), the serpent tricked Eve into eating the forbidden fruit and sharing it with Adam. Eve seems to have eaten because she was deceived (1 Tm 2:14), Adam out of a willful and conscious rebellion. Ironically, the two beings originally created in God’s image and likeness believed that they could become “like” God by disobeying him (Gn 3:5).<\/p>\nThe effects of their disobedience were immediate, though not at all what Adam had expected. For the first time a barrier of shame disrupted the unity of man and woman (3:7). More important, a barrier of real moral guilt was erected between the first couple and God. The story relates that when God came looking for Adam after his rebellion, he was hiding among the trees, already aware of his separation from God (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam threw the blame on Eve and, by implication, back on God: “It was the woman you gave me who brought me the fruit” (3:12, nlt<\/span>). Eve in turn blamed the serpent (3:13).<\/p>\nAccording to the story in Genesis, God held all three responsible and informed each one of the calamitous consequences of their rebellion (3:14-19). The two great mandates, originally signs of pure blessing, became mixed with curse and pain—the earth could now be populated only through the woman’s birth pangs and could be subdued only by the man’s labor and perspiration (3:16-18). Further, the unity of man and woman would be strained by man’s subjugation of her, or possibly by the beginning of a struggle for dominance between them (3:16b can be taken both ways). Finally, God pronounced the ultimate consequence: as he had originally warned, Adam and Eve were to die. Someday the breath of life would be taken from them, and their bodies would return to the dust from which they were made (3:19). That very day they also experienced a “spiritual” death; they were separated from God, the giver of life, and from the tree of life, the symbol of eternal life (3:22). God sent them out of Eden, and there was no way back. The entrance to paradise was blocked by the cherubim and flaming sword (3:23-24). Only God could restore what they had lost.<\/p>\nThe story is not devoid of hope. God was merciful even then. He made them garments of skin to cover their bodies and promised that someday the power of Satan behind the serpent would be crushed by the woman’s “seed” (Gn 3:15; cf. Rom 16:20). Many scholars consider that promise to be the first biblical mention of redemption.<\/p>\nThe Significance of Adam<\/p>\nAdam’s significance is based upon several assumptions, the first being that he was a historical individual. That assumption was made by many OT writers (Gn 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7). The NT writers agreed (Lk 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tm 2:13-14; Jude 1:14). Equally essential to Adam’s significance is a second assumption, that he was more than an individual. To begin with, the Hebrew word adam<\/span> (more correctly ’a–dha–m<\/span>) is not merely a proper name. Even in the Genesis story it is not used as a name until Genesis 4:25. The word is one of several Hebrew words meaning “man” and is the generic term for “human race.” In the vast majority of cases it refers either to a male individual (Lv 1:2; Jos 14:15; Neh 9:29; Is 56:2) or to humanity in general (Ex 4:11; Nm 12:3; 16:29; Dt 4:28; 1 Kgs 4:31; Jb 7:20; 14:1). The generic, collective sense of the word adam<\/span> is also behind the phrase “children (or sons) of men” (2 Sm 7:14; Pss 11:4; 12:1; 14:2; 53:2; 90:3; Eccl 1:13; 2:3). That phrase, literally “sons of adam<\/span>,”<\/em> simply means “men” or “human beings,” and when it is used the entire human race is in view. Indeed, the universalistic human connotation of the word adam<\/span> indicates a concern in the OT going far beyond Israel’s nationalistic hopes and its God—to all the earth’s people and the Lord of all nations (Gn 9:5-7; Dt 5:24; 8:3; 1 Kgs 8:38-39; Pss 8:4; 89:48; 107:8-31; Prv 12:14; Mi 6:8).<\/p>\nIt is no accident, then, that the first man was named “Adam” or “Man.” The name intimates that to speak about Adam is somehow also to speak about the entire human race. Such usage can perhaps best be understood through the ancient concept of corporate personality and representation familiar to the Hebrews and other Near Eastern peoples. Modern thinking emphasizes the individual; existence of the social group and all social relationships has been seen as secondary to, and dependent upon, the existence and desire of the individual. The Hebrew understanding was quite different. Though the separate personality of the individual was appreciated (Jer 31:29-30; Ez 18:4), there was a strong tendency to see the social group (family, tribe, nation) as a single organism with a corporate identity of its own. Likewise the group representative was seen as the embodiment or personification of the corporate personality of the group. Within the representative the essential qualities and characteristics of the social group resided in such a way that the actions and decisions of the representative were binding on the entire group. If the group was a family, the father was usually considered the corporate representative; for good or for ill his family, and sometimes his descendants, received the results of his actions (Gn 17:1-8; cf. Gn 20:1-9, 18; Ex 20:5-6; Jos 7:24-25; Rom 11:28; Heb 7:1-10).<\/p>\nAs the original man and father of humankind, in whose image all succeeding generations would be born (Gn 5:3), Adam was the corporate representative of humanity. The creation accounts themselves give the impression that the mandates of Genesis 1:26-30 (cf. Gn 9:1, 7; Pss 8:5-7; 104:14) as well as the curses of Genesis 3:16-19 (cf. Ps 90:3; Eccl 12:7; Is 13:8; 21:3) were meant not only for Adam (and Eve) but, through him, for the entire race.<\/p>\nIn Romans 5:12-21 the apostle Paul contrasted the death and condemnation brought upon humanity by Adam’s disobedience with the life and justification given to humanity through Christ’s obedience. More explicitly, in 1 Corinthians 15:45-50 (rsv<\/span>), Paul called Christ the “last Adam,” “second man,” and the “man of heaven” in juxtaposition to the “first Adam,” the “first man,” and the “man of dust.”<\/p>\nFor Paul, the human race was divided into two groups in the persons of Adam and Christ. Those who remain “incorporated” in Adam are the “old” humanity, bearing the image of the “man of dust” and partaking of his sin and alienation from God and Creation (Rom 5:12-19; 8:20-22). But those who are incorporated into Christ by faith become Christ’s “body” (Rom 12:4-5; 1 Cor 12:12-13, 27; Eph 1:22-23; Col 1:18); they are recreated in Christ’s image (Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 3:18); they become one “new man” (Eph 2:15; 4:24; Col 3:9-10, kjv<\/span>); and they partake of the new creation (2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The old barriers raised by Adam are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16). For Paul, the functional similarity of Adam and Christ as representatives meant that Christ had restored what Adam had lost.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Eve; Man, Old and New; New Creation, New Creature.<\/p>","summary_ro":"ADAM (Person) First man and father of the human race. Adam’s role in biblical history is important not only in OT considerations but also in understanding the meaning of salvation and the person and work of Jesus Christ. The creation of Adam and the first woman, Eve, is recited in two accounts in the book of Genesis. The intent of the first account (1:26-31) is to present the first pair in their relationship to God and to the rest of the created order. It teaches that with regard to God the f...","summary_en":"ADAM (Person) First man and father of the human race. Adam’s role in biblical history is important not only in OT considerations but also in understanding the meaning of salvation and the person and work of Jesus Christ. The creation of Adam and the first woman, Eve, is recited in two accounts in the book of Genesis. The intent of the first account (1:26-31) is to present the first pair in their relationship to God and to the rest of the created order. It teaches that with regard to God the f...","source":"Articles\/A.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":10071,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Eden","title_en":"Eden","content_ro":"<h3>EDEN<\/h3>\n<li>1. Place where Adam and Eve lived until they sinned against God and were banished (Gn 2:8, 15; 3:23-24). See<\/em> Garden of Eden.<\/li>\n<li>2. Alternate form of Beth-eden in Ezekiel 27:23. See<\/em> Beth-eden.<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>EDEN<\/h3>\n<li>1. Place where Adam and Eve lived until they sinned against God and were banished (Gn 2:8, 15; 3:23-24). See<\/em> Garden of Eden.<\/li>\n<li>2. Alternate form of Beth-eden in Ezekiel 27:23. See<\/em> Beth-eden.<\/li>","summary_ro":"EDEN 1. Place where Adam and Eve lived until they sinned against God and were banished (Gn 2:8, 15; 3:23-24). See Garden of Eden. 2. Alternate form of Beth-eden in Ezekiel 27:23. See Beth-eden.","summary_en":"EDEN 1. Place where Adam and Eve lived until they sinned against God and were banished (Gn 2:8, 15; 3:23-24). See Garden of Eden. 2. Alternate form of Beth-eden in Ezekiel 27:23. See Beth-eden.","source":"Articles\/E.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":13220,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Garden of Eden","title_en":"Garden of Eden","content_ro":"<h3>GARDEN OF EDEN<\/h3>\nLocation in the east of Eden (Gn 2:8) in the Tigris-Euphrates area of Mesopotamia, referred to 14 times in the OT. The information in Genesis 2:8-10 indicates that it was in the Shinar Plain area, and that four “heads” or branches were formed from the one river flowing through Eden to water the Garden. The heads were the Tigris and Euphrates (both of which are familiar modern rivers) and two rivers that have disappeared—the Pishon and Gihon. The latter were most probably natural water channels, later used as irrigation canals, since in cuneiform there is no separate word for “river” and “irrigation canal.” If Pishon and Gihon were in fact irrigation canals, then Genesis places Adamic man in an actual geographical setting and therefore obviates the notion that Eden was a myth. If the above identification is correct, Cush referred to the land of the ancient Kassites, while Havilah may have indicated Arabia.<\/p>\nEden was the testing ground of man’s fidelity to God’s commands, and through disobedience, the Garden was lost. It will be regained in the form of the new paradise (Rv 22:14).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Adam (Person); Eve; Fall of Man; Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil; Tree of Life.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>GARDEN OF EDEN<\/h3>\nLocation in the east of Eden (Gn 2:8) in the Tigris-Euphrates area of Mesopotamia, referred to 14 times in the OT. The information in Genesis 2:8-10 indicates that it was in the Shinar Plain area, and that four “heads” or branches were formed from the one river flowing through Eden to water the Garden. The heads were the Tigris and Euphrates (both of which are familiar modern rivers) and two rivers that have disappeared—the Pishon and Gihon. The latter were most probably natural water channels, later used as irrigation canals, since in cuneiform there is no separate word for “river” and “irrigation canal.” If Pishon and Gihon were in fact irrigation canals, then Genesis places Adamic man in an actual geographical setting and therefore obviates the notion that Eden was a myth. If the above identification is correct, Cush referred to the land of the ancient Kassites, while Havilah may have indicated Arabia.<\/p>\nEden was the testing ground of man’s fidelity to God’s commands, and through disobedience, the Garden was lost. It will be regained in the form of the new paradise (Rv 22:14).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Adam (Person); Eve; Fall of Man; Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil; Tree of Life.<\/p>","summary_ro":"GARDEN OF EDEN Location in the east of Eden (Gn 2:8) in the Tigris-Euphrates area of Mesopotamia, referred to 14 times in the OT. The information in Genesis 2:8-10 indicates that it was in the Shinar Plain area, and that four “heads” or branches were formed from the one river flowing through Eden to water the Garden. The heads were the Tigris and Euphrates (both of which are familiar modern rivers) and two rivers that have disappeared—the Pishon and Gihon. The latter were most probably natura...","summary_en":"GARDEN OF EDEN Location in the east of Eden (Gn 2:8) in the Tigris-Euphrates area of Mesopotamia, referred to 14 times in the OT. The information in Genesis 2:8-10 indicates that it was in the Shinar Plain area, and that four “heads” or branches were formed from the one river flowing through Eden to water the Garden. The heads were the Tigris and Euphrates (both of which are familiar modern rivers) and two rivers that have disappeared—the Pishon and Gihon. The latter were most probably natura...","source":"Articles\/G.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":37669,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Tree of Life","title_en":"Tree of Life","content_ro":"<h3>TREE OF LIFE<\/h3>\nTree placed by God in the midst of the Garden of Eden (Gn 2:8-9), a tree whose fruit could give eternal life. God told Adam that he could eat from every tree of the Garden except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (vv 16-17). When Adam and Eve disobeyed God by eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they were expelled from the garden lest they “take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever” (3:22).<\/p>\nThe Genesis narrative suggests that God intended the tree of life to provide Adam and Eve with a symbol of life in fellowship with and dependence on him. Human life, as distinguished from that of the animals, is much more than merely biological; it is also spiritual—it finds its deepest fulfillment in fellowship with God. Life in the fullness of its physical and spiritual dimensions, however, could remain a person’s possession only so long as he or she remained obedient to God’s command (Gn 2:17). Apart from Genesis, the only other OT occurrences of the phrase the “tree of life” are found in Proverbs (quoted here from rsv<\/span>), where it symbolizes the enrichment of life in various ways. In Proverbs 3:18 wisdom is referred to as “a tree of life to those who lay hold of her”; in 11:30 “the fruit of the righteous is a tree of life”; in 13:12 a fulfilled desire is as “a tree of life”; and in 15:4 “a gentle tongue is a tree of life.”<\/p>\nThe book of Revelation contains the only references to the tree of life in the NT (Rv 2:7; 22:2, 14, 19). The Bible begins and ends with a Paradise in the midst of which is a tree of life. The way to the tree of life, which was closed in Genesis 3, is open again for God’s believing people. This was made possible by the second Adam, Jesus Christ. Those who have washed their robes in the blood of Christ (cf. Rv 7:14) and have sought forgiveness of their sin through the redemptive work of Christ, receive the right to the tree of life (22:14), but the disobedient will have no access to it.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Adam (Person); Eve; Fall of Man; Garden of Eden; Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>TREE OF LIFE<\/h3>\nTree placed by God in the midst of the Garden of Eden (Gn 2:8-9), a tree whose fruit could give eternal life. God told Adam that he could eat from every tree of the Garden except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (vv 16-17). When Adam and Eve disobeyed God by eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they were expelled from the garden lest they “take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever” (3:22).<\/p>\nThe Genesis narrative suggests that God intended the tree of life to provide Adam and Eve with a symbol of life in fellowship with and dependence on him. Human life, as distinguished from that of the animals, is much more than merely biological; it is also spiritual—it finds its deepest fulfillment in fellowship with God. Life in the fullness of its physical and spiritual dimensions, however, could remain a person’s possession only so long as he or she remained obedient to God’s command (Gn 2:17). Apart from Genesis, the only other OT occurrences of the phrase the “tree of life” are found in Proverbs (quoted here from rsv<\/span>), where it symbolizes the enrichment of life in various ways. In Proverbs 3:18 wisdom is referred to as “a tree of life to those who lay hold of her”; in 11:30 “the fruit of the righteous is a tree of life”; in 13:12 a fulfilled desire is as “a tree of life”; and in 15:4 “a gentle tongue is a tree of life.”<\/p>\nThe book of Revelation contains the only references to the tree of life in the NT (Rv 2:7; 22:2, 14, 19). The Bible begins and ends with a Paradise in the midst of which is a tree of life. The way to the tree of life, which was closed in Genesis 3, is open again for God’s believing people. This was made possible by the second Adam, Jesus Christ. Those who have washed their robes in the blood of Christ (cf. Rv 7:14) and have sought forgiveness of their sin through the redemptive work of Christ, receive the right to the tree of life (22:14), but the disobedient will have no access to it.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Adam (Person); Eve; Fall of Man; Garden of Eden; Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.<\/p>","summary_ro":"TREE OF LIFE Tree placed by God in the midst of the Garden of Eden (Gn 2:8-9), a tree whose fruit could give eternal life. God told Adam that he could eat from every tree of the Garden except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (vv 16-17). When Adam and Eve disobeyed God by eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they were expelled from the garden lest they “take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever” (3:22). The Genesis narrative suggests that God intend...","summary_en":"TREE OF LIFE Tree placed by God in the midst of the Garden of Eden (Gn 2:8-9), a tree whose fruit could give eternal life. God told Adam that he could eat from every tree of the Garden except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (vv 16-17). When Adam and Eve disobeyed God by eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they were expelled from the garden lest they “take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever” (3:22). The Genesis narrative suggests that God intend...","source":"Articles\/T.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":42843,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:8","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:8","content_ro":"2:8-14<\/strong> Analogous to the sacred time marked out on the seventh day of creation (2:2-3), the sacred space of the garden in Eden<\/em> was separate from the surrounding world. It functioned as a garden-temple or sanctuary because the Lord manifested his presence there in a special way.<\/p>","content_en":"2:8-14<\/strong> Analogous to the sacred time marked out on the seventh day of creation (2:2-3), the sacred space of the garden in Eden<\/em> was separate from the surrounding world. It functioned as a garden-temple or sanctuary because the Lord manifested his presence there in a special way.<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:8-14 Analogous to the sacred time marked out on the seventh day of creation (2:2-3), the sacred space of the garden in Eden was separate from the surrounding world. It functioned as a garden-temple or sanctuary because the Lord manifested his presence there in a special way.","summary_en":"2:8-14 Analogous to the sacred time marked out on the seventh day of creation (2:2-3), the sacred space of the garden in Eden was separate from the surrounding world. It functioned as a garden-temple or sanctuary because the Lord manifested his presence there in a special way.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":42844,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:8","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:8","content_ro":"2:8<\/strong> Eden<\/em> was the general location in which the garden<\/em> was placed, not the garden itself. The term could mean “plain,” “delight,” or “fertility.” The description that follows favors the idea of fertility. • in the east:<\/em> The exact location of Eden is left to speculation, but it was east of Canaan, Israel’s later home. • God placed the man<\/em> in the garden for divine fellowship and physical blessing (see also 2:15 and study note there).<\/p>","content_en":"2:8<\/strong> Eden<\/em> was the general location in which the garden<\/em> was placed, not the garden itself. The term could mean “plain,” “delight,” or “fertility.” The description that follows favors the idea of fertility. • in the east:<\/em> The exact location of Eden is left to speculation, but it was east of Canaan, Israel’s later home. • God placed the man<\/em> in the garden for divine fellowship and physical blessing (see also 2:15 and study note there).<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:8 Eden was the general location in which the garden was placed, not the garden itself. The term could mean “plain,” “delight,” or “fertility.” The description that follows favors the idea of fertility. • in the east: The exact location of Eden is left to speculation, but it was east of Canaan, Israel’s later home. • God placed the man in the garden for divine fellowship and physical blessing (see also 2:15 and study note there).","summary_en":"2:8 Eden was the general location in which the garden was placed, not the garden itself. The term could mean “plain,” “delight,” or “fertility.” The description that follows favors the idea of fertility. • in the east: The exact location of Eden is left to speculation, but it was east of Canaan, Israel’s later home. • God placed the man in the garden for divine fellowship and physical blessing (see also 2:15 and study note there).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":70469,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:8","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:8","content_ro":"2:8-14<\/strong> Analogous to the sacred time marked out on the seventh day of creation (2:2-3), the sacred space of the garden in Eden<\/em> was separate from the surrounding world. It functioned as a garden-temple or sanctuary because the Lord manifested his presence there in a special way.<\/p>","content_en":"2:8-14<\/strong> Analogous to the sacred time marked out on the seventh day of creation (2:2-3), the sacred space of the garden in Eden<\/em> was separate from the surrounding world. It functioned as a garden-temple or sanctuary because the Lord manifested his presence there in a special way.<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:8-14 Analogous to the sacred time marked out on the seventh day of creation (2:2-3), the sacred space of the garden in Eden was separate from the surrounding world. It functioned as a garden-temple or sanctuary because the Lord manifested his presence there in a special way.","summary_en":"2:8-14 Analogous to the sacred time marked out on the seventh day of creation (2:2-3), the sacred space of the garden in Eden was separate from the surrounding world. It functioned as a garden-temple or sanctuary because the Lord manifested his presence there in a special way.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":70470,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:8","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:8","content_ro":"2:8<\/strong> Eden<\/em> was the general location in which the garden<\/em> was placed, not the garden itself. The term could mean “plain,” “delight,” or “fertility.” The description that follows favors the idea of fertility. • in the east:<\/em> The exact location of Eden is left to speculation, but it was east of Canaan, Israel’s later home. • God placed the man<\/em> in the garden for divine fellowship and physical blessing (see also 2:15 and study note there).<\/p>","content_en":"2:8<\/strong> Eden<\/em> was the general location in which the garden<\/em> was placed, not the garden itself. The term could mean “plain,” “delight,” or “fertility.” The description that follows favors the idea of fertility. • in the east:<\/em> The exact location of Eden is left to speculation, but it was east of Canaan, Israel’s later home. • God placed the man<\/em> in the garden for divine fellowship and physical blessing (see also 2:15 and study note there).<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:8 Eden was the general location in which the garden was placed, not the garden itself. The term could mean “plain,” “delight,” or “fertility.” The description that follows favors the idea of fertility. • in the east: The exact location of Eden is left to speculation, but it was east of Canaan, Israel’s later home. • God placed the man in the garden for divine fellowship and physical blessing (see also 2:15 and study note there).","summary_en":"2:8 Eden was the general location in which the garden was placed, not the garden itself. The term could mean “plain,” “delight,” or “fertility.” The description that follows favors the idea of fertility. • in the east: The exact location of Eden is left to speculation, but it was east of Canaan, Israel’s later home. • God placed the man in the garden for divine fellowship and physical blessing (see also 2:15 and study note there).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":98095,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:8","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:8","content_ro":"2:8-14<\/strong> Analogous to the sacred time marked out on the seventh day of creation (2:2-3), the sacred space of the garden in Eden<\/em> was separate from the surrounding world. It functioned as a garden-temple or sanctuary because the Lord manifested his presence there in a special way.<\/p>","content_en":"2:8-14<\/strong> Analogous to the sacred time marked out on the seventh day of creation (2:2-3), the sacred space of the garden in Eden<\/em> was separate from the surrounding world. It functioned as a garden-temple or sanctuary because the Lord manifested his presence there in a special way.<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:8-14 Analogous to the sacred time marked out on the seventh day of creation (2:2-3), the sacred space of the garden in Eden was separate from the surrounding world. It functioned as a garden-temple or sanctuary because the Lord manifested his presence there in a special way.","summary_en":"2:8-14 Analogous to the sacred time marked out on the seventh day of creation (2:2-3), the sacred space of the garden in Eden was separate from the surrounding world. It functioned as a garden-temple or sanctuary because the Lord manifested his presence there in a special way.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":98096,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:8","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:8","content_ro":"2:8<\/strong> Eden<\/em> was the general location in which the garden<\/em> was placed, not the garden itself. The term could mean “plain,” “delight,” or “fertility.” The description that follows favors the idea of fertility. • in the east:<\/em> The exact location of Eden is left to speculation, but it was east of Canaan, Israel’s later home. • God placed the man<\/em> in the garden for divine fellowship and physical blessing (see also 2:15 and study note there).<\/p>","content_en":"2:8<\/strong> Eden<\/em> was the general location in which the garden<\/em> was placed, not the garden itself. The term could mean “plain,” “delight,” or “fertility.” The description that follows favors the idea of fertility. • in the east:<\/em> The exact location of Eden is left to speculation, but it was east of Canaan, Israel’s later home. • God placed the man<\/em> in the garden for divine fellowship and physical blessing (see also 2:15 and study note there).<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:8 Eden was the general location in which the garden was placed, not the garden itself. The term could mean “plain,” “delight,” or “fertility.” The description that follows favors the idea of fertility. • in the east: The exact location of Eden is left to speculation, but it was east of Canaan, Israel’s later home. • God placed the man in the garden for divine fellowship and physical blessing (see also 2:15 and study note there).","summary_en":"2:8 Eden was the general location in which the garden was placed, not the garden itself. The term could mean “plain,” “delight,” or “fertility.” The description that follows favors the idea of fertility. • in the east: The exact location of Eden is left to speculation, but it was east of Canaan, Israel’s later home. • God placed the man in the garden for divine fellowship and physical blessing (see also 2:15 and study note there).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":125721,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:8","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:8","content_ro":"2:8-14<\/strong> Analogous to the sacred time marked out on the seventh day of creation (2:2-3), the sacred space of the garden in Eden<\/em> was separate from the surrounding world. It functioned as a garden-temple or sanctuary because the Lord manifested his presence there in a special way.<\/p>","content_en":"2:8-14<\/strong> Analogous to the sacred time marked out on the seventh day of creation (2:2-3), the sacred space of the garden in Eden<\/em> was separate from the surrounding world. It functioned as a garden-temple or sanctuary because the Lord manifested his presence there in a special way.<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:8-14 Analogous to the sacred time marked out on the seventh day of creation (2:2-3), the sacred space of the garden in Eden was separate from the surrounding world. It functioned as a garden-temple or sanctuary because the Lord manifested his presence there in a special way.","summary_en":"2:8-14 Analogous to the sacred time marked out on the seventh day of creation (2:2-3), the sacred space of the garden in Eden was separate from the surrounding world. It functioned as a garden-temple or sanctuary because the Lord manifested his presence there in a special way.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":125722,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:8","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:8","content_ro":"2:8<\/strong> Eden<\/em> was the general location in which the garden<\/em> was placed, not the garden itself. The term could mean “plain,” “delight,” or “fertility.” The description that follows favors the idea of fertility. • in the east:<\/em> The exact location of Eden is left to speculation, but it was east of Canaan, Israel’s later home. • God placed the man<\/em> in the garden for divine fellowship and physical blessing (see also 2:15 and study note there).<\/p>","content_en":"2:8<\/strong> Eden<\/em> was the general location in which the garden<\/em> was placed, not the garden itself. The term could mean “plain,” “delight,” or “fertility.” The description that follows favors the idea of fertility. • in the east:<\/em> The exact location of Eden is left to speculation, but it was east of Canaan, Israel’s later home. • God placed the man<\/em> in the garden for divine fellowship and physical blessing (see also 2:15 and study note there).<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:8 Eden was the general location in which the garden was placed, not the garden itself. The term could mean “plain,” “delight,” or “fertility.” The description that follows favors the idea of fertility. • in the east: The exact location of Eden is left to speculation, but it was east of Canaan, Israel’s later home. • God placed the man in the garden for divine fellowship and physical blessing (see also 2:15 and study note there).","summary_en":"2:8 Eden was the general location in which the garden was placed, not the garden itself. The term could mean “plain,” “delight,” or “fertility.” The description that follows favors the idea of fertility. • in the east: The exact location of Eden is left to speculation, but it was east of Canaan, Israel’s later home. • God placed the man in the garden for divine fellowship and physical blessing (see also 2:15 and study note there).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"9":[{"id":4045,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Beauty","title_en":"Beauty","content_ro":"<h3>BEAUTY<\/h3>\nHarmonious combination of qualities pleasant to see. Archaeological materials indicate that the ancient Hebrews were concerned more with usefulness than with beauty. Hebrew pottery, for example, was generally more bulky than Canaanite pottery. Yet such artifacts do not mean that the Hebrews had no aesthetic appreciation.<\/p>\nThe OT speaks of God’s creation as beautiful (Gn 2:9; Jb 26:13; Ps 19:1-6; Sg 6:10). The land of Canaan is a “pleasant land” (Jer 3:19). Jerusalem is called “beautiful” (Is 52:1; Lam 2:15), as is one of its temple gates (Acts 3:2, 10). The Hebrews admired the wild grandeur of the Lebanon mountain range (Ps 104:16; Is 60:13). The Canaanite city of Tirzah (“beauty”), King Baasha’s capital in the northern kingdom (1 Kgs 15:33), was so named for its attractive location.<\/p>\nAlthough the Hebrews did not exalt the human form as did the ancient Greeks, the OT does idealize physical attractiveness. A bride’s beauty is described eloquently by her bridegroom in love lyrics in Song of Songs 4:1-15; 6:4. Such praise of the bride may have been a traditional feature of Israelite weddings. Several women prominent in the OT are described as beautiful (Gn 29:17; 2 Sm 11:2; Est 2:7). But sensual beauty was secondary to industry, resourcefulness, and traditional piety in a woman (Prv 31:10-31). A number of men also were known for their physical attractiveness—for example, David (1 Sm 16:12) and Absalom (2 Sm 14:25). Cosmetics, jewelry, and other accessories were used as female beauty aids in OT times. The prophet Isaiah listed such items (Is 3:18-24), and Ezekiel mentioned cosmetic practices current in his day (Ez 16:10-13). Israelite worship was beautiful, too, with the high priest’s elaborate ceremonial robes designed for glory and beauty (Ex 28:2, 40).<\/p>\nThe concept of beauty is applied also to God in the OT. The Lord’s favor is called his “beauty” (Ps 90:17). Isaiah recorded God’s promise to give his people “beauty for ashes” (Is 61:3). The psalmist expressed a desire to spend time in the temple enjoying the Lord’s beauty, his “incomparable perfections” (Ps 27:4). Isaiah described God as a “diadem of beauty” to the faithful Israelite remnant (Is 28:5), and the Messiah was spoken of as a beautiful king (33:17). Thus in the OT the concept of beauty had a deeper meaning than simply physical attractiveness. It became a theological concept affirming God’s essential glory.<\/p>\nThe NT urges Christ’s followers to live lives that will “adorn” the teaching of the Savior, making it attractive to nonbelievers (Ti 2:10). Those who preach the gospel of Christ are spoken of as beautiful (Rom 10:15). The apostles Paul and Peter warned women against being satisfied with outward beauty (1 Tm 2:9-10), reminding them that beautiful character is the true adornment of godliness (1 Pt 3:3-5). The beauty of the believer’s final home in heaven is reflected in the description of the “new Jerusalem” as a bride and in the symbolism of treasured precious stones of antiquity (see Rv 21–22).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BEAUTY<\/h3>\nHarmonious combination of qualities pleasant to see. Archaeological materials indicate that the ancient Hebrews were concerned more with usefulness than with beauty. Hebrew pottery, for example, was generally more bulky than Canaanite pottery. Yet such artifacts do not mean that the Hebrews had no aesthetic appreciation.<\/p>\nThe OT speaks of God’s creation as beautiful (Gn 2:9; Jb 26:13; Ps 19:1-6; Sg 6:10). The land of Canaan is a “pleasant land” (Jer 3:19). Jerusalem is called “beautiful” (Is 52:1; Lam 2:15), as is one of its temple gates (Acts 3:2, 10). The Hebrews admired the wild grandeur of the Lebanon mountain range (Ps 104:16; Is 60:13). The Canaanite city of Tirzah (“beauty”), King Baasha’s capital in the northern kingdom (1 Kgs 15:33), was so named for its attractive location.<\/p>\nAlthough the Hebrews did not exalt the human form as did the ancient Greeks, the OT does idealize physical attractiveness. A bride’s beauty is described eloquently by her bridegroom in love lyrics in Song of Songs 4:1-15; 6:4. Such praise of the bride may have been a traditional feature of Israelite weddings. Several women prominent in the OT are described as beautiful (Gn 29:17; 2 Sm 11:2; Est 2:7). But sensual beauty was secondary to industry, resourcefulness, and traditional piety in a woman (Prv 31:10-31). A number of men also were known for their physical attractiveness—for example, David (1 Sm 16:12) and Absalom (2 Sm 14:25). Cosmetics, jewelry, and other accessories were used as female beauty aids in OT times. The prophet Isaiah listed such items (Is 3:18-24), and Ezekiel mentioned cosmetic practices current in his day (Ez 16:10-13). Israelite worship was beautiful, too, with the high priest’s elaborate ceremonial robes designed for glory and beauty (Ex 28:2, 40).<\/p>\nThe concept of beauty is applied also to God in the OT. The Lord’s favor is called his “beauty” (Ps 90:17). Isaiah recorded God’s promise to give his people “beauty for ashes” (Is 61:3). The psalmist expressed a desire to spend time in the temple enjoying the Lord’s beauty, his “incomparable perfections” (Ps 27:4). Isaiah described God as a “diadem of beauty” to the faithful Israelite remnant (Is 28:5), and the Messiah was spoken of as a beautiful king (33:17). Thus in the OT the concept of beauty had a deeper meaning than simply physical attractiveness. It became a theological concept affirming God’s essential glory.<\/p>\nThe NT urges Christ’s followers to live lives that will “adorn” the teaching of the Savior, making it attractive to nonbelievers (Ti 2:10). Those who preach the gospel of Christ are spoken of as beautiful (Rom 10:15). The apostles Paul and Peter warned women against being satisfied with outward beauty (1 Tm 2:9-10), reminding them that beautiful character is the true adornment of godliness (1 Pt 3:3-5). The beauty of the believer’s final home in heaven is reflected in the description of the “new Jerusalem” as a bride and in the symbolism of treasured precious stones of antiquity (see Rv 21–22).<\/p>","summary_ro":"BEAUTY Harmonious combination of qualities pleasant to see. Archaeological materials indicate that the ancient Hebrews were concerned more with usefulness than with beauty. Hebrew pottery, for example, was generally more bulky than Canaanite pottery. Yet such artifacts do not mean that the Hebrews had no aesthetic appreciation. The OT speaks of God’s creation as beautiful (Gn 2:9; Jb 26:13; Ps 19:1-6; Sg 6:10). The land of Canaan is a “pleasant land” (Jer 3:19). Jerusalem is called “beautiful...","summary_en":"BEAUTY Harmonious combination of qualities pleasant to see. Archaeological materials indicate that the ancient Hebrews were concerned more with usefulness than with beauty. Hebrew pottery, for example, was generally more bulky than Canaanite pottery. Yet such artifacts do not mean that the Hebrews had no aesthetic appreciation. The OT speaks of God’s creation as beautiful (Gn 2:9; Jb 26:13; Ps 19:1-6; Sg 6:10). The land of Canaan is a “pleasant land” (Jer 3:19). Jerusalem is called “beautiful...","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":37664,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil","title_en":"Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil","content_ro":"<h3>TREE OF KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL<\/h3>\nForbidden tree in Eden, whose fruit imparted knowledge and subsequent death, i.e., separation from God and ultimate expiration (Gn 2:9, 15-17; 3:1-24). The tempting serpent promised Eve equality with God if she ate the fruit. The result of Eve and Adam eating from this tree was that they indeed attained the “knowledge of good and evil.” According to the usage of the phrasing “knowing good and evil” in the rest of the Bible (Dt 1:39; Is 7:15-16; Heb 5:14), the idea is that it describes a stage in a child’s life when he or she passes from innocence to moral awareness.<\/p>\nAccompanying this knowledge is sexual self-awareness. Thus, when Adam and Eve partook of the fruit, they became aware of their own sexuality. At the same time, they were able to see as God saw and thereby thought that God would shame them for their nakedness. The story came to symbolize the loss of innocence and divine companionship through deliberate disobedience in an attempt to attain godhood.<\/p>\nThe sad result of eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was that Adam and Eve lost their innocence and were subsequently separated from God. Banishment from Eden followed to prevent the eating of fruit from a second tree, “the tree of life,” which would have made them immortal. But they would have been immortal in their fallen, sinful state. Thus, it was a blessing to banish them.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Adam (Person); Eve; Garden of Eden; Fall of Man; Tree of Life.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>TREE OF KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL<\/h3>\nForbidden tree in Eden, whose fruit imparted knowledge and subsequent death, i.e., separation from God and ultimate expiration (Gn 2:9, 15-17; 3:1-24). The tempting serpent promised Eve equality with God if she ate the fruit. The result of Eve and Adam eating from this tree was that they indeed attained the “knowledge of good and evil.” According to the usage of the phrasing “knowing good and evil” in the rest of the Bible (Dt 1:39; Is 7:15-16; Heb 5:14), the idea is that it describes a stage in a child’s life when he or she passes from innocence to moral awareness.<\/p>\nAccompanying this knowledge is sexual self-awareness. Thus, when Adam and Eve partook of the fruit, they became aware of their own sexuality. At the same time, they were able to see as God saw and thereby thought that God would shame them for their nakedness. The story came to symbolize the loss of innocence and divine companionship through deliberate disobedience in an attempt to attain godhood.<\/p>\nThe sad result of eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was that Adam and Eve lost their innocence and were subsequently separated from God. Banishment from Eden followed to prevent the eating of fruit from a second tree, “the tree of life,” which would have made them immortal. But they would have been immortal in their fallen, sinful state. Thus, it was a blessing to banish them.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Adam (Person); Eve; Garden of Eden; Fall of Man; Tree of Life.<\/p>","summary_ro":"TREE OF KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL Forbidden tree in Eden, whose fruit imparted knowledge and subsequent death, i.e., separation from God and ultimate expiration (Gn 2:9, 15-17; 3:1-24). The tempting serpent promised Eve equality with God if she ate the fruit. The result of Eve and Adam eating from this tree was that they indeed attained the “knowledge of good and evil.” According to the usage of the phrasing “knowing good and evil” in the rest of the Bible (Dt 1:39; Is 7:15-16; Heb 5:14), th...","summary_en":"TREE OF KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL Forbidden tree in Eden, whose fruit imparted knowledge and subsequent death, i.e., separation from God and ultimate expiration (Gn 2:9, 15-17; 3:1-24). The tempting serpent promised Eve equality with God if she ate the fruit. The result of Eve and Adam eating from this tree was that they indeed attained the “knowledge of good and evil.” According to the usage of the phrasing “knowing good and evil” in the rest of the Bible (Dt 1:39; Is 7:15-16; Heb 5:14), th...","source":"Articles\/T.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":42845,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:9","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:9","content_ro":"2:9<\/strong> Beauty and bounty characterized humanity’s original environment (cp. 13:10). • The tree of life<\/em> represented God’s presence and provision. The one who ate of it would have everlasting life (3:22), which made it a rich image for later Israelite and Christian reflection (Prov 3:18; 11:30; 13:12; Rev 2:7; 22:2, 14, 19). The candlestick in Israel’s Tabernacle may have been a stylized representation of it (Exod 25:31-35). • Eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil<\/em> enabled humanity’s capacity for wisdom (Gen 3:6) and moral discernment (3:5, 22; cp. Deut 1:39, “innocent”). Eating from it represented a human grasp for autonomy and wisdom that were God’s alone (cp. Prov 30:1-4). Humans sidestepped God’s revelation as the means of moral discernment, flaunting their independence rather than submitting to God’s will (cp. Prov 1:7). Choosing human wisdom over God’s instruction brings death and destruction (see Ps 19:7-9; Ezek 28:6, 15-17).<\/p>","content_en":"2:9<\/strong> Beauty and bounty characterized humanity’s original environment (cp. 13:10). • The tree of life<\/em> represented God’s presence and provision. The one who ate of it would have everlasting life (3:22), which made it a rich image for later Israelite and Christian reflection (Prov 3:18; 11:30; 13:12; Rev 2:7; 22:2, 14, 19). The candlestick in Israel’s Tabernacle may have been a stylized representation of it (Exod 25:31-35). • Eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil<\/em> enabled humanity’s capacity for wisdom (Gen 3:6) and moral discernment (3:5, 22; cp. Deut 1:39, “innocent”). Eating from it represented a human grasp for autonomy and wisdom that were God’s alone (cp. Prov 30:1-4). Humans sidestepped God’s revelation as the means of moral discernment, flaunting their independence rather than submitting to God’s will (cp. Prov 1:7). Choosing human wisdom over God’s instruction brings death and destruction (see Ps 19:7-9; Ezek 28:6, 15-17).<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:9 Beauty and bounty characterized humanity’s original environment (cp. 13:10). • The tree of life represented God’s presence and provision. The one who ate of it would have everlasting life (3:22), which made it a rich image for later Israelite and Christian reflection (Prov 3:18; 11:30; 13:12; Rev 2:7; 22:2, 14, 19). The candlestick in Israel’s Tabernacle may have been a stylized representation of it (Exod 25:31-35). • Eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil enabled ...","summary_en":"2:9 Beauty and bounty characterized humanity’s original environment (cp. 13:10). • The tree of life represented God’s presence and provision. The one who ate of it would have everlasting life (3:22), which made it a rich image for later Israelite and Christian reflection (Prov 3:18; 11:30; 13:12; Rev 2:7; 22:2, 14, 19). The candlestick in Israel’s Tabernacle may have been a stylized representation of it (Exod 25:31-35). • Eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil enabled ...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":70471,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:9","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:9","content_ro":"2:9<\/strong> Beauty and bounty characterized humanity’s original environment (cp. 13:10). • The tree of life<\/em> represented God’s presence and provision. The one who ate of it would have everlasting life (3:22), which made it a rich image for later Israelite and Christian reflection (Prov 3:18; 11:30; 13:12; Rev 2:7; 22:2, 14, 19). The candlestick in Israel’s Tabernacle may have been a stylized representation of it (Exod 25:31-35). • Eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil<\/em> enabled humanity’s capacity for wisdom (Gen 3:6) and moral discernment (3:5, 22; cp. Deut 1:39, “innocent”). Eating from it represented a human grasp for autonomy and wisdom that were God’s alone (cp. Prov 30:1-4). Humans sidestepped God’s revelation as the means of moral discernment, flaunting their independence rather than submitting to God’s will (cp. Prov 1:7). Choosing human wisdom over God’s instruction brings death and destruction (see Ps 19:7-9; Ezek 28:6, 15-17).<\/p>","content_en":"2:9<\/strong> Beauty and bounty characterized humanity’s original environment (cp. 13:10). • The tree of life<\/em> represented God’s presence and provision. The one who ate of it would have everlasting life (3:22), which made it a rich image for later Israelite and Christian reflection (Prov 3:18; 11:30; 13:12; Rev 2:7; 22:2, 14, 19). The candlestick in Israel’s Tabernacle may have been a stylized representation of it (Exod 25:31-35). • Eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil<\/em> enabled humanity’s capacity for wisdom (Gen 3:6) and moral discernment (3:5, 22; cp. Deut 1:39, “innocent”). Eating from it represented a human grasp for autonomy and wisdom that were God’s alone (cp. Prov 30:1-4). Humans sidestepped God’s revelation as the means of moral discernment, flaunting their independence rather than submitting to God’s will (cp. Prov 1:7). Choosing human wisdom over God’s instruction brings death and destruction (see Ps 19:7-9; Ezek 28:6, 15-17).<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:9 Beauty and bounty characterized humanity’s original environment (cp. 13:10). • The tree of life represented God’s presence and provision. The one who ate of it would have everlasting life (3:22), which made it a rich image for later Israelite and Christian reflection (Prov 3:18; 11:30; 13:12; Rev 2:7; 22:2, 14, 19). The candlestick in Israel’s Tabernacle may have been a stylized representation of it (Exod 25:31-35). • Eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil enabled ...","summary_en":"2:9 Beauty and bounty characterized humanity’s original environment (cp. 13:10). • The tree of life represented God’s presence and provision. The one who ate of it would have everlasting life (3:22), which made it a rich image for later Israelite and Christian reflection (Prov 3:18; 11:30; 13:12; Rev 2:7; 22:2, 14, 19). The candlestick in Israel’s Tabernacle may have been a stylized representation of it (Exod 25:31-35). • Eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil enabled ...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":98097,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:9","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:9","content_ro":"2:9<\/strong> Beauty and bounty characterized humanity’s original environment (cp. 13:10). • The tree of life<\/em> represented God’s presence and provision. The one who ate of it would have everlasting life (3:22), which made it a rich image for later Israelite and Christian reflection (Prov 3:18; 11:30; 13:12; Rev 2:7; 22:2, 14, 19). The candlestick in Israel’s Tabernacle may have been a stylized representation of it (Exod 25:31-35). • Eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil<\/em> enabled humanity’s capacity for wisdom (Gen 3:6) and moral discernment (3:5, 22; cp. Deut 1:39, “innocent”). Eating from it represented a human grasp for autonomy and wisdom that were God’s alone (cp. Prov 30:1-4). Humans sidestepped God’s revelation as the means of moral discernment, flaunting their independence rather than submitting to God’s will (cp. Prov 1:7). Choosing human wisdom over God’s instruction brings death and destruction (see Ps 19:7-9; Ezek 28:6, 15-17).<\/p>","content_en":"2:9<\/strong> Beauty and bounty characterized humanity’s original environment (cp. 13:10). • The tree of life<\/em> represented God’s presence and provision. The one who ate of it would have everlasting life (3:22), which made it a rich image for later Israelite and Christian reflection (Prov 3:18; 11:30; 13:12; Rev 2:7; 22:2, 14, 19). The candlestick in Israel’s Tabernacle may have been a stylized representation of it (Exod 25:31-35). • Eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil<\/em> enabled humanity’s capacity for wisdom (Gen 3:6) and moral discernment (3:5, 22; cp. Deut 1:39, “innocent”). Eating from it represented a human grasp for autonomy and wisdom that were God’s alone (cp. Prov 30:1-4). Humans sidestepped God’s revelation as the means of moral discernment, flaunting their independence rather than submitting to God’s will (cp. Prov 1:7). Choosing human wisdom over God’s instruction brings death and destruction (see Ps 19:7-9; Ezek 28:6, 15-17).<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:9 Beauty and bounty characterized humanity’s original environment (cp. 13:10). • The tree of life represented God’s presence and provision. The one who ate of it would have everlasting life (3:22), which made it a rich image for later Israelite and Christian reflection (Prov 3:18; 11:30; 13:12; Rev 2:7; 22:2, 14, 19). The candlestick in Israel’s Tabernacle may have been a stylized representation of it (Exod 25:31-35). • Eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil enabled ...","summary_en":"2:9 Beauty and bounty characterized humanity’s original environment (cp. 13:10). • The tree of life represented God’s presence and provision. The one who ate of it would have everlasting life (3:22), which made it a rich image for later Israelite and Christian reflection (Prov 3:18; 11:30; 13:12; Rev 2:7; 22:2, 14, 19). The candlestick in Israel’s Tabernacle may have been a stylized representation of it (Exod 25:31-35). • Eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil enabled ...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":125723,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:9","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:9","content_ro":"2:9<\/strong> Beauty and bounty characterized humanity’s original environment (cp. 13:10). • The tree of life<\/em> represented God’s presence and provision. The one who ate of it would have everlasting life (3:22), which made it a rich image for later Israelite and Christian reflection (Prov 3:18; 11:30; 13:12; Rev 2:7; 22:2, 14, 19). The candlestick in Israel’s Tabernacle may have been a stylized representation of it (Exod 25:31-35). • Eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil<\/em> enabled humanity’s capacity for wisdom (Gen 3:6) and moral discernment (3:5, 22; cp. Deut 1:39, “innocent”). Eating from it represented a human grasp for autonomy and wisdom that were God’s alone (cp. Prov 30:1-4). Humans sidestepped God’s revelation as the means of moral discernment, flaunting their independence rather than submitting to God’s will (cp. Prov 1:7). Choosing human wisdom over God’s instruction brings death and destruction (see Ps 19:7-9; Ezek 28:6, 15-17).<\/p>","content_en":"2:9<\/strong> Beauty and bounty characterized humanity’s original environment (cp. 13:10). • The tree of life<\/em> represented God’s presence and provision. The one who ate of it would have everlasting life (3:22), which made it a rich image for later Israelite and Christian reflection (Prov 3:18; 11:30; 13:12; Rev 2:7; 22:2, 14, 19). The candlestick in Israel’s Tabernacle may have been a stylized representation of it (Exod 25:31-35). • Eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil<\/em> enabled humanity’s capacity for wisdom (Gen 3:6) and moral discernment (3:5, 22; cp. Deut 1:39, “innocent”). Eating from it represented a human grasp for autonomy and wisdom that were God’s alone (cp. Prov 30:1-4). Humans sidestepped God’s revelation as the means of moral discernment, flaunting their independence rather than submitting to God’s will (cp. Prov 1:7). Choosing human wisdom over God’s instruction brings death and destruction (see Ps 19:7-9; Ezek 28:6, 15-17).<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:9 Beauty and bounty characterized humanity’s original environment (cp. 13:10). • The tree of life represented God’s presence and provision. The one who ate of it would have everlasting life (3:22), which made it a rich image for later Israelite and Christian reflection (Prov 3:18; 11:30; 13:12; Rev 2:7; 22:2, 14, 19). The candlestick in Israel’s Tabernacle may have been a stylized representation of it (Exod 25:31-35). • Eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil enabled ...","summary_en":"2:9 Beauty and bounty characterized humanity’s original environment (cp. 13:10). • The tree of life represented God’s presence and provision. The one who ate of it would have everlasting life (3:22), which made it a rich image for later Israelite and Christian reflection (Prov 3:18; 11:30; 13:12; Rev 2:7; 22:2, 14, 19). The candlestick in Israel’s Tabernacle may have been a stylized representation of it (Exod 25:31-35). • Eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil enabled ...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"10":[{"id":13530,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Book of Genesis","title_en":"Book of Genesis","content_ro":"<h3>GENESIS, Book of<\/h3>\nFirst book of the Bible.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Name<\/p>\n• Author<\/p>\n• Date<\/p>\n• Purpose<\/p>\n• Structure<\/p>\n• Content<\/p>\nName<\/p>\nThe name Genesis comes into English as a transliteration of the Greek word meaning “origin” or “beginning.” This name was given to the book in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, known as the Septuagint. Genesis reflects both the content of the book and the Hebrew name for it, which is taken from its first word, bere’shith<\/span>,<\/em> “in the beginning.”<\/p>\nAuthor<\/p>\nThe authorship of Genesis is closely related to the authorship of the entire Pentateuch (lit. “five-volumed,” the first five books of the Bible, which in Hebrew are called the Torah). It is clear that the Bible regards the human author of these books as Moses. On several occasions the Lord commanded Moses to write down various things: “in a book” (Ex 17:14) “write these words” (34:27). The Pentateuch reports that “Moses wrote all the words of the Lord<\/span>” (24:4); he wrote the itinerary of the exodus wanderings (Nm 33:2); “Moses wrote this law” (Dt 31:9). (Here it is not certain that all five books are meant, but it must refer to at least the greater part of Deuteronomy.) In Exodus 24:7 it is said that Moses read the Book of the Covenant, which he must have just completed.<\/p>\nThe rest of the OT bears witness to the writing of the Pentateuch by Moses. David referred to “the law of Moses” (1 Kgs 2:3). In the time of Josiah, there was found in the temple the “Book of the Law of the Lord<\/span> . . . given through Moses” (2 Chr 34:14, nlt<\/span>). Day by day Ezra read from “the Book of the Law of God” (Neh 8:18, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nIn the NT, Jesus refers to “the book of Moses” (Mk 12:26; Lk 20:37) and otherwise mentions the commands or statements of Moses (Mt 8:4; 19:8; Mk 7:10; cf. Lk 16:31; 24:44). The Jews also quoted from the Torah as coming from Moses, and Jesus did not contradict them.<\/p>\nOf Genesis in particular, it may be said that Moses had the opportunity and ability to write the book. He could have written it during his years in Egypt or while exiled with the Kenites. As the recognized leader of the Israelites, he would have had access to, or perhaps even custody of, the records that Jacob brought from Canaan. He was “instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians” (Acts 7:22) and probably could have written in several languages and in several scripts (hieroglyphic, cuneiform, Old Hebrew). Although Moses was admirably fitted for the task of writing, one must remember that he was not putting together a human composition but was writing under the inspiration of God (2 Pt 1:21). We may with confidence conclude that Moses was the human author of Genesis.<\/p>\nThe liberal view of the authorship of Genesis is that the book is an editorial composite—a view first put forward by a French physician, Jean Astruc, who suggested that the different names for God indicated different documents or sources for the writing of the book. The German higher critics expanded the view of the use of documents in the writing of Genesis and developed it into the Graf-Wellhausen-Kuenen, or Documentary, Hypothesis, which may also be called the JEDP theory of the authorship of the book. This view holds that there were four basic documents: (1) J, which uses the name YHWH (Jehovah or Yahweh) for God, dates from about the ninth century BC<\/span> and comes from Judah; (2) E uses the name Elohim, dates from the eighth century, and comes from the northern kingdom; (3) D is Deuteronomy and is supposed to come from the time of Josiah, about 621 BC<\/span>; and (4) P is the priestly element, which deals with matters of the priesthood and ritual, dating to the fifth century BC<\/span> or later. Some may date portions of Genesis as late as the Hellenistic period. According to this theory, the various documents were blended together by editors, so that there was a JE, JED, and so on.<\/p>\nThe science of archaeology discredited many of the extreme postulations of these critics, and the work of W. F. Albright and his followers did much to restore confidence in the historicity of Genesis. Within the last several decades, the patriarchal narratives and the account of Joseph have again come under strong attack, but these views are extreme, and much of the evidence adduced by Albright and earlier scholars like R. D. Wilson, W. H. Green, and others still has validity.<\/p>\nDate<\/p>\nThe date of the book is also a matter of debate. Even among those who accept Mosaic authorship there is debate as to when Moses lived. Based on the biblical data, Moses should have lived in the 15th century BC<\/span> (cf. Jgs 11:26; 1 Kgs 6:1), but many scholars incline toward a 13th-century date. As outlined above, the liberal view of the date of Genesis would be from the ninth to the fifth centuries BC<\/span>, with the final editing coming around the fifth century or perhaps even later.<\/p>\nPurpose<\/p>\nGenesis sketches the origin of many things: the universe, the earth, plants, animals, and mankind. It gives the beginnings of human institutions, professions, and crafts. It describes the origin of sin and death, and illustrates the insidious working of Satan in human life. Above all, Genesis relates the beginning of the history of redemption with the announcement of a Redeemer who was to come (Gn 3:15). It names the early progenitors in the lineage of the Messiah and the beginning of the Hebrew people through whom the Bible and the Savior came. Genesis also gives a selective history of people and events as viewed from the perspective of the purposes of God.<\/p>\nStructure<\/p>\nThe book is divided into 11 parts of uneven length, each set off by the expression “these are the generations [descendants, history] of” (2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1; 37:2). Only three times does the formula coincide with the first verse of a chapter. Usually called a heading or superscription, the expression serves as a kind of link between what precedes and what follows.<\/p>\n\nContent<\/p>\n<h5>The Creation (1:1–2:25)<\/h5>\nThese two chapters have been a scientific-theological battleground for many years, as researchers and students have tried to probe the origins of the universe and of life. Much of the evidence is not subject to scientific scrutiny, for science by definition requires that the evidence must be reproducible by experiment.<\/p>\nThe statement of Genesis 1:1 remains the grandest, most precise, and most accurate statement of origins: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” He did this ex nihilo<\/em> (“out of nothing”) by his word (Heb 11:3); he spoke the word of command and it was done (Gn 1:3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20; Ps 33:6, 9).<\/p>\nThe date of the beginning is unknown. Uniformitarian cosmogonists (students of the origins of the universe who believe that natural events have always followed a uniform pattern; cf. 2 Pt 3:3-7) have speculated that the beginning of the universe was billions of years ago. But some creationists posit a world thousands of years old.<\/p>\nTo accommodate geological ages and the existence of extinct animals, some interpreters have proposed a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, with Genesis 1:2–2:3 representing a second or new creation. But this is conjecture. So is the idea that each day represents a geological age.<\/p>\nAs the text stands, there is a correlation between the first three days and the second three days. Day one saw the creation of light; day four, the light bearers. Day two was the time of the creation of the firmament (better, “expanse”), which divided the waters; day five, birds and swarming water creatures. On day three, God made the dry land and plants; on day six he created the land animals and man. He made man in the image of God (Gn 1:26), “a little less than God” (Ps 8:5), and gave him dominion over the earth. He made everything “according to their kinds,” so that each kind is distinct and unique. The perfection of his work is affirmed in that “God saw that it was good” (Gn 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21; “very good,” v 31). The seventh day was a time of cessation from the activity of creating and served as a type for mankind’s day of rest (2:1-3).<\/p>\nCritical scholarship eyes 2:4-25 as a doublet in conflict with Genesis 1:1–2:3. To conservative scholars, the second chapter is the same account from a different perspective. Chapter 1 gives the Creation from the standpoint of sequence; chapter 2 shows it in view of the centrality of mankind in God’s creative work.<\/p>\nChapter 2 gives details of the creation of man of “dust from the ground” (v 7) and woman from a rib of the man (vv 21-22). She was created to be “a companion who will help him” (vv 18-20). They were created as mature adults, with the gift of speech and with great intelligence. Adam had imagination and vocabulary sufficient for naming all of the animal species (v 19).<\/p>\nThe location of the Garden of Eden is given (vv 10-14). Two of the four rivers, the Tigris and the Euphrates, can be identified with certainty. So man lived in this beautiful garden in the bliss of innocence.<\/p>\n<h5>The History of Humankind from Eden to Babel (3:1–11:26)<\/h5>\n<h6>The Fall<\/h6>\nThe loss of Eden and the break in fellowship with God is the saddest chapter in human history. The serpent, the devil, approached Eve with the same philosophy he always uses: doubt of God’s word (Gn 3:1), denial of death (v 4), and the suggestion of equality with God (v 5). He gained access to her will by deceiving her with the promise that the fruit would make her as wise as God is (Gn 3:5; cf. 1 Jn 2:16). Eve was deceived, but when she offered the fruit to Adam, he took it willingly, knowing what he was doing (Gn 3:6; cf. 1 Tm 2:14). Later, he tried to blame God for giving him the wife who gave him the fruit (Gn 3:12). Fellowship with God was broken (v 8), yet God came seeking Adam and found him.<\/p>\nWith sin came judgment, and the Lord pronounced righteous judgment on the serpent, the woman, and the man. The earth was also “subjected to frustration” and now groans as it awaits renewal (Rom 8:21-22). God gave hope to man and a promise of a Redeemer (Gn 3:15), who was to bruise the serpent’s head. Adam and Eve were forced out of the Garden, and it was made inaccessible to them.<\/p>\nThe impatience of humankind is shown in Eve’s expectation that her son Cain was the promised Deliverer. Instead, he developed a wrong-hearted attitude toward God and became so jealous of his younger brother that he murdered him. Apprehended by God and confronted with his crime, Cain showed only self-pity and went east from Eden, where he built a city (4:1-16). Chapter 4 closes with another contrast: the brazen Lamech, who called for vengeance, while others began to call upon the name of the Lord.<\/p>\n<h6>The Generations of Adam<\/h6>\nThis genealogical table (5:1-32) brings humankind to the time of Noah and the Flood. The longevity of the antediluvian patriarchs seems very striking to us, but one must remember that the earth had not yet been subjected to pollution and that the effects of sin on the human race were still nominal. The refrain “and he died” reminds us of man’s mortality. For Enoch, however, there was something better: “He enjoyed a close relationship with God throughout his life. Then, suddenly, he disappeared because God took him” (5:24, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h6>The Flood<\/h6>\nWith increased population came an eruption of sin (6:1-5). As men multiplied, so did their corruption. The universal condemnation of verse 5 shows a world ripe for judgment. Noah, however, “found favor with the Lord<\/span>,” for he was a righteous and blameless man who walked with God (6:8-9).<\/p>\nThe Lord planned to annihilate the human race, but he determined to save Noah and his family. Intending to flood the earth, God instructed Noah to build an ark. Noah was directed to take animals aboard the ark, two by two, male and female, for the preservation of each species. When all was in readiness, the Flood came: “the underground waters burst forth on the earth, and the rain fell in mighty torrents from the sky” (7:11, nlt<\/span>). It rained for 40 days and 40 nights. The highest mountains were covered, and life outside the ark perished. “But God remembered Noah” and sent a wind to evaporate the waters (8:1). Eventually the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat (v 4). Noah made a sacrifice to the Lord, and the Lord determined that he would never again bring such destruction upon the earth.<\/p>\nThe Flood is another of God’s acts that has been much debated. Many have argued for a local flood, which affected only part of Mesopotamia. Archaeologists have pointed to various flood strata in the excavation of Mesopotamian city-mounds as evidence for the account of the flood and have cited the various flood stories from that area as the source of the Genesis record. The epic of Gilgamesh gives an interesting tale of this hero, who went on a mission to visit Utnapishtim, the cuneiform Noah, in quest of eternal life. The flood story told by Utnapishtim has many parallels to Genesis, but there are greater contrasts, which demonstrate that the Bible preserves the true account.<\/p>\nBoth the Genesis account and the references to it in the NT (cf. 2 Pt 3:6) favor the view that the deluge was not a minor episode in the Tigris-Euphrates area but was an unprecedented worldwide catastrophe. Christian geologists affirm that the Flood had far-reaching effects on the earth itself. Flood stories are almost universally known, lending support to the conclusion that the Flood covered the whole earth. Following the Flood, God blessed Noah and his sons, Ham, Shem, and Japheth. God made a covenant with Noah, promising that he would never again send a worldwide flood. As a sign of this, he established the rainbow.<\/p>\nNoah was the first tiller of the soil, and he planted a vineyard (9:20). Noah became drunk from wine he made and lay uncovered in his tent. Ham saw him and reported this to his brothers, who discreetly covered him. Ham and his son Canaan were cursed; Shem and Japheth were blessed.<\/p>\n<h6>The History of the Nations<\/h6>\n“This is the history of the families of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, the three sons of Noah. Many children were born to them after the Flood” (10:1, nlt<\/span>). This chapter lists the descendants of Noah’s three sons, in the order of Japheth (vv 2-5), Ham (vv 6-20), and Shem (vv 21-31). Many of the names of their descendants are preserved in tribes and nations of the world.<\/p>\n<h6>The Tower of Babel<\/h6>\nThe building of the Tower of Babel (“Gate of God”) illustrates man’s perversity and his tendency to want independence from God. The desire of man to displace God follows the fateful example of Lucifer and is a basic tenet of many cults. God thwarted the designs of the builders of Babel by confusing their languages, so that the project came to a halt (11:1-9). The site of this tower is not known with certainty. Some associate it with Birs Nimrud, not far from the ruins of the city of Babylon. Genesis 11:10-25 picks up the line of Shem and carries it down to Terah, the father of Abram.<\/p>\n<h5>The History of Abraham (11:27–25:10) and Isaac (21:1–28:5)<\/h5>\nAbram came from Ur of the Chaldees, a prosperous city. The city had an imposing ziggurat (temple-tower), with many temples, storehouses, and residences. Abram and Sarai, his half sister and wife, went with his father to Haran in Syria, which like Ur was a center of the worship of the moon god, Sin (or Annar).<\/p>\n<h6>Abram’s Call<\/h6>\nThe call of God came to Abram directing him to leave his relatives and move to a land that the Lord would show him (12:1; cf. Acts 7:2-3). Abram obeyed. At the age of 75, he, Sarai, and his nephew Lot left Haran and went to Shechem, where the Lord appeared to him and promised that land to his descendants.<\/p>\nFamine drove Abram down to Egypt (Gn 12:10-20). Because of Sarai’s beauty, he feared that someone might kill him to get her, so he passed her off as his sister. She was taken into the pharaoh’s harem. When the Lord plagued Pharaoh because of this, Abram’s lie was discovered and Sarai was returned to him.<\/p>\n<h6>Abram and Lot<\/h6>\nAbram and Lot returned to Canaan, where strife broke out between Abram’s herdsmen and those of Lot. Abram suggested that they should separate, and he gave Lot the choice of territory. Lot chose the well-watered Jordan Valley and the cities of the plain, Sodom and Gomorrah (ch 13).<\/p>\n<h6>The Invasion of the Four Kings from the East<\/h6>\nThe four kings who invaded along the King’s Highway in Transjordan cannot be identified with certainty. Those kings were successful in their attack against the five cities of the plain, and they moved off with much booty and many captives, including Lot. Abram took 318 retainers, born in his household, and set off after them. By surprise attack, Abram recovered both Lot and the loot. On his return he was met by Melchizedek, king of Jerusalem, to whom Abram paid tithes (ch 14).<\/p>\n<h6>The Covenant<\/h6>\nThe Lord promised Abram a son as heir, and in an impressive nighttime ceremony, God made a covenant with Abram and promised him the land from the River of Egypt (Wadi el Arish) to the Euphrates (ch 15). Because of her own barrenness, Sarai gave her Egyptian maid, Hagar, to Abram. Hagar gave birth to Ishmael, the progenitor of the Arab peoples. When trouble arose between the women, Sarai sent Hagar away, which was her right according to Near Eastern customs (as illustrated by the Nuzi tablets). God showed mercy to Hagar and promised that she would have a great posterity (ch 16).<\/p>\nGod repeated his promise to Abram concerning his descendants and changed the names of Abram (“exalted father”) and Sarai to Abraham (“father of many”) and Sarah (“princess”). A covenant sign of circumcision was given to Abraham (ch 17). This operation had already been practiced among the Egyptians for several centuries.<\/p>\n<h6>The Destruction of the Cities of the Plain<\/h6>\nThe Lord and two angels appeared to Abraham and announced the birth of the promised heir within a year, as well as proclaimed the impending destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, concerning which Abraham bargained with God (18:22-33). Lot and his immediate family were rescued from Sodom, and the cities were destroyed by God with brimstone and fire (19:24-25). Lot’s two daughters, wishing to preserve their family line, got their father drunk and had sexual relations with him. Moab and Ammon, enemies of Israel in later times, were the result.<\/p>\nIn Genesis 20:1-18, Abraham again represented Sarah as his sister and got into trouble with Abimelech, king of Gerar.<\/p>\n<h6>Isaac<\/h6>\nWhen Isaac was born (21:1-3), trouble again broke out between Sarah and Hagar. Hagar was driven out a second time, and once more was befriended by the Lord.<\/p>\nA disagreement arose between Abraham and Abimelech concerning a well, but they made a covenant of peace at Beersheba (21:25-34).<\/p>\nGod tested Abraham’s faith by asking him to sacrifice Isaac on Mt Moriah, which probably is the same site David later bought from Araunah the Jebusite (2 Sm 24:16-25), the place where the temple was to stand. As Abraham was about to use the knife, God called to him and showed him a ram caught in a thicket. Isaac was freed and the animal was sacrificed in his stead.<\/p>\nSarah died at Hebron, and Abraham purchased the cave of Machpelah as a burial place from Ephron the Hittite (ch 23), in a transaction typical of Near Eastern business dealings. To find a wife for Isaac, Abraham sent his servant Eliezer back to the area of Haran, and the Lord directed Eliezer to Rebekah (ch 24).<\/p>\nChapter 25 records the marriage of Abraham to Keturah, who bore him a number of children. Abraham died at the age of 175 years and was buried in the cave of Machpelah by his two sons, Isaac and Ishmael.<\/p>\n<h5>The History of Jacob and Esau (25:19–37:1)<\/h5>\nRebekah gave birth to twin sons, Esau and Jacob. When the boys were grown, Esau sold his birthright to Jacob for a meal of red pottage (25:27-34).<\/p>\nWhen famine came to the land, Isaac went to Gerar, as his father had done (ch 20), and repeated his father’s lie by calling his wife his sister (26:1-11). Trouble arose with the Philistines over wells, but Isaac was a peaceable man and preferred digging new wells rather than fighting over old ones (vv 17-33).<\/p>\nIn Isaac’s old age, when his sight had failed, Rebekah connived with Jacob to trick Isaac into giving to Jacob the blessing of the firstborn, which was rightfully Esau’s. This oral blessing had legal validity and was irrevocable, according to the ancient Nuzi tablets. Fearing for Jacob’s life at the hands of Esau, Rebekah arranged to send Jacob to Haran to find a wife from among her own people. At Bethel, God appeared to Jacob in a dream of a ladder leading up to heaven; God renewed with Jacob the promise made to Abraham and Isaac (28:10-22).<\/p>\nJacob reached Haran, found his uncle Laban, and was employed by him (ch 29). His wages for seven years of labor were to be Laban’s younger daughter, Rachel, as his wife. But Laban substituted Leah, so that Jacob had to work another seven years for Rachel. The Lord prospered Jacob, but he continually had difficulties with Laban. The Lord directed Jacob back to Canaan (31:3), so he left secretly with his wives, children, and property. Laban pursued them because his household gods were missing (possession of these “gods” made the holder heir to the owner’s estate, according to Nuzi custom). Rachel had taken them but successfully concealed them from her father, and Laban went back to Haran.<\/p>\nFearing a meeting with Esau as they passed through Edom, Jacob sent gifts to his brother and divided his own party into two camps for security. On this return journey, Jacob had an unexpected wrestling bout with the Angel of the Lord, and he was left with a limp and a new name, Israel (ch 32).<\/p>\nThe meeting with Esau was friendly, and Jacob went on to Shechem (ch 33), where his sons killed the male Shechemites because of the rape of their sister Dinah (ch 34). God told Jacob to go to Bethel and build an altar to the Lord. All idols of foreign gods were buried (35:1-4). At Bethel, God reaffirmed his promise of a posterity and the land (vv 9-15). Rachel died on the way to Bethlehem, while giving birth to Benjamin, Jacob’s 12th and last son. Isaac died at Hebron at age 180 and was buried in the cave of Machpelah by Esau and Jacob.<\/p>\nGenesis 36 records “the generations of Esau” (v 1). Here Esau is also named Edom (“Red”; cf. 25:30).<\/p>\n<h5>The History of Joseph (37:2–50:26)<\/h5>\nJoseph was Jacob’s favorite son and thus incurred the jealousy of his brothers. This was heightened by Joseph’s dreams of lordship over them. Their resentment of Joseph came to a climax when Jacob gave Joseph a beautiful coat. The brothers determined to kill Joseph, but they compromised by selling him to a caravan of merchants, who took him to Egypt and sold him as a slave to Potiphar, an Egyptian captain of the guard (37:36; 39:1).<\/p>\nChapter 38 relates a historic case of levirate marriage. Judah failed to give his widowed daughter-in-law to his third son. She deceived him into fathering twin sons and forced him to acknowledge his faults. The elder son, Perez, is named in Luke’s genealogy of Jesus (Lk 3:33).<\/p>\nThe Lord blessed Joseph, who soon was put in charge of Potiphar’s household (Gn 39). The young man attracted the attention of Potiphar’s wife, who, after many attempts to seduce him, at last accused him of attempted rape. Sentenced on this charge, Joseph met with favor in prison, where he had opportunity to interpret dreams for two of the pharaoh’s servants (ch 40). When the king had dreams that his magicians and wise men could not interpret, Joseph was summoned from jail. Joseph told Pharaoh that the dreams meant seven years of plenty, followed by seven years of famine. Joseph was then exalted to the office of vizier, or prime minister, second only to the king, and put in charge of the administration of the land (41:37-44).<\/p>\nWhen the famine came to Palestine, Jacob sent his sons to Egypt to purchase grain. Joseph recognized his brothers but did not reveal his identity to them. Joseph put them to the test by accusing them of being spies (42:9), by keeping one of the brothers (Simeon) hostage (v 19), and by demanding that if they came to Egypt again, they must bring their youngest brother with them (42:20; 43:3). The famine became so severe in Canaan (43:1) that Jacob at last allowed Benjamin to go with his brothers to Egypt. The brothers were again set up by Joseph, who had his silver cup put into Benjamin’s grain sack and then had him apprehended as a thief (ch 44).<\/p>\nAt this point Joseph revealed his identity to his brothers (45:4-15) and there was much rejoicing. Joseph pointed out that it was God who had sent him to Egypt (vv 7-8), in order to preserve the lives of all the family. Jacob was then sent for (46:1), and Joseph met him in the land of Goshen (46:28-29). The Israelites were assigned land in the region of Goshen, where they prospered (47:27).<\/p>\nIn Jacob’s final illness, Joseph brought his two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, to his father for his blessing. Jacob gave the primary blessing to the second-born, Ephraim (48:13-20). Jacob blessed each of his own sons and then died at the age of at least 130 years. Joseph arranged for Jacob’s body to be prepared for burial according to Egyptian custom (50:2-3). After the burial of their father in the cave of Machpelah at Hebron, Joseph’s brothers worried about vengeance, but Joseph declared, “As far as I am concerned, God turned into good what you meant for evil. He brought me to the high position I have today so I could save the lives of many people” (v 20, nlt<\/span>). Joseph died at age 110 with the prophetic request that when the Israelites went up from Egypt they would take his bones with them (50:25; cf. Ex 13:19; Jos 24:32).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Abraham; Adam (Person); Covenant; Creation; Eve; Fall of Man; Flood, The; Isaac; Jacob #1; Joseph #1; Nations; Noah #1; Patriarchs, Period of the.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>GENESIS, Book of<\/h3>\nFirst book of the Bible.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Name<\/p>\n• Author<\/p>\n• Date<\/p>\n• Purpose<\/p>\n• Structure<\/p>\n• Content<\/p>\nName<\/p>\nThe name Genesis comes into English as a transliteration of the Greek word meaning “origin” or “beginning.” This name was given to the book in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, known as the Septuagint. Genesis reflects both the content of the book and the Hebrew name for it, which is taken from its first word, bere’shith<\/span>,<\/em> “in the beginning.”<\/p>\nAuthor<\/p>\nThe authorship of Genesis is closely related to the authorship of the entire Pentateuch (lit. “five-volumed,” the first five books of the Bible, which in Hebrew are called the Torah). It is clear that the Bible regards the human author of these books as Moses. On several occasions the Lord commanded Moses to write down various things: “in a book” (Ex 17:14) “write these words” (34:27). The Pentateuch reports that “Moses wrote all the words of the Lord<\/span>” (24:4); he wrote the itinerary of the exodus wanderings (Nm 33:2); “Moses wrote this law” (Dt 31:9). (Here it is not certain that all five books are meant, but it must refer to at least the greater part of Deuteronomy.) In Exodus 24:7 it is said that Moses read the Book of the Covenant, which he must have just completed.<\/p>\nThe rest of the OT bears witness to the writing of the Pentateuch by Moses. David referred to “the law of Moses” (1 Kgs 2:3). In the time of Josiah, there was found in the temple the “Book of the Law of the Lord<\/span> . . . given through Moses” (2 Chr 34:14, nlt<\/span>). Day by day Ezra read from “the Book of the Law of God” (Neh 8:18, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nIn the NT, Jesus refers to “the book of Moses” (Mk 12:26; Lk 20:37) and otherwise mentions the commands or statements of Moses (Mt 8:4; 19:8; Mk 7:10; cf. Lk 16:31; 24:44). The Jews also quoted from the Torah as coming from Moses, and Jesus did not contradict them.<\/p>\nOf Genesis in particular, it may be said that Moses had the opportunity and ability to write the book. He could have written it during his years in Egypt or while exiled with the Kenites. As the recognized leader of the Israelites, he would have had access to, or perhaps even custody of, the records that Jacob brought from Canaan. He was “instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians” (Acts 7:22) and probably could have written in several languages and in several scripts (hieroglyphic, cuneiform, Old Hebrew). Although Moses was admirably fitted for the task of writing, one must remember that he was not putting together a human composition but was writing under the inspiration of God (2 Pt 1:21). We may with confidence conclude that Moses was the human author of Genesis.<\/p>\nThe liberal view of the authorship of Genesis is that the book is an editorial composite—a view first put forward by a French physician, Jean Astruc, who suggested that the different names for God indicated different documents or sources for the writing of the book. The German higher critics expanded the view of the use of documents in the writing of Genesis and developed it into the Graf-Wellhausen-Kuenen, or Documentary, Hypothesis, which may also be called the JEDP theory of the authorship of the book. This view holds that there were four basic documents: (1) J, which uses the name YHWH (Jehovah or Yahweh) for God, dates from about the ninth century BC<\/span> and comes from Judah; (2) E uses the name Elohim, dates from the eighth century, and comes from the northern kingdom; (3) D is Deuteronomy and is supposed to come from the time of Josiah, about 621 BC<\/span>; and (4) P is the priestly element, which deals with matters of the priesthood and ritual, dating to the fifth century BC<\/span> or later. Some may date portions of Genesis as late as the Hellenistic period. According to this theory, the various documents were blended together by editors, so that there was a JE, JED, and so on.<\/p>\nThe science of archaeology discredited many of the extreme postulations of these critics, and the work of W. F. Albright and his followers did much to restore confidence in the historicity of Genesis. Within the last several decades, the patriarchal narratives and the account of Joseph have again come under strong attack, but these views are extreme, and much of the evidence adduced by Albright and earlier scholars like R. D. Wilson, W. H. Green, and others still has validity.<\/p>\nDate<\/p>\nThe date of the book is also a matter of debate. Even among those who accept Mosaic authorship there is debate as to when Moses lived. Based on the biblical data, Moses should have lived in the 15th century BC<\/span> (cf. Jgs 11:26; 1 Kgs 6:1), but many scholars incline toward a 13th-century date. As outlined above, the liberal view of the date of Genesis would be from the ninth to the fifth centuries BC<\/span>, with the final editing coming around the fifth century or perhaps even later.<\/p>\nPurpose<\/p>\nGenesis sketches the origin of many things: the universe, the earth, plants, animals, and mankind. It gives the beginnings of human institutions, professions, and crafts. It describes the origin of sin and death, and illustrates the insidious working of Satan in human life. Above all, Genesis relates the beginning of the history of redemption with the announcement of a Redeemer who was to come (Gn 3:15). It names the early progenitors in the lineage of the Messiah and the beginning of the Hebrew people through whom the Bible and the Savior came. Genesis also gives a selective history of people and events as viewed from the perspective of the purposes of God.<\/p>\nStructure<\/p>\nThe book is divided into 11 parts of uneven length, each set off by the expression “these are the generations [descendants, history] of” (2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1; 37:2). Only three times does the formula coincide with the first verse of a chapter. Usually called a heading or superscription, the expression serves as a kind of link between what precedes and what follows.<\/p>\n\nContent<\/p>\n<h5>The Creation (1:1–2:25)<\/h5>\nThese two chapters have been a scientific-theological battleground for many years, as researchers and students have tried to probe the origins of the universe and of life. Much of the evidence is not subject to scientific scrutiny, for science by definition requires that the evidence must be reproducible by experiment.<\/p>\nThe statement of Genesis 1:1 remains the grandest, most precise, and most accurate statement of origins: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” He did this ex nihilo<\/em> (“out of nothing”) by his word (Heb 11:3); he spoke the word of command and it was done (Gn 1:3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20; Ps 33:6, 9).<\/p>\nThe date of the beginning is unknown. Uniformitarian cosmogonists (students of the origins of the universe who believe that natural events have always followed a uniform pattern; cf. 2 Pt 3:3-7) have speculated that the beginning of the universe was billions of years ago. But some creationists posit a world thousands of years old.<\/p>\nTo accommodate geological ages and the existence of extinct animals, some interpreters have proposed a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, with Genesis 1:2–2:3 representing a second or new creation. But this is conjecture. So is the idea that each day represents a geological age.<\/p>\nAs the text stands, there is a correlation between the first three days and the second three days. Day one saw the creation of light; day four, the light bearers. Day two was the time of the creation of the firmament (better, “expanse”), which divided the waters; day five, birds and swarming water creatures. On day three, God made the dry land and plants; on day six he created the land animals and man. He made man in the image of God (Gn 1:26), “a little less than God” (Ps 8:5), and gave him dominion over the earth. He made everything “according to their kinds,” so that each kind is distinct and unique. The perfection of his work is affirmed in that “God saw that it was good” (Gn 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21; “very good,” v 31). The seventh day was a time of cessation from the activity of creating and served as a type for mankind’s day of rest (2:1-3).<\/p>\nCritical scholarship eyes 2:4-25 as a doublet in conflict with Genesis 1:1–2:3. To conservative scholars, the second chapter is the same account from a different perspective. Chapter 1 gives the Creation from the standpoint of sequence; chapter 2 shows it in view of the centrality of mankind in God’s creative work.<\/p>\nChapter 2 gives details of the creation of man of “dust from the ground” (v 7) and woman from a rib of the man (vv 21-22). She was created to be “a companion who will help him” (vv 18-20). They were created as mature adults, with the gift of speech and with great intelligence. Adam had imagination and vocabulary sufficient for naming all of the animal species (v 19).<\/p>\nThe location of the Garden of Eden is given (vv 10-14). Two of the four rivers, the Tigris and the Euphrates, can be identified with certainty. So man lived in this beautiful garden in the bliss of innocence.<\/p>\n<h5>The History of Humankind from Eden to Babel (3:1–11:26)<\/h5>\n<h6>The Fall<\/h6>\nThe loss of Eden and the break in fellowship with God is the saddest chapter in human history. The serpent, the devil, approached Eve with the same philosophy he always uses: doubt of God’s word (Gn 3:1), denial of death (v 4), and the suggestion of equality with God (v 5). He gained access to her will by deceiving her with the promise that the fruit would make her as wise as God is (Gn 3:5; cf. 1 Jn 2:16). Eve was deceived, but when she offered the fruit to Adam, he took it willingly, knowing what he was doing (Gn 3:6; cf. 1 Tm 2:14). Later, he tried to blame God for giving him the wife who gave him the fruit (Gn 3:12). Fellowship with God was broken (v 8), yet God came seeking Adam and found him.<\/p>\nWith sin came judgment, and the Lord pronounced righteous judgment on the serpent, the woman, and the man. The earth was also “subjected to frustration” and now groans as it awaits renewal (Rom 8:21-22). God gave hope to man and a promise of a Redeemer (Gn 3:15), who was to bruise the serpent’s head. Adam and Eve were forced out of the Garden, and it was made inaccessible to them.<\/p>\nThe impatience of humankind is shown in Eve’s expectation that her son Cain was the promised Deliverer. Instead, he developed a wrong-hearted attitude toward God and became so jealous of his younger brother that he murdered him. Apprehended by God and confronted with his crime, Cain showed only self-pity and went east from Eden, where he built a city (4:1-16). Chapter 4 closes with another contrast: the brazen Lamech, who called for vengeance, while others began to call upon the name of the Lord.<\/p>\n<h6>The Generations of Adam<\/h6>\nThis genealogical table (5:1-32) brings humankind to the time of Noah and the Flood. The longevity of the antediluvian patriarchs seems very striking to us, but one must remember that the earth had not yet been subjected to pollution and that the effects of sin on the human race were still nominal. The refrain “and he died” reminds us of man’s mortality. For Enoch, however, there was something better: “He enjoyed a close relationship with God throughout his life. Then, suddenly, he disappeared because God took him” (5:24, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h6>The Flood<\/h6>\nWith increased population came an eruption of sin (6:1-5). As men multiplied, so did their corruption. The universal condemnation of verse 5 shows a world ripe for judgment. Noah, however, “found favor with the Lord<\/span>,” for he was a righteous and blameless man who walked with God (6:8-9).<\/p>\nThe Lord planned to annihilate the human race, but he determined to save Noah and his family. Intending to flood the earth, God instructed Noah to build an ark. Noah was directed to take animals aboard the ark, two by two, male and female, for the preservation of each species. When all was in readiness, the Flood came: “the underground waters burst forth on the earth, and the rain fell in mighty torrents from the sky” (7:11, nlt<\/span>). It rained for 40 days and 40 nights. The highest mountains were covered, and life outside the ark perished. “But God remembered Noah” and sent a wind to evaporate the waters (8:1). Eventually the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat (v 4). Noah made a sacrifice to the Lord, and the Lord determined that he would never again bring such destruction upon the earth.<\/p>\nThe Flood is another of God’s acts that has been much debated. Many have argued for a local flood, which affected only part of Mesopotamia. Archaeologists have pointed to various flood strata in the excavation of Mesopotamian city-mounds as evidence for the account of the flood and have cited the various flood stories from that area as the source of the Genesis record. The epic of Gilgamesh gives an interesting tale of this hero, who went on a mission to visit Utnapishtim, the cuneiform Noah, in quest of eternal life. The flood story told by Utnapishtim has many parallels to Genesis, but there are greater contrasts, which demonstrate that the Bible preserves the true account.<\/p>\nBoth the Genesis account and the references to it in the NT (cf. 2 Pt 3:6) favor the view that the deluge was not a minor episode in the Tigris-Euphrates area but was an unprecedented worldwide catastrophe. Christian geologists affirm that the Flood had far-reaching effects on the earth itself. Flood stories are almost universally known, lending support to the conclusion that the Flood covered the whole earth. Following the Flood, God blessed Noah and his sons, Ham, Shem, and Japheth. God made a covenant with Noah, promising that he would never again send a worldwide flood. As a sign of this, he established the rainbow.<\/p>\nNoah was the first tiller of the soil, and he planted a vineyard (9:20). Noah became drunk from wine he made and lay uncovered in his tent. Ham saw him and reported this to his brothers, who discreetly covered him. Ham and his son Canaan were cursed; Shem and Japheth were blessed.<\/p>\n<h6>The History of the Nations<\/h6>\n“This is the history of the families of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, the three sons of Noah. Many children were born to them after the Flood” (10:1, nlt<\/span>). This chapter lists the descendants of Noah’s three sons, in the order of Japheth (vv 2-5), Ham (vv 6-20), and Shem (vv 21-31). Many of the names of their descendants are preserved in tribes and nations of the world.<\/p>\n<h6>The Tower of Babel<\/h6>\nThe building of the Tower of Babel (“Gate of God”) illustrates man’s perversity and his tendency to want independence from God. The desire of man to displace God follows the fateful example of Lucifer and is a basic tenet of many cults. God thwarted the designs of the builders of Babel by confusing their languages, so that the project came to a halt (11:1-9). The site of this tower is not known with certainty. Some associate it with Birs Nimrud, not far from the ruins of the city of Babylon. Genesis 11:10-25 picks up the line of Shem and carries it down to Terah, the father of Abram.<\/p>\n<h5>The History of Abraham (11:27–25:10) and Isaac (21:1–28:5)<\/h5>\nAbram came from Ur of the Chaldees, a prosperous city. The city had an imposing ziggurat (temple-tower), with many temples, storehouses, and residences. Abram and Sarai, his half sister and wife, went with his father to Haran in Syria, which like Ur was a center of the worship of the moon god, Sin (or Annar).<\/p>\n<h6>Abram’s Call<\/h6>\nThe call of God came to Abram directing him to leave his relatives and move to a land that the Lord would show him (12:1; cf. Acts 7:2-3). Abram obeyed. At the age of 75, he, Sarai, and his nephew Lot left Haran and went to Shechem, where the Lord appeared to him and promised that land to his descendants.<\/p>\nFamine drove Abram down to Egypt (Gn 12:10-20). Because of Sarai’s beauty, he feared that someone might kill him to get her, so he passed her off as his sister. She was taken into the pharaoh’s harem. When the Lord plagued Pharaoh because of this, Abram’s lie was discovered and Sarai was returned to him.<\/p>\n<h6>Abram and Lot<\/h6>\nAbram and Lot returned to Canaan, where strife broke out between Abram’s herdsmen and those of Lot. Abram suggested that they should separate, and he gave Lot the choice of territory. Lot chose the well-watered Jordan Valley and the cities of the plain, Sodom and Gomorrah (ch 13).<\/p>\n<h6>The Invasion of the Four Kings from the East<\/h6>\nThe four kings who invaded along the King’s Highway in Transjordan cannot be identified with certainty. Those kings were successful in their attack against the five cities of the plain, and they moved off with much booty and many captives, including Lot. Abram took 318 retainers, born in his household, and set off after them. By surprise attack, Abram recovered both Lot and the loot. On his return he was met by Melchizedek, king of Jerusalem, to whom Abram paid tithes (ch 14).<\/p>\n<h6>The Covenant<\/h6>\nThe Lord promised Abram a son as heir, and in an impressive nighttime ceremony, God made a covenant with Abram and promised him the land from the River of Egypt (Wadi el Arish) to the Euphrates (ch 15). Because of her own barrenness, Sarai gave her Egyptian maid, Hagar, to Abram. Hagar gave birth to Ishmael, the progenitor of the Arab peoples. When trouble arose between the women, Sarai sent Hagar away, which was her right according to Near Eastern customs (as illustrated by the Nuzi tablets). God showed mercy to Hagar and promised that she would have a great posterity (ch 16).<\/p>\nGod repeated his promise to Abram concerning his descendants and changed the names of Abram (“exalted father”) and Sarai to Abraham (“father of many”) and Sarah (“princess”). A covenant sign of circumcision was given to Abraham (ch 17). This operation had already been practiced among the Egyptians for several centuries.<\/p>\n<h6>The Destruction of the Cities of the Plain<\/h6>\nThe Lord and two angels appeared to Abraham and announced the birth of the promised heir within a year, as well as proclaimed the impending destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, concerning which Abraham bargained with God (18:22-33). Lot and his immediate family were rescued from Sodom, and the cities were destroyed by God with brimstone and fire (19:24-25). Lot’s two daughters, wishing to preserve their family line, got their father drunk and had sexual relations with him. Moab and Ammon, enemies of Israel in later times, were the result.<\/p>\nIn Genesis 20:1-18, Abraham again represented Sarah as his sister and got into trouble with Abimelech, king of Gerar.<\/p>\n<h6>Isaac<\/h6>\nWhen Isaac was born (21:1-3), trouble again broke out between Sarah and Hagar. Hagar was driven out a second time, and once more was befriended by the Lord.<\/p>\nA disagreement arose between Abraham and Abimelech concerning a well, but they made a covenant of peace at Beersheba (21:25-34).<\/p>\nGod tested Abraham’s faith by asking him to sacrifice Isaac on Mt Moriah, which probably is the same site David later bought from Araunah the Jebusite (2 Sm 24:16-25), the place where the temple was to stand. As Abraham was about to use the knife, God called to him and showed him a ram caught in a thicket. Isaac was freed and the animal was sacrificed in his stead.<\/p>\nSarah died at Hebron, and Abraham purchased the cave of Machpelah as a burial place from Ephron the Hittite (ch 23), in a transaction typical of Near Eastern business dealings. To find a wife for Isaac, Abraham sent his servant Eliezer back to the area of Haran, and the Lord directed Eliezer to Rebekah (ch 24).<\/p>\nChapter 25 records the marriage of Abraham to Keturah, who bore him a number of children. Abraham died at the age of 175 years and was buried in the cave of Machpelah by his two sons, Isaac and Ishmael.<\/p>\n<h5>The History of Jacob and Esau (25:19–37:1)<\/h5>\nRebekah gave birth to twin sons, Esau and Jacob. When the boys were grown, Esau sold his birthright to Jacob for a meal of red pottage (25:27-34).<\/p>\nWhen famine came to the land, Isaac went to Gerar, as his father had done (ch 20), and repeated his father’s lie by calling his wife his sister (26:1-11). Trouble arose with the Philistines over wells, but Isaac was a peaceable man and preferred digging new wells rather than fighting over old ones (vv 17-33).<\/p>\nIn Isaac’s old age, when his sight had failed, Rebekah connived with Jacob to trick Isaac into giving to Jacob the blessing of the firstborn, which was rightfully Esau’s. This oral blessing had legal validity and was irrevocable, according to the ancient Nuzi tablets. Fearing for Jacob’s life at the hands of Esau, Rebekah arranged to send Jacob to Haran to find a wife from among her own people. At Bethel, God appeared to Jacob in a dream of a ladder leading up to heaven; God renewed with Jacob the promise made to Abraham and Isaac (28:10-22).<\/p>\nJacob reached Haran, found his uncle Laban, and was employed by him (ch 29). His wages for seven years of labor were to be Laban’s younger daughter, Rachel, as his wife. But Laban substituted Leah, so that Jacob had to work another seven years for Rachel. The Lord prospered Jacob, but he continually had difficulties with Laban. The Lord directed Jacob back to Canaan (31:3), so he left secretly with his wives, children, and property. Laban pursued them because his household gods were missing (possession of these “gods” made the holder heir to the owner’s estate, according to Nuzi custom). Rachel had taken them but successfully concealed them from her father, and Laban went back to Haran.<\/p>\nFearing a meeting with Esau as they passed through Edom, Jacob sent gifts to his brother and divided his own party into two camps for security. On this return journey, Jacob had an unexpected wrestling bout with the Angel of the Lord, and he was left with a limp and a new name, Israel (ch 32).<\/p>\nThe meeting with Esau was friendly, and Jacob went on to Shechem (ch 33), where his sons killed the male Shechemites because of the rape of their sister Dinah (ch 34). God told Jacob to go to Bethel and build an altar to the Lord. All idols of foreign gods were buried (35:1-4). At Bethel, God reaffirmed his promise of a posterity and the land (vv 9-15). Rachel died on the way to Bethlehem, while giving birth to Benjamin, Jacob’s 12th and last son. Isaac died at Hebron at age 180 and was buried in the cave of Machpelah by Esau and Jacob.<\/p>\nGenesis 36 records “the generations of Esau” (v 1). Here Esau is also named Edom (“Red”; cf. 25:30).<\/p>\n<h5>The History of Joseph (37:2–50:26)<\/h5>\nJoseph was Jacob’s favorite son and thus incurred the jealousy of his brothers. This was heightened by Joseph’s dreams of lordship over them. Their resentment of Joseph came to a climax when Jacob gave Joseph a beautiful coat. The brothers determined to kill Joseph, but they compromised by selling him to a caravan of merchants, who took him to Egypt and sold him as a slave to Potiphar, an Egyptian captain of the guard (37:36; 39:1).<\/p>\nChapter 38 relates a historic case of levirate marriage. Judah failed to give his widowed daughter-in-law to his third son. She deceived him into fathering twin sons and forced him to acknowledge his faults. The elder son, Perez, is named in Luke’s genealogy of Jesus (Lk 3:33).<\/p>\nThe Lord blessed Joseph, who soon was put in charge of Potiphar’s household (Gn 39). The young man attracted the attention of Potiphar’s wife, who, after many attempts to seduce him, at last accused him of attempted rape. Sentenced on this charge, Joseph met with favor in prison, where he had opportunity to interpret dreams for two of the pharaoh’s servants (ch 40). When the king had dreams that his magicians and wise men could not interpret, Joseph was summoned from jail. Joseph told Pharaoh that the dreams meant seven years of plenty, followed by seven years of famine. Joseph was then exalted to the office of vizier, or prime minister, second only to the king, and put in charge of the administration of the land (41:37-44).<\/p>\nWhen the famine came to Palestine, Jacob sent his sons to Egypt to purchase grain. Joseph recognized his brothers but did not reveal his identity to them. Joseph put them to the test by accusing them of being spies (42:9), by keeping one of the brothers (Simeon) hostage (v 19), and by demanding that if they came to Egypt again, they must bring their youngest brother with them (42:20; 43:3). The famine became so severe in Canaan (43:1) that Jacob at last allowed Benjamin to go with his brothers to Egypt. The brothers were again set up by Joseph, who had his silver cup put into Benjamin’s grain sack and then had him apprehended as a thief (ch 44).<\/p>\nAt this point Joseph revealed his identity to his brothers (45:4-15) and there was much rejoicing. Joseph pointed out that it was God who had sent him to Egypt (vv 7-8), in order to preserve the lives of all the family. Jacob was then sent for (46:1), and Joseph met him in the land of Goshen (46:28-29). The Israelites were assigned land in the region of Goshen, where they prospered (47:27).<\/p>\nIn Jacob’s final illness, Joseph brought his two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, to his father for his blessing. Jacob gave the primary blessing to the second-born, Ephraim (48:13-20). Jacob blessed each of his own sons and then died at the age of at least 130 years. Joseph arranged for Jacob’s body to be prepared for burial according to Egyptian custom (50:2-3). After the burial of their father in the cave of Machpelah at Hebron, Joseph’s brothers worried about vengeance, but Joseph declared, “As far as I am concerned, God turned into good what you meant for evil. He brought me to the high position I have today so I could save the lives of many people” (v 20, nlt<\/span>). Joseph died at age 110 with the prophetic request that when the Israelites went up from Egypt they would take his bones with them (50:25; cf. Ex 13:19; Jos 24:32).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Abraham; Adam (Person); Covenant; Creation; Eve; Fall of Man; Flood, The; Isaac; Jacob #1; Joseph #1; Nations; Noah #1; Patriarchs, Period of the.<\/p>","summary_ro":"GENESIS, Book of First book of the Bible. Preview • Name • Author • Date • Purpose • Structure • Content Name The name Genesis comes into English as a transliteration of the Greek word meaning “origin” or “beginning.” This name was given to the book in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, known as the Septuagint. Genesis reflects both the content of the book and the Hebrew name for it, which is taken from its first word, bere’shith, “in the beginning.” Author The authorship of Gene...","summary_en":"GENESIS, Book of First book of the Bible. Preview • Name • Author • Date • Purpose • Structure • Content Name The name Genesis comes into English as a transliteration of the Greek word meaning “origin” or “beginning.” This name was given to the book in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, known as the Septuagint. Genesis reflects both the content of the book and the Hebrew name for it, which is taken from its first word, bere’shith, “in the beginning.” Author The authorship of Gene...","source":"Articles\/G.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":15562,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Head","title_en":"Head","content_ro":"<h3>HEAD<\/h3>\nThe uppermost portion of the body, containing the brain, major sense organs, and the mouth. It appears many times in the Bible as a physical description. The Hebrew term for head<\/em> is also used figuratively in the Old Testament. Frequently, it designates prominence or authority.<\/p>\nTo raise one’s head was considered an act of pride (Ps 140:9) or honor (Gn 40:20; Pss 3:3; 27:6). Bowing the head signified humility (Is 58:5) or sadness (Lam 2:10). The Hebrew word is used metaphorically of mountain peaks (Gn 8:5), the tops of buildings (Gn 11:4) or trees (2 Sm 5:24), and river sources (Gn 2:10). The term was commonly used to designate positions of political, military, or familiar authority. In this sense the “head” exercised control over all those subjected to him (Jgs 10:18; 1 Sm 15:17; Ps 18:43; Is 7:8-9; Jer 31:7; Hos 1:11). David was called the “keeper of mine head” (kjv<\/span>) when he served as the bodyguard of Achish (1 Sm 28:2; cf. Jgs 9:53; Ps 68:21).<\/p>\nGreek philosophers used the image of the body to represent the universe. The head of this body—called Zeus or Reason—was considered responsible for the creation and sustenance of the remaining members (celestial beings, humans, animals, plants, and inanimate objects). The universe, or “body,” owed its existence to the “head.”<\/p>\nBetween 460 BC<\/span> (the date usually ascribed to the first writings of Hippocrates) and AD<\/span> 200 (the death of Galen, who developed Hippocrates’ findings), Greek medical science came to understand the head as the seat of intelligence. The body was able to operate efficiently only because the brain was capable of interpreting data received from the body (eyes, ears, skin, and so on), and because it was able to send out appropriate impulses to the various members of the body, based upon the data received. The ability of the brain to interpret and direct made the existence of the body completely dependent upon it.<\/p>\nIn the NT, the term refers to the actual human head (Mt 5:36; 6:17; 14:8; 26:7; Mk 6:27; 14:3; Lk 7:46; Jn 13:9; 20:7), to apocalyptic beings (Rv 1:14; 4:4; 12:1), and to animals (Rv 9:7, 17, 19; 12:3). Furthermore, it appears in such expressions as “to heap coals of fire upon the head,” meaning to return good for evil (Rom 12:20; cf. Mt 5:44); to “shear” or “anoint the head” expressing a vow (Acts 21:24); and “to lay down the head,” meaning to sleep (Mt 8:20; Lk 9:58).<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul drew from the OT metaphorical understanding of the term to express the headship of God over Christ, Christ over man, and man over woman (1 Cor 11:3-16; cf. Eph 5:23). In the light of these relationships, Paul encouraged women at Corinth to wear veils in worship. The veil gave a woman the authority to worship as an equal with men before God. The term is used again with the meaning “authority” to express the lordship of Christ over the universe (Eph 1:21-22; Col 2:10).<\/p>\nPaul used the image of the head and body to express the relationship between Christ and his church (Eph 4:15; 5:23; cf. 1 Cor 12:12-27). In addition to the OT sense, the contributions of medical science in Paul’s day may provide insight into this image, for Christ is not only the dominant ruler over the church but also the dynamic force that provides its direction and unity. The ability of the church to exist and the focal point of its activity are rooted in the work of its “head,” Jesus Christ. In this light, various modern exegetes have argued that headship does not mean “authority” as much as it means “source,” as in the term “fountainhead.” Thus, he who is the head is the source, the supplier. These interpreters see God as being Christ’s supplier, and Christ being the church’s supplier, and man being woman’s supplier.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>HEAD<\/h3>\nThe uppermost portion of the body, containing the brain, major sense organs, and the mouth. It appears many times in the Bible as a physical description. The Hebrew term for head<\/em> is also used figuratively in the Old Testament. Frequently, it designates prominence or authority.<\/p>\nTo raise one’s head was considered an act of pride (Ps 140:9) or honor (Gn 40:20; Pss 3:3; 27:6). Bowing the head signified humility (Is 58:5) or sadness (Lam 2:10). The Hebrew word is used metaphorically of mountain peaks (Gn 8:5), the tops of buildings (Gn 11:4) or trees (2 Sm 5:24), and river sources (Gn 2:10). The term was commonly used to designate positions of political, military, or familiar authority. In this sense the “head” exercised control over all those subjected to him (Jgs 10:18; 1 Sm 15:17; Ps 18:43; Is 7:8-9; Jer 31:7; Hos 1:11). David was called the “keeper of mine head” (kjv<\/span>) when he served as the bodyguard of Achish (1 Sm 28:2; cf. Jgs 9:53; Ps 68:21).<\/p>\nGreek philosophers used the image of the body to represent the universe. The head of this body—called Zeus or Reason—was considered responsible for the creation and sustenance of the remaining members (celestial beings, humans, animals, plants, and inanimate objects). The universe, or “body,” owed its existence to the “head.”<\/p>\nBetween 460 BC<\/span> (the date usually ascribed to the first writings of Hippocrates) and AD<\/span> 200 (the death of Galen, who developed Hippocrates’ findings), Greek medical science came to understand the head as the seat of intelligence. The body was able to operate efficiently only because the brain was capable of interpreting data received from the body (eyes, ears, skin, and so on), and because it was able to send out appropriate impulses to the various members of the body, based upon the data received. The ability of the brain to interpret and direct made the existence of the body completely dependent upon it.<\/p>\nIn the NT, the term refers to the actual human head (Mt 5:36; 6:17; 14:8; 26:7; Mk 6:27; 14:3; Lk 7:46; Jn 13:9; 20:7), to apocalyptic beings (Rv 1:14; 4:4; 12:1), and to animals (Rv 9:7, 17, 19; 12:3). Furthermore, it appears in such expressions as “to heap coals of fire upon the head,” meaning to return good for evil (Rom 12:20; cf. Mt 5:44); to “shear” or “anoint the head” expressing a vow (Acts 21:24); and “to lay down the head,” meaning to sleep (Mt 8:20; Lk 9:58).<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul drew from the OT metaphorical understanding of the term to express the headship of God over Christ, Christ over man, and man over woman (1 Cor 11:3-16; cf. Eph 5:23). In the light of these relationships, Paul encouraged women at Corinth to wear veils in worship. The veil gave a woman the authority to worship as an equal with men before God. The term is used again with the meaning “authority” to express the lordship of Christ over the universe (Eph 1:21-22; Col 2:10).<\/p>\nPaul used the image of the head and body to express the relationship between Christ and his church (Eph 4:15; 5:23; cf. 1 Cor 12:12-27). In addition to the OT sense, the contributions of medical science in Paul’s day may provide insight into this image, for Christ is not only the dominant ruler over the church but also the dynamic force that provides its direction and unity. The ability of the church to exist and the focal point of its activity are rooted in the work of its “head,” Jesus Christ. In this light, various modern exegetes have argued that headship does not mean “authority” as much as it means “source,” as in the term “fountainhead.” Thus, he who is the head is the source, the supplier. These interpreters see God as being Christ’s supplier, and Christ being the church’s supplier, and man being woman’s supplier.<\/p>","summary_ro":"HEAD The uppermost portion of the body, containing the brain, major sense organs, and the mouth. It appears many times in the Bible as a physical description. The Hebrew term for head is also used figuratively in the Old Testament. Frequently, it designates prominence or authority. To raise one’s head was considered an act of pride (Ps 140:9) or honor (Gn 40:20; Pss 3:3; 27:6). Bowing the head signified humility (Is 58:5) or sadness (Lam 2:10). The Hebrew word is used metaphorically of mounta...","summary_en":"HEAD The uppermost portion of the body, containing the brain, major sense organs, and the mouth. It appears many times in the Bible as a physical description. The Hebrew term for head is also used figuratively in the Old Testament. Frequently, it designates prominence or authority. To raise one’s head was considered an act of pride (Ps 140:9) or honor (Gn 40:20; Pss 3:3; 27:6). Bowing the head signified humility (Is 58:5) or sadness (Lam 2:10). The Hebrew word is used metaphorically of mounta...","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":25339,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Mesopotamia","title_en":"Mesopotamia","content_ro":"<h3>MESOPOTAMIA<\/h3>\nName given by the Greeks to the land between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, an area today called al-Jazira, “the island,” by the Arabs. Mesopotamia, which means literally “between the rivers,” is applied to the land between and near those rivers down to the Persian Gulf. Much of it is included in Iraq, but some of it is in Syria, and a small part in Turkey.<\/p>\nMesopotamia played a significant role in OT history. Much of the tightly compressed account of Genesis 1–11 was centered here. The Garden of Eden was situated in this area, for two of the rivers of Genesis 2:10-14 are identified as the Euphrates and the Tigris.<\/p>\nThe prehistoric cultures of Mesopotamia are unknown. The historical periods are labeled by the names of various cities that dominated them, such as Ur and Isin-Larsa, or by the names of dynasties established in those places, for example, Ur III.<\/p>\n\nThe southernmost part of Mesopotamia is known as Sumer and was populated by the Sumerians, who had a distinctive culture and a non-Semitic language, which was written in cuneiform script, as were most of the other languages of Mesopotamia. Farther north was the district called Akkad, which was also named Agade and had a Semitic population. Still farther north, along the Tigris, was the land that became Assyria, while to the far west was Syria, or Aram, and in between was Mitanni (c. 1400 BC<\/span>). As portions of Mesopotamia slipped from hand to hand, various sections became parts of different empires, such as Hittite, Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek or Hellenistic, and Roman.<\/p>\nIn the Hebrew OT the name for Mesopotamia is Aram-naharaim, “Aram of the two rivers.” Abraham sent his servant, Eliezer, to Aram-naharaim to find a wife for Isaac (Gn 24:10). In this context it has been suggested that the two rivers were the Euphrates and the Khabur. The account of the adventures of Jacob in this area does not use the term Aram-naharaim but employs instead the name Paddan-aram, “the field [or garden] of Aram” (28:2).<\/p>\nBalaam, the son of Beor, was from Pethor in Mesopotamia (Dt 23:4). During the period of the judges, Cushan-rishathaim, king of Mesopotamia, oppressed Israel for eight years, but the Lord brought deliverance through Othniel (Jgs 3:8-10).<\/p>\nWhen the Ammonites expected David to invade their territory because they had insulted his ambassadors, they hired chariotry from Mesopotamia and elsewhere to bolster their forces (1 Chr 19:6).<\/p>\nIn the NT Mesopotamia is mentioned only twice. People from Mesopotamia were present on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:9). Stephen, in his defense before the Sanhedrin, states that Abraham lived in Mesopotamia before he lived in Haran (Acts 7:2; see Gn 11:31).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MESOPOTAMIA<\/h3>\nName given by the Greeks to the land between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, an area today called al-Jazira, “the island,” by the Arabs. Mesopotamia, which means literally “between the rivers,” is applied to the land between and near those rivers down to the Persian Gulf. Much of it is included in Iraq, but some of it is in Syria, and a small part in Turkey.<\/p>\nMesopotamia played a significant role in OT history. Much of the tightly compressed account of Genesis 1–11 was centered here. The Garden of Eden was situated in this area, for two of the rivers of Genesis 2:10-14 are identified as the Euphrates and the Tigris.<\/p>\nThe prehistoric cultures of Mesopotamia are unknown. The historical periods are labeled by the names of various cities that dominated them, such as Ur and Isin-Larsa, or by the names of dynasties established in those places, for example, Ur III.<\/p>\n\nThe southernmost part of Mesopotamia is known as Sumer and was populated by the Sumerians, who had a distinctive culture and a non-Semitic language, which was written in cuneiform script, as were most of the other languages of Mesopotamia. Farther north was the district called Akkad, which was also named Agade and had a Semitic population. Still farther north, along the Tigris, was the land that became Assyria, while to the far west was Syria, or Aram, and in between was Mitanni (c. 1400 BC<\/span>). As portions of Mesopotamia slipped from hand to hand, various sections became parts of different empires, such as Hittite, Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek or Hellenistic, and Roman.<\/p>\nIn the Hebrew OT the name for Mesopotamia is Aram-naharaim, “Aram of the two rivers.” Abraham sent his servant, Eliezer, to Aram-naharaim to find a wife for Isaac (Gn 24:10). In this context it has been suggested that the two rivers were the Euphrates and the Khabur. The account of the adventures of Jacob in this area does not use the term Aram-naharaim but employs instead the name Paddan-aram, “the field [or garden] of Aram” (28:2).<\/p>\nBalaam, the son of Beor, was from Pethor in Mesopotamia (Dt 23:4). During the period of the judges, Cushan-rishathaim, king of Mesopotamia, oppressed Israel for eight years, but the Lord brought deliverance through Othniel (Jgs 3:8-10).<\/p>\nWhen the Ammonites expected David to invade their territory because they had insulted his ambassadors, they hired chariotry from Mesopotamia and elsewhere to bolster their forces (1 Chr 19:6).<\/p>\nIn the NT Mesopotamia is mentioned only twice. People from Mesopotamia were present on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:9). Stephen, in his defense before the Sanhedrin, states that Abraham lived in Mesopotamia before he lived in Haran (Acts 7:2; see Gn 11:31).<\/p>","summary_ro":"MESOPOTAMIA Name given by the Greeks to the land between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, an area today called al-Jazira, “the island,” by the Arabs. Mesopotamia, which means literally “between the rivers,” is applied to the land between and near those rivers down to the Persian Gulf. Much of it is included in Iraq, but some of it is in Syria, and a small part in Turkey. Mesopotamia played a significant role in OT history. Much of the tightly compressed account of Genesis 1–11 was centered he...","summary_en":"MESOPOTAMIA Name given by the Greeks to the land between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, an area today called al-Jazira, “the island,” by the Arabs. Mesopotamia, which means literally “between the rivers,” is applied to the land between and near those rivers down to the Persian Gulf. Much of it is included in Iraq, but some of it is in Syria, and a small part in Turkey. Mesopotamia played a significant role in OT history. Much of the tightly compressed account of Genesis 1–11 was centered he...","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":38222,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Water","title_en":"Water","content_ro":"<h3>WATER<\/h3>\nOne of the essentials of life, which covers much of the earth’s surface and is the primary component of the human body. Life cannot be sustained more than a few days without it.<\/p>\nIn the beginning, water covered the earth. Then God brought up the dry land from the water (Gn 1:9-10). As Peter said, “God made the heavens by the word of his command, and he brought the earth up from the water and surrounded it with water” (2 Pt 3:5, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nWhen the Lord created the Garden of Eden, he made a river to water it. This river divided into four rivers, of which two are identified with certainty, the Euphrates and the Tigris, which have sustained agricultural life in the Mesopotamian area both in antiquity and today (Gn 2:10-14). The Bible also relates that early in the history of the earth there was no rain but only a mist that watered the earth (vv 5-6). In the time of Noah, the Lord used an overwhelming mass and movement of water to destroy “the world that then existed” (2 Pt 3:6), as punishment for its wickedness.<\/p>\nIn the Near East, water is of special importance, for much of the area receives only moderate amounts of rainfall. In Egypt, for example, only two to four inches (5.1 to 10.2 centimeters) of rain falls in the area of Cairo, and at Aswan the average annual rainfall is zero. Egypt is dependent upon the Nile, which is supplied by equatorial rains. By contrast, Palestine is watered well by “the rain from heaven” (Dt 11:10-11).<\/p>\nWater has many symbolic usages in Scripture (quoted below mostly from the nlt<\/span>). The righteous man is like a tree planted by streams of water (Ps 1:3; Jer 17:8). The longing of the soul after God is likened to thirst for water: “My soul thirsts for you; my whole body longs for you in this parched and weary land where there is no water” (Ps 63:1); “I thirst for you as parched land thirsts for rain” (143:6). Jesus fulfills this need and declares, “If you are thirsty, come to me! If you believe in me, come and drink!” (Jn 7:37-38). And Jesus said, “The water I give them takes away thirst altogether. It becomes a perpetual spring within them, giving them eternal life” (4:14). The Spirit of Jesus is that spiritual water that satisfies the thirst of the human spirit (7:38-39). The Word of God is also presented as water by which spiritual cleansing is effected. The Lord speaks of the cleansing of the church by “the washing of water with the word” (Eph 5:26). And Paul said that people are saved “by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit” (Ti 3:5).<\/p>\nIn the closing chapters of the Bible the Lord declares, “To all who are thirsty I will give the springs of the water of life without charge!” (Rv 21:6, nlt<\/span>). Even in the description of the heavenly Jerusalem there is mention of water—the river of the water of life: “The angel showed me a pure river with the water of life, clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb, coursing down the center of the main street” (22:1-2). The final invitation of Scripture comes to us in similar terms: “Let the thirsty ones come—anyone who wants to. Let them come and drink the water of life without charge” (v 17).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>WATER<\/h3>\nOne of the essentials of life, which covers much of the earth’s surface and is the primary component of the human body. Life cannot be sustained more than a few days without it.<\/p>\nIn the beginning, water covered the earth. Then God brought up the dry land from the water (Gn 1:9-10). As Peter said, “God made the heavens by the word of his command, and he brought the earth up from the water and surrounded it with water” (2 Pt 3:5, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nWhen the Lord created the Garden of Eden, he made a river to water it. This river divided into four rivers, of which two are identified with certainty, the Euphrates and the Tigris, which have sustained agricultural life in the Mesopotamian area both in antiquity and today (Gn 2:10-14). The Bible also relates that early in the history of the earth there was no rain but only a mist that watered the earth (vv 5-6). In the time of Noah, the Lord used an overwhelming mass and movement of water to destroy “the world that then existed” (2 Pt 3:6), as punishment for its wickedness.<\/p>\nIn the Near East, water is of special importance, for much of the area receives only moderate amounts of rainfall. In Egypt, for example, only two to four inches (5.1 to 10.2 centimeters) of rain falls in the area of Cairo, and at Aswan the average annual rainfall is zero. Egypt is dependent upon the Nile, which is supplied by equatorial rains. By contrast, Palestine is watered well by “the rain from heaven” (Dt 11:10-11).<\/p>\nWater has many symbolic usages in Scripture (quoted below mostly from the nlt<\/span>). The righteous man is like a tree planted by streams of water (Ps 1:3; Jer 17:8). The longing of the soul after God is likened to thirst for water: “My soul thirsts for you; my whole body longs for you in this parched and weary land where there is no water” (Ps 63:1); “I thirst for you as parched land thirsts for rain” (143:6). Jesus fulfills this need and declares, “If you are thirsty, come to me! If you believe in me, come and drink!” (Jn 7:37-38). And Jesus said, “The water I give them takes away thirst altogether. It becomes a perpetual spring within them, giving them eternal life” (4:14). The Spirit of Jesus is that spiritual water that satisfies the thirst of the human spirit (7:38-39). The Word of God is also presented as water by which spiritual cleansing is effected. The Lord speaks of the cleansing of the church by “the washing of water with the word” (Eph 5:26). And Paul said that people are saved “by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit” (Ti 3:5).<\/p>\nIn the closing chapters of the Bible the Lord declares, “To all who are thirsty I will give the springs of the water of life without charge!” (Rv 21:6, nlt<\/span>). Even in the description of the heavenly Jerusalem there is mention of water—the river of the water of life: “The angel showed me a pure river with the water of life, clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb, coursing down the center of the main street” (22:1-2). The final invitation of Scripture comes to us in similar terms: “Let the thirsty ones come—anyone who wants to. Let them come and drink the water of life without charge” (v 17).<\/p>","summary_ro":"WATER One of the essentials of life, which covers much of the earth’s surface and is the primary component of the human body. Life cannot be sustained more than a few days without it. In the beginning, water covered the earth. Then God brought up the dry land from the water (Gn 1:9-10). As Peter said, “God made the heavens by the word of his command, and he brought the earth up from the water and surrounded it with water” (2 Pt 3:5, nlt). When the Lord created the Garden of Eden, he made a ri...","summary_en":"WATER One of the essentials of life, which covers much of the earth’s surface and is the primary component of the human body. Life cannot be sustained more than a few days without it. In the beginning, water covered the earth. Then God brought up the dry land from the water (Gn 1:9-10). As Peter said, “God made the heavens by the word of his command, and he brought the earth up from the water and surrounded it with water” (2 Pt 3:5, nlt). When the Lord created the Garden of Eden, he made a ri...","source":"Articles\/W.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":42846,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:10","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:10","content_ro":"2:10-14<\/strong> This detailed description portrays the eastern region around Eden as a mountain with rivers flowing out to the world. Eden’s beauty and fertility enriched the whole earth.<\/p>","content_en":"2:10-14<\/strong> This detailed description portrays the eastern region around Eden as a mountain with rivers flowing out to the world. Eden’s beauty and fertility enriched the whole earth.<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:10-14 This detailed description portrays the eastern region around Eden as a mountain with rivers flowing out to the world. Eden’s beauty and fertility enriched the whole earth.","summary_en":"2:10-14 This detailed description portrays the eastern region around Eden as a mountain with rivers flowing out to the world. Eden’s beauty and fertility enriched the whole earth.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":42847,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:10","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:10","content_ro":"2:10<\/strong> The river<\/em> that was watering the garden<\/em> was a material blessing (bringing agricultural fertility) and a symbol of God’s presence (cp. Ps 46:4; Ezek 47:1-12; Zech 14:8; Rev 22:1-2). • dividing into four branches<\/em> (literally heads<\/em>): The common understanding is that one river had its source in Eden, flowed down through the garden, and then split into the four rivers named.<\/p>","content_en":"2:10<\/strong> The river<\/em> that was watering the garden<\/em> was a material blessing (bringing agricultural fertility) and a symbol of God’s presence (cp. Ps 46:4; Ezek 47:1-12; Zech 14:8; Rev 22:1-2). • dividing into four branches<\/em> (literally heads<\/em>): The common understanding is that one river had its source in Eden, flowed down through the garden, and then split into the four rivers named.<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:10 The river that was watering the garden was a material blessing (bringing agricultural fertility) and a symbol of God’s presence (cp. Ps 46:4; Ezek 47:1-12; Zech 14:8; Rev 22:1-2). • dividing into four branches (literally heads): The common understanding is that one river had its source in Eden, flowed down through the garden, and then split into the four rivers named.","summary_en":"2:10 The river that was watering the garden was a material blessing (bringing agricultural fertility) and a symbol of God’s presence (cp. Ps 46:4; Ezek 47:1-12; Zech 14:8; Rev 22:1-2). • dividing into four branches (literally heads): The common understanding is that one river had its source in Eden, flowed down through the garden, and then split into the four rivers named.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":70472,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:10","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:10","content_ro":"2:10-14<\/strong> This detailed description portrays the eastern region around Eden as a mountain with rivers flowing out to the world. Eden’s beauty and fertility enriched the whole earth.<\/p>","content_en":"2:10-14<\/strong> This detailed description portrays the eastern region around Eden as a mountain with rivers flowing out to the world. Eden’s beauty and fertility enriched the whole earth.<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:10-14 This detailed description portrays the eastern region around Eden as a mountain with rivers flowing out to the world. Eden’s beauty and fertility enriched the whole earth.","summary_en":"2:10-14 This detailed description portrays the eastern region around Eden as a mountain with rivers flowing out to the world. Eden’s beauty and fertility enriched the whole earth.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":70473,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:10","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:10","content_ro":"2:10<\/strong> The river<\/em> that was watering the garden<\/em> was a material blessing (bringing agricultural fertility) and a symbol of God’s presence (cp. Ps 46:4; Ezek 47:1-12; Zech 14:8; Rev 22:1-2). • dividing into four branches<\/em> (literally heads<\/em>): The common understanding is that one river had its source in Eden, flowed down through the garden, and then split into the four rivers named.<\/p>","content_en":"2:10<\/strong> The river<\/em> that was watering the garden<\/em> was a material blessing (bringing agricultural fertility) and a symbol of God’s presence (cp. Ps 46:4; Ezek 47:1-12; Zech 14:8; Rev 22:1-2). • dividing into four branches<\/em> (literally heads<\/em>): The common understanding is that one river had its source in Eden, flowed down through the garden, and then split into the four rivers named.<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:10 The river that was watering the garden was a material blessing (bringing agricultural fertility) and a symbol of God’s presence (cp. Ps 46:4; Ezek 47:1-12; Zech 14:8; Rev 22:1-2). • dividing into four branches (literally heads): The common understanding is that one river had its source in Eden, flowed down through the garden, and then split into the four rivers named.","summary_en":"2:10 The river that was watering the garden was a material blessing (bringing agricultural fertility) and a symbol of God’s presence (cp. Ps 46:4; Ezek 47:1-12; Zech 14:8; Rev 22:1-2). • dividing into four branches (literally heads): The common understanding is that one river had its source in Eden, flowed down through the garden, and then split into the four rivers named.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":98098,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:10","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:10","content_ro":"2:10-14<\/strong> This detailed description portrays the eastern region around Eden as a mountain with rivers flowing out to the world. Eden’s beauty and fertility enriched the whole earth.<\/p>","content_en":"2:10-14<\/strong> This detailed description portrays the eastern region around Eden as a mountain with rivers flowing out to the world. Eden’s beauty and fertility enriched the whole earth.<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:10-14 This detailed description portrays the eastern region around Eden as a mountain with rivers flowing out to the world. Eden’s beauty and fertility enriched the whole earth.","summary_en":"2:10-14 This detailed description portrays the eastern region around Eden as a mountain with rivers flowing out to the world. Eden’s beauty and fertility enriched the whole earth.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":98099,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:10","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:10","content_ro":"2:10<\/strong> The river<\/em> that was watering the garden<\/em> was a material blessing (bringing agricultural fertility) and a symbol of God’s presence (cp. Ps 46:4; Ezek 47:1-12; Zech 14:8; Rev 22:1-2). • dividing into four branches<\/em> (literally heads<\/em>): The common understanding is that one river had its source in Eden, flowed down through the garden, and then split into the four rivers named.<\/p>","content_en":"2:10<\/strong> The river<\/em> that was watering the garden<\/em> was a material blessing (bringing agricultural fertility) and a symbol of God’s presence (cp. Ps 46:4; Ezek 47:1-12; Zech 14:8; Rev 22:1-2). • dividing into four branches<\/em> (literally heads<\/em>): The common understanding is that one river had its source in Eden, flowed down through the garden, and then split into the four rivers named.<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:10 The river that was watering the garden was a material blessing (bringing agricultural fertility) and a symbol of God’s presence (cp. Ps 46:4; Ezek 47:1-12; Zech 14:8; Rev 22:1-2). • dividing into four branches (literally heads): The common understanding is that one river had its source in Eden, flowed down through the garden, and then split into the four rivers named.","summary_en":"2:10 The river that was watering the garden was a material blessing (bringing agricultural fertility) and a symbol of God’s presence (cp. Ps 46:4; Ezek 47:1-12; Zech 14:8; Rev 22:1-2). • dividing into four branches (literally heads): The common understanding is that one river had its source in Eden, flowed down through the garden, and then split into the four rivers named.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":125724,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:10","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:10","content_ro":"2:10-14<\/strong> This detailed description portrays the eastern region around Eden as a mountain with rivers flowing out to the world. Eden’s beauty and fertility enriched the whole earth.<\/p>","content_en":"2:10-14<\/strong> This detailed description portrays the eastern region around Eden as a mountain with rivers flowing out to the world. Eden’s beauty and fertility enriched the whole earth.<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:10-14 This detailed description portrays the eastern region around Eden as a mountain with rivers flowing out to the world. Eden’s beauty and fertility enriched the whole earth.","summary_en":"2:10-14 This detailed description portrays the eastern region around Eden as a mountain with rivers flowing out to the world. Eden’s beauty and fertility enriched the whole earth.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":125725,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:10","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:10","content_ro":"2:10<\/strong> The river<\/em> that was watering the garden<\/em> was a material blessing (bringing agricultural fertility) and a symbol of God’s presence (cp. Ps 46:4; Ezek 47:1-12; Zech 14:8; Rev 22:1-2). • dividing into four branches<\/em> (literally heads<\/em>): The common understanding is that one river had its source in Eden, flowed down through the garden, and then split into the four rivers named.<\/p>","content_en":"2:10<\/strong> The river<\/em> that was watering the garden<\/em> was a material blessing (bringing agricultural fertility) and a symbol of God’s presence (cp. Ps 46:4; Ezek 47:1-12; Zech 14:8; Rev 22:1-2). • dividing into four branches<\/em> (literally heads<\/em>): The common understanding is that one river had its source in Eden, flowed down through the garden, and then split into the four rivers named.<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:10 The river that was watering the garden was a material blessing (bringing agricultural fertility) and a symbol of God’s presence (cp. Ps 46:4; Ezek 47:1-12; Zech 14:8; Rev 22:1-2). • dividing into four branches (literally heads): The common understanding is that one river had its source in Eden, flowed down through the garden, and then split into the four rivers named.","summary_en":"2:10 The river that was watering the garden was a material blessing (bringing agricultural fertility) and a symbol of God’s presence (cp. Ps 46:4; Ezek 47:1-12; Zech 14:8; Rev 22:1-2). • dividing into four branches (literally heads): The common understanding is that one river had its source in Eden, flowed down through the garden, and then split into the four rivers named.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":67951,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Symbolic Numbers","title_en":"Symbolic Numbers","content_ro":"<h3>Symbolic Numbers<\/h3>\nNumbers used in Scripture have often inspired wild speculation. An understanding of the symbolism of numbers in the ancient world can help ground our interpretation. Such symbolism, however, is not rigid or exact, so great care must be exercised when numbers are used in interpretation, so as not to push fanciful predictions about future events.<\/p>\nThe number one<\/em> can refer to God’s oneness (Deut 6:4; Gal 3:20; Jas 2:19). Two<\/em> is the minimum number required to give a legitimate witness (Deut 17:6; Rev 11:3), and three<\/em> can imply divine representation (Gen 18:1-2; 2 Cor 13:14; Rev 1:4-5). Four<\/em> can stand for the known world, represented in Revelation by living creatures, horsemen, winds, and angels (Rev 4:6-8; 6:1-8; 7:1) and in Genesis by four<\/em> rivers (Gen 2:10-14). When three<\/em> and four<\/em> are added to make seven,<\/em> they represent perfection or divine fulfillment, indicating that God and the world are in harmony. The multiplication of three<\/em> by four<\/em> yields twelve,<\/em> the number associated with God’s people (Gen 35:22-26; Exod 24:4; 28:21; Num 17:2; Josh 4:3-8; 1 Kgs 18:31; Matt 10:1-4; 19:28; Jas 1:1; Rev 12:1; 21:12–22:2. The number five<\/em> and its multiples, such as ten,<\/em> represent human completeness (e.g., five<\/em> fingers per hand); and six<\/em> carries a negative sense or implication of evil, being neither humanly complete (five<\/em>) nor divinely complete (seven<\/em>).<\/p>\nMultiples of ten<\/em> (e.g., forty<\/em>) are a symbolic way to indicate many<\/em>, whereas three sixes<\/em> (666) imply supreme evil (Rev 13:18). One thousand<\/em> is regarded as the foundational large number; 12,000 indicates a large number of God’s people (Rev 7:5-8); and 144,000 represents the complete people of God (Rev 7:4; 14:1). The number 10,000 and its multiples are probably best transliterated from Greek as myriads<\/em>, since they really mean “a huge number” rather than a precise count.<\/p>\nWhile some of the numbers in the Bible have symbolic meanings, using numbers to speculate on the time of Christ’s return or of the end of the world is highly dubious—only God possesses that knowledge (Mark 13:32). God did not intend for the symbolic numbers in Revelation to help us predict the future; rather, their symbolic meanings help to explain the significance of the visions. Because the numbers are symbolic, sometimes when we translate them into contemporary sizes, distances, and numbers for our ease of reading, it can result in the loss of theological significance. The use of these symbolic numbers can illuminate a vision’s relationship to the world or to the people of God.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:2-3; 4:15; 15:13; 41:53-54; Exod 20:6; 25:31-37; 32:15; Lev 16:14; 23:16; 2 Sam 24:13; 1 Kgs 4:26; 17:21; 18:31, 43-44; Job 1:2; Ps 90:4; Jer 15:3; 49:36; Ezek 14:21; Dan 4:16, 23-25; 7:3, 17, 24; Zech 4:2; 6:1; Matt 10:1-5; 12:40; 18:21-22; Mark 6:7; Luke 15:8; Acts 6:3; 10:16; 1 Cor 8:6; Eph 4:4-6; 2 Pet 3:8; Rev 1:16; 2:10; 4:4; 6:1; 7:1, 4-8; 12:1, 3; 13:1; 17:3-14; 20:2-7; 21:12-21<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Symbolic Numbers<\/h3>\nNumbers used in Scripture have often inspired wild speculation. An understanding of the symbolism of numbers in the ancient world can help ground our interpretation. Such symbolism, however, is not rigid or exact, so great care must be exercised when numbers are used in interpretation, so as not to push fanciful predictions about future events.<\/p>\nThe number one<\/em> can refer to God’s oneness (Deut 6:4; Gal 3:20; Jas 2:19). Two<\/em> is the minimum number required to give a legitimate witness (Deut 17:6; Rev 11:3), and three<\/em> can imply divine representation (Gen 18:1-2; 2 Cor 13:14; Rev 1:4-5). Four<\/em> can stand for the known world, represented in Revelation by living creatures, horsemen, winds, and angels (Rev 4:6-8; 6:1-8; 7:1) and in Genesis by four<\/em> rivers (Gen 2:10-14). When three<\/em> and four<\/em> are added to make seven,<\/em> they represent perfection or divine fulfillment, indicating that God and the world are in harmony. The multiplication of three<\/em> by four<\/em> yields twelve,<\/em> the number associated with God’s people (Gen 35:22-26; Exod 24:4; 28:21; Num 17:2; Josh 4:3-8; 1 Kgs 18:31; Matt 10:1-4; 19:28; Jas 1:1; Rev 12:1; 21:12–22:2. The number five<\/em> and its multiples, such as ten,<\/em> represent human completeness (e.g., five<\/em> fingers per hand); and six<\/em> carries a negative sense or implication of evil, being neither humanly complete (five<\/em>) nor divinely complete (seven<\/em>).<\/p>\nMultiples of ten<\/em> (e.g., forty<\/em>) are a symbolic way to indicate many<\/em>, whereas three sixes<\/em> (666) imply supreme evil (Rev 13:18). One thousand<\/em> is regarded as the foundational large number; 12,000 indicates a large number of God’s people (Rev 7:5-8); and 144,000 represents the complete people of God (Rev 7:4; 14:1). The number 10,000 and its multiples are probably best transliterated from Greek as myriads<\/em>, since they really mean “a huge number” rather than a precise count.<\/p>\nWhile some of the numbers in the Bible have symbolic meanings, using numbers to speculate on the time of Christ’s return or of the end of the world is highly dubious—only God possesses that knowledge (Mark 13:32). God did not intend for the symbolic numbers in Revelation to help us predict the future; rather, their symbolic meanings help to explain the significance of the visions. Because the numbers are symbolic, sometimes when we translate them into contemporary sizes, distances, and numbers for our ease of reading, it can result in the loss of theological significance. The use of these symbolic numbers can illuminate a vision’s relationship to the world or to the people of God.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:2-3; 4:15; 15:13; 41:53-54; Exod 20:6; 25:31-37; 32:15; Lev 16:14; 23:16; 2 Sam 24:13; 1 Kgs 4:26; 17:21; 18:31, 43-44; Job 1:2; Ps 90:4; Jer 15:3; 49:36; Ezek 14:21; Dan 4:16, 23-25; 7:3, 17, 24; Zech 4:2; 6:1; Matt 10:1-5; 12:40; 18:21-22; Mark 6:7; Luke 15:8; Acts 6:3; 10:16; 1 Cor 8:6; Eph 4:4-6; 2 Pet 3:8; Rev 1:16; 2:10; 4:4; 6:1; 7:1, 4-8; 12:1, 3; 13:1; 17:3-14; 20:2-7; 21:12-21<\/p>","summary_ro":"Symbolic Numbers Numbers used in Scripture have often inspired wild speculation. An understanding of the symbolism of numbers in the ancient world can help ground our interpretation. Such symbolism, however, is not rigid or exact, so great care must be exercised when numbers are used in interpretation, so as not to push fanciful predictions about future events. The number one can refer to God’s oneness (Deut 6:4; Gal 3:20; Jas 2:19). Two is the minimum number required to give a legitimate wit...","summary_en":"Symbolic Numbers Numbers used in Scripture have often inspired wild speculation. An understanding of the symbolism of numbers in the ancient world can help ground our interpretation. Such symbolism, however, is not rigid or exact, so great care must be exercised when numbers are used in interpretation, so as not to push fanciful predictions about future events. The number one can refer to God’s oneness (Deut 6:4; Gal 3:20; Jas 2:19). Two is the minimum number required to give a legitimate wit...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":95577,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Symbolic Numbers","title_en":"Symbolic Numbers","content_ro":"<h3>Symbolic Numbers<\/h3>\nNumbers used in Scripture have often inspired wild speculation. An understanding of the symbolism of numbers in the ancient world can help ground our interpretation. Such symbolism, however, is not rigid or exact, so great care must be exercised when numbers are used in interpretation, so as not to push fanciful predictions about future events.<\/p>\nThe number one<\/em> can refer to God’s oneness (Deut 6:4; Gal 3:20; Jas 2:19). Two<\/em> is the minimum number required to give a legitimate witness (Deut 17:6; Rev 11:3), and three<\/em> can imply divine representation (Gen 18:1-2; 2 Cor 13:14; Rev 1:4-5). Four<\/em> can stand for the known world, represented in Revelation by living creatures, horsemen, winds, and angels (Rev 4:6-8; 6:1-8; 7:1) and in Genesis by four<\/em> rivers (Gen 2:10-14). When three<\/em> and four<\/em> are added to make seven,<\/em> they represent perfection or divine fulfillment, indicating that God and the world are in harmony. The multiplication of three<\/em> by four<\/em> yields twelve,<\/em> the number associated with God’s people (Gen 35:22-26; Exod 24:4; 28:21; Num 17:2; Josh 4:3-8; 1 Kgs 18:31; Matt 10:1-4; 19:28; Jas 1:1; Rev 12:1; 21:12–22:2. The number five<\/em> and its multiples, such as ten,<\/em> represent human completeness (e.g., five<\/em> fingers per hand); and six<\/em> carries a negative sense or implication of evil, being neither humanly complete (five<\/em>) nor divinely complete (seven<\/em>).<\/p>\nMultiples of ten<\/em> (e.g., forty<\/em>) are a symbolic way to indicate many<\/em>, whereas three sixes<\/em> (666) imply supreme evil (Rev 13:18). One thousand<\/em> is regarded as the foundational large number; 12,000 indicates a large number of God’s people (Rev 7:5-8); and 144,000 represents the complete people of God (Rev 7:4; 14:1). The number 10,000 and its multiples are probably best transliterated from Greek as myriads<\/em>, since they really mean “a huge number” rather than a precise count.<\/p>\nWhile some of the numbers in the Bible have symbolic meanings, using numbers to speculate on the time of Christ’s return or of the end of the world is highly dubious—only God possesses that knowledge (Mark 13:32). God did not intend for the symbolic numbers in Revelation to help us predict the future; rather, their symbolic meanings help to explain the significance of the visions. Because the numbers are symbolic, sometimes when we translate them into contemporary sizes, distances, and numbers for our ease of reading, it can result in the loss of theological significance. The use of these symbolic numbers can illuminate a vision’s relationship to the world or to the people of God.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:2-3; 4:15; 15:13; 41:53-54; Exod 20:6; 25:31-37; 32:15; Lev 16:14; 23:16; 2 Sam 24:13; 1 Kgs 4:26; 17:21; 18:31, 43-44; Job 1:2; Ps 90:4; Jer 15:3; 49:36; Ezek 14:21; Dan 4:16, 23-25; 7:3, 17, 24; Zech 4:2; 6:1; Matt 10:1-5; 12:40; 18:21-22; Mark 6:7; Luke 15:8; Acts 6:3; 10:16; 1 Cor 8:6; Eph 4:4-6; 2 Pet 3:8; Rev 1:16; 2:10; 4:4; 6:1; 7:1, 4-8; 12:1, 3; 13:1; 17:3-14; 20:2-7; 21:12-21<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Symbolic Numbers<\/h3>\nNumbers used in Scripture have often inspired wild speculation. An understanding of the symbolism of numbers in the ancient world can help ground our interpretation. Such symbolism, however, is not rigid or exact, so great care must be exercised when numbers are used in interpretation, so as not to push fanciful predictions about future events.<\/p>\nThe number one<\/em> can refer to God’s oneness (Deut 6:4; Gal 3:20; Jas 2:19). Two<\/em> is the minimum number required to give a legitimate witness (Deut 17:6; Rev 11:3), and three<\/em> can imply divine representation (Gen 18:1-2; 2 Cor 13:14; Rev 1:4-5). Four<\/em> can stand for the known world, represented in Revelation by living creatures, horsemen, winds, and angels (Rev 4:6-8; 6:1-8; 7:1) and in Genesis by four<\/em> rivers (Gen 2:10-14). When three<\/em> and four<\/em> are added to make seven,<\/em> they represent perfection or divine fulfillment, indicating that God and the world are in harmony. The multiplication of three<\/em> by four<\/em> yields twelve,<\/em> the number associated with God’s people (Gen 35:22-26; Exod 24:4; 28:21; Num 17:2; Josh 4:3-8; 1 Kgs 18:31; Matt 10:1-4; 19:28; Jas 1:1; Rev 12:1; 21:12–22:2. The number five<\/em> and its multiples, such as ten,<\/em> represent human completeness (e.g., five<\/em> fingers per hand); and six<\/em> carries a negative sense or implication of evil, being neither humanly complete (five<\/em>) nor divinely complete (seven<\/em>).<\/p>\nMultiples of ten<\/em> (e.g., forty<\/em>) are a symbolic way to indicate many<\/em>, whereas three sixes<\/em> (666) imply supreme evil (Rev 13:18). One thousand<\/em> is regarded as the foundational large number; 12,000 indicates a large number of God’s people (Rev 7:5-8); and 144,000 represents the complete people of God (Rev 7:4; 14:1). The number 10,000 and its multiples are probably best transliterated from Greek as myriads<\/em>, since they really mean “a huge number” rather than a precise count.<\/p>\nWhile some of the numbers in the Bible have symbolic meanings, using numbers to speculate on the time of Christ’s return or of the end of the world is highly dubious—only God possesses that knowledge (Mark 13:32). God did not intend for the symbolic numbers in Revelation to help us predict the future; rather, their symbolic meanings help to explain the significance of the visions. Because the numbers are symbolic, sometimes when we translate them into contemporary sizes, distances, and numbers for our ease of reading, it can result in the loss of theological significance. The use of these symbolic numbers can illuminate a vision’s relationship to the world or to the people of God.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:2-3; 4:15; 15:13; 41:53-54; Exod 20:6; 25:31-37; 32:15; Lev 16:14; 23:16; 2 Sam 24:13; 1 Kgs 4:26; 17:21; 18:31, 43-44; Job 1:2; Ps 90:4; Jer 15:3; 49:36; Ezek 14:21; Dan 4:16, 23-25; 7:3, 17, 24; Zech 4:2; 6:1; Matt 10:1-5; 12:40; 18:21-22; Mark 6:7; Luke 15:8; Acts 6:3; 10:16; 1 Cor 8:6; Eph 4:4-6; 2 Pet 3:8; Rev 1:16; 2:10; 4:4; 6:1; 7:1, 4-8; 12:1, 3; 13:1; 17:3-14; 20:2-7; 21:12-21<\/p>","summary_ro":"Symbolic Numbers Numbers used in Scripture have often inspired wild speculation. An understanding of the symbolism of numbers in the ancient world can help ground our interpretation. Such symbolism, however, is not rigid or exact, so great care must be exercised when numbers are used in interpretation, so as not to push fanciful predictions about future events. The number one can refer to God’s oneness (Deut 6:4; Gal 3:20; Jas 2:19). Two is the minimum number required to give a legitimate wit...","summary_en":"Symbolic Numbers Numbers used in Scripture have often inspired wild speculation. An understanding of the symbolism of numbers in the ancient world can help ground our interpretation. Such symbolism, however, is not rigid or exact, so great care must be exercised when numbers are used in interpretation, so as not to push fanciful predictions about future events. The number one can refer to God’s oneness (Deut 6:4; Gal 3:20; Jas 2:19). Two is the minimum number required to give a legitimate wit...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":123203,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Symbolic Numbers","title_en":"Symbolic Numbers","content_ro":"<h3>Symbolic Numbers<\/h3>\nNumbers used in Scripture have often inspired wild speculation. An understanding of the symbolism of numbers in the ancient world can help ground our interpretation. Such symbolism, however, is not rigid or exact, so great care must be exercised when numbers are used in interpretation, so as not to push fanciful predictions about future events.<\/p>\nThe number one<\/em> can refer to God’s oneness (Deut 6:4; Gal 3:20; Jas 2:19). Two<\/em> is the minimum number required to give a legitimate witness (Deut 17:6; Rev 11:3), and three<\/em> can imply divine representation (Gen 18:1-2; 2 Cor 13:14; Rev 1:4-5). Four<\/em> can stand for the known world, represented in Revelation by living creatures, horsemen, winds, and angels (Rev 4:6-8; 6:1-8; 7:1) and in Genesis by four<\/em> rivers (Gen 2:10-14). When three<\/em> and four<\/em> are added to make seven,<\/em> they represent perfection or divine fulfillment, indicating that God and the world are in harmony. The multiplication of three<\/em> by four<\/em> yields twelve,<\/em> the number associated with God’s people (Gen 35:22-26; Exod 24:4; 28:21; Num 17:2; Josh 4:3-8; 1 Kgs 18:31; Matt 10:1-4; 19:28; Jas 1:1; Rev 12:1; 21:12–22:2. The number five<\/em> and its multiples, such as ten,<\/em> represent human completeness (e.g., five<\/em> fingers per hand); and six<\/em> carries a negative sense or implication of evil, being neither humanly complete (five<\/em>) nor divinely complete (seven<\/em>).<\/p>\nMultiples of ten<\/em> (e.g., forty<\/em>) are a symbolic way to indicate many<\/em>, whereas three sixes<\/em> (666) imply supreme evil (Rev 13:18). One thousand<\/em> is regarded as the foundational large number; 12,000 indicates a large number of God’s people (Rev 7:5-8); and 144,000 represents the complete people of God (Rev 7:4; 14:1). The number 10,000 and its multiples are probably best transliterated from Greek as myriads<\/em>, since they really mean “a huge number” rather than a precise count.<\/p>\nWhile some of the numbers in the Bible have symbolic meanings, using numbers to speculate on the time of Christ’s return or of the end of the world is highly dubious—only God possesses that knowledge (Mark 13:32). God did not intend for the symbolic numbers in Revelation to help us predict the future; rather, their symbolic meanings help to explain the significance of the visions. Because the numbers are symbolic, sometimes when we translate them into contemporary sizes, distances, and numbers for our ease of reading, it can result in the loss of theological significance. The use of these symbolic numbers can illuminate a vision’s relationship to the world or to the people of God.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:2-3; 4:15; 15:13; 41:53-54; Exod 20:6; 25:31-37; 32:15; Lev 16:14; 23:16; 2 Sam 24:13; 1 Kgs 4:26; 17:21; 18:31, 43-44; Job 1:2; Ps 90:4; Jer 15:3; 49:36; Ezek 14:21; Dan 4:16, 23-25; 7:3, 17, 24; Zech 4:2; 6:1; Matt 10:1-5; 12:40; 18:21-22; Mark 6:7; Luke 15:8; Acts 6:3; 10:16; 1 Cor 8:6; Eph 4:4-6; 2 Pet 3:8; Rev 1:16; 2:10; 4:4; 6:1; 7:1, 4-8; 12:1, 3; 13:1; 17:3-14; 20:2-7; 21:12-21<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Symbolic Numbers<\/h3>\nNumbers used in Scripture have often inspired wild speculation. An understanding of the symbolism of numbers in the ancient world can help ground our interpretation. Such symbolism, however, is not rigid or exact, so great care must be exercised when numbers are used in interpretation, so as not to push fanciful predictions about future events.<\/p>\nThe number one<\/em> can refer to God’s oneness (Deut 6:4; Gal 3:20; Jas 2:19). Two<\/em> is the minimum number required to give a legitimate witness (Deut 17:6; Rev 11:3), and three<\/em> can imply divine representation (Gen 18:1-2; 2 Cor 13:14; Rev 1:4-5). Four<\/em> can stand for the known world, represented in Revelation by living creatures, horsemen, winds, and angels (Rev 4:6-8; 6:1-8; 7:1) and in Genesis by four<\/em> rivers (Gen 2:10-14). When three<\/em> and four<\/em> are added to make seven,<\/em> they represent perfection or divine fulfillment, indicating that God and the world are in harmony. The multiplication of three<\/em> by four<\/em> yields twelve,<\/em> the number associated with God’s people (Gen 35:22-26; Exod 24:4; 28:21; Num 17:2; Josh 4:3-8; 1 Kgs 18:31; Matt 10:1-4; 19:28; Jas 1:1; Rev 12:1; 21:12–22:2. The number five<\/em> and its multiples, such as ten,<\/em> represent human completeness (e.g., five<\/em> fingers per hand); and six<\/em> carries a negative sense or implication of evil, being neither humanly complete (five<\/em>) nor divinely complete (seven<\/em>).<\/p>\nMultiples of ten<\/em> (e.g., forty<\/em>) are a symbolic way to indicate many<\/em>, whereas three sixes<\/em> (666) imply supreme evil (Rev 13:18). One thousand<\/em> is regarded as the foundational large number; 12,000 indicates a large number of God’s people (Rev 7:5-8); and 144,000 represents the complete people of God (Rev 7:4; 14:1). The number 10,000 and its multiples are probably best transliterated from Greek as myriads<\/em>, since they really mean “a huge number” rather than a precise count.<\/p>\nWhile some of the numbers in the Bible have symbolic meanings, using numbers to speculate on the time of Christ’s return or of the end of the world is highly dubious—only God possesses that knowledge (Mark 13:32). God did not intend for the symbolic numbers in Revelation to help us predict the future; rather, their symbolic meanings help to explain the significance of the visions. Because the numbers are symbolic, sometimes when we translate them into contemporary sizes, distances, and numbers for our ease of reading, it can result in the loss of theological significance. The use of these symbolic numbers can illuminate a vision’s relationship to the world or to the people of God.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:2-3; 4:15; 15:13; 41:53-54; Exod 20:6; 25:31-37; 32:15; Lev 16:14; 23:16; 2 Sam 24:13; 1 Kgs 4:26; 17:21; 18:31, 43-44; Job 1:2; Ps 90:4; Jer 15:3; 49:36; Ezek 14:21; Dan 4:16, 23-25; 7:3, 17, 24; Zech 4:2; 6:1; Matt 10:1-5; 12:40; 18:21-22; Mark 6:7; Luke 15:8; Acts 6:3; 10:16; 1 Cor 8:6; Eph 4:4-6; 2 Pet 3:8; Rev 1:16; 2:10; 4:4; 6:1; 7:1, 4-8; 12:1, 3; 13:1; 17:3-14; 20:2-7; 21:12-21<\/p>","summary_ro":"Symbolic Numbers Numbers used in Scripture have often inspired wild speculation. An understanding of the symbolism of numbers in the ancient world can help ground our interpretation. Such symbolism, however, is not rigid or exact, so great care must be exercised when numbers are used in interpretation, so as not to push fanciful predictions about future events. The number one can refer to God’s oneness (Deut 6:4; Gal 3:20; Jas 2:19). Two is the minimum number required to give a legitimate wit...","summary_en":"Symbolic Numbers Numbers used in Scripture have often inspired wild speculation. An understanding of the symbolism of numbers in the ancient world can help ground our interpretation. Such symbolism, however, is not rigid or exact, so great care must be exercised when numbers are used in interpretation, so as not to push fanciful predictions about future events. The number one can refer to God’s oneness (Deut 6:4; Gal 3:20; Jas 2:19). Two is the minimum number required to give a legitimate wit...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":150829,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Symbolic Numbers","title_en":"Symbolic Numbers","content_ro":"<h3>Symbolic Numbers<\/h3>\nNumbers used in Scripture have often inspired wild speculation. An understanding of the symbolism of numbers in the ancient world can help ground our interpretation. Such symbolism, however, is not rigid or exact, so great care must be exercised when numbers are used in interpretation, so as not to push fanciful predictions about future events.<\/p>\nThe number one<\/em> can refer to God’s oneness (Deut 6:4; Gal 3:20; Jas 2:19). Two<\/em> is the minimum number required to give a legitimate witness (Deut 17:6; Rev 11:3), and three<\/em> can imply divine representation (Gen 18:1-2; 2 Cor 13:14; Rev 1:4-5). Four<\/em> can stand for the known world, represented in Revelation by living creatures, horsemen, winds, and angels (Rev 4:6-8; 6:1-8; 7:1) and in Genesis by four<\/em> rivers (Gen 2:10-14). When three<\/em> and four<\/em> are added to make seven,<\/em> they represent perfection or divine fulfillment, indicating that God and the world are in harmony. The multiplication of three<\/em> by four<\/em> yields twelve,<\/em> the number associated with God’s people (Gen 35:22-26; Exod 24:4; 28:21; Num 17:2; Josh 4:3-8; 1 Kgs 18:31; Matt 10:1-4; 19:28; Jas 1:1; Rev 12:1; 21:12–22:2. The number five<\/em> and its multiples, such as ten,<\/em> represent human completeness (e.g., five<\/em> fingers per hand); and six<\/em> carries a negative sense or implication of evil, being neither humanly complete (five<\/em>) nor divinely complete (seven<\/em>).<\/p>\nMultiples of ten<\/em> (e.g., forty<\/em>) are a symbolic way to indicate many<\/em>, whereas three sixes<\/em> (666) imply supreme evil (Rev 13:18). One thousand<\/em> is regarded as the foundational large number; 12,000 indicates a large number of God’s people (Rev 7:5-8); and 144,000 represents the complete people of God (Rev 7:4; 14:1). The number 10,000 and its multiples are probably best transliterated from Greek as myriads<\/em>, since they really mean “a huge number” rather than a precise count.<\/p>\nWhile some of the numbers in the Bible have symbolic meanings, using numbers to speculate on the time of Christ’s return or of the end of the world is highly dubious—only God possesses that knowledge (Mark 13:32). God did not intend for the symbolic numbers in Revelation to help us predict the future; rather, their symbolic meanings help to explain the significance of the visions. Because the numbers are symbolic, sometimes when we translate them into contemporary sizes, distances, and numbers for our ease of reading, it can result in the loss of theological significance. The use of these symbolic numbers can illuminate a vision’s relationship to the world or to the people of God.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:2-3; 4:15; 15:13; 41:53-54; Exod 20:6; 25:31-37; 32:15; Lev 16:14; 23:16; 2 Sam 24:13; 1 Kgs 4:26; 17:21; 18:31, 43-44; Job 1:2; Ps 90:4; Jer 15:3; 49:36; Ezek 14:21; Dan 4:16, 23-25; 7:3, 17, 24; Zech 4:2; 6:1; Matt 10:1-5; 12:40; 18:21-22; Mark 6:7; Luke 15:8; Acts 6:3; 10:16; 1 Cor 8:6; Eph 4:4-6; 2 Pet 3:8; Rev 1:16; 2:10; 4:4; 6:1; 7:1, 4-8; 12:1, 3; 13:1; 17:3-14; 20:2-7; 21:12-21<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Symbolic Numbers<\/h3>\nNumbers used in Scripture have often inspired wild speculation. An understanding of the symbolism of numbers in the ancient world can help ground our interpretation. Such symbolism, however, is not rigid or exact, so great care must be exercised when numbers are used in interpretation, so as not to push fanciful predictions about future events.<\/p>\nThe number one<\/em> can refer to God’s oneness (Deut 6:4; Gal 3:20; Jas 2:19). Two<\/em> is the minimum number required to give a legitimate witness (Deut 17:6; Rev 11:3), and three<\/em> can imply divine representation (Gen 18:1-2; 2 Cor 13:14; Rev 1:4-5). Four<\/em> can stand for the known world, represented in Revelation by living creatures, horsemen, winds, and angels (Rev 4:6-8; 6:1-8; 7:1) and in Genesis by four<\/em> rivers (Gen 2:10-14). When three<\/em> and four<\/em> are added to make seven,<\/em> they represent perfection or divine fulfillment, indicating that God and the world are in harmony. The multiplication of three<\/em> by four<\/em> yields twelve,<\/em> the number associated with God’s people (Gen 35:22-26; Exod 24:4; 28:21; Num 17:2; Josh 4:3-8; 1 Kgs 18:31; Matt 10:1-4; 19:28; Jas 1:1; Rev 12:1; 21:12–22:2. The number five<\/em> and its multiples, such as ten,<\/em> represent human completeness (e.g., five<\/em> fingers per hand); and six<\/em> carries a negative sense or implication of evil, being neither humanly complete (five<\/em>) nor divinely complete (seven<\/em>).<\/p>\nMultiples of ten<\/em> (e.g., forty<\/em>) are a symbolic way to indicate many<\/em>, whereas three sixes<\/em> (666) imply supreme evil (Rev 13:18). One thousand<\/em> is regarded as the foundational large number; 12,000 indicates a large number of God’s people (Rev 7:5-8); and 144,000 represents the complete people of God (Rev 7:4; 14:1). The number 10,000 and its multiples are probably best transliterated from Greek as myriads<\/em>, since they really mean “a huge number” rather than a precise count.<\/p>\nWhile some of the numbers in the Bible have symbolic meanings, using numbers to speculate on the time of Christ’s return or of the end of the world is highly dubious—only God possesses that knowledge (Mark 13:32). God did not intend for the symbolic numbers in Revelation to help us predict the future; rather, their symbolic meanings help to explain the significance of the visions. Because the numbers are symbolic, sometimes when we translate them into contemporary sizes, distances, and numbers for our ease of reading, it can result in the loss of theological significance. The use of these symbolic numbers can illuminate a vision’s relationship to the world or to the people of God.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:2-3; 4:15; 15:13; 41:53-54; Exod 20:6; 25:31-37; 32:15; Lev 16:14; 23:16; 2 Sam 24:13; 1 Kgs 4:26; 17:21; 18:31, 43-44; Job 1:2; Ps 90:4; Jer 15:3; 49:36; Ezek 14:21; Dan 4:16, 23-25; 7:3, 17, 24; Zech 4:2; 6:1; Matt 10:1-5; 12:40; 18:21-22; Mark 6:7; Luke 15:8; Acts 6:3; 10:16; 1 Cor 8:6; Eph 4:4-6; 2 Pet 3:8; Rev 1:16; 2:10; 4:4; 6:1; 7:1, 4-8; 12:1, 3; 13:1; 17:3-14; 20:2-7; 21:12-21<\/p>","summary_ro":"Symbolic Numbers Numbers used in Scripture have often inspired wild speculation. An understanding of the symbolism of numbers in the ancient world can help ground our interpretation. Such symbolism, however, is not rigid or exact, so great care must be exercised when numbers are used in interpretation, so as not to push fanciful predictions about future events. The number one can refer to God’s oneness (Deut 6:4; Gal 3:20; Jas 2:19). Two is the minimum number required to give a legitimate wit...","summary_en":"Symbolic Numbers Numbers used in Scripture have often inspired wild speculation. An understanding of the symbolism of numbers in the ancient world can help ground our interpretation. Such symbolism, however, is not rigid or exact, so great care must be exercised when numbers are used in interpretation, so as not to push fanciful predictions about future events. The number one can refer to God’s oneness (Deut 6:4; Gal 3:20; Jas 2:19). Two is the minimum number required to give a legitimate wit...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"11":[{"id":15492,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Havilah (Place)","title_en":"Havilah (Place)","content_ro":"<h3>HAVILAH (Place<\/span>)<\/h3>\nLand in the neighborhood of Eden, now unknown but said to be watered by the river Pishon and containing supplies of gold, bdellium, and onyx stone (Gn 2:11-12). The location of Havilah has been a matter of much dispute. It cannot have any connection with the Havilah of 1 Samuel 15:7, where Saul fought against certain Amalekites, because the locale of the Eden narratives is Mesopotamian and not Palestinian. On the same basis, any attempt to locate Havilah in southern Arabia, Somaliland, or India would be mistaken. The “river” Pishon may have been an irrigation canal, since Akkadian does not have a separate word for these two different bodies of water, and the Mesopotamian custom was to name large irrigation canals as if they were rivers. This would help to account for the survival of the name “Pishon” long after the canal had disappeared. The Pishon was one of four branches that the river formed once it left Eden; hence, Havilah must have been to the north, since the narrative assumes an upstream perspective. Probably Havilah was in the general area of the Shinar plain and was watered by a major irrigation canal. Both Havilah and the canal have long disappeared.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>HAVILAH (Place<\/span>)<\/h3>\nLand in the neighborhood of Eden, now unknown but said to be watered by the river Pishon and containing supplies of gold, bdellium, and onyx stone (Gn 2:11-12). The location of Havilah has been a matter of much dispute. It cannot have any connection with the Havilah of 1 Samuel 15:7, where Saul fought against certain Amalekites, because the locale of the Eden narratives is Mesopotamian and not Palestinian. On the same basis, any attempt to locate Havilah in southern Arabia, Somaliland, or India would be mistaken. The “river” Pishon may have been an irrigation canal, since Akkadian does not have a separate word for these two different bodies of water, and the Mesopotamian custom was to name large irrigation canals as if they were rivers. This would help to account for the survival of the name “Pishon” long after the canal had disappeared. The Pishon was one of four branches that the river formed once it left Eden; hence, Havilah must have been to the north, since the narrative assumes an upstream perspective. Probably Havilah was in the general area of the Shinar plain and was watered by a major irrigation canal. Both Havilah and the canal have long disappeared.<\/p>","summary_ro":"HAVILAH (Place) Land in the neighborhood of Eden, now unknown but said to be watered by the river Pishon and containing supplies of gold, bdellium, and onyx stone (Gn 2:11-12). The location of Havilah has been a matter of much dispute. It cannot have any connection with the Havilah of 1 Samuel 15:7, where Saul fought against certain Amalekites, because the locale of the Eden narratives is Mesopotamian and not Palestinian. On the same basis, any attempt to locate Havilah in southern Arabia, So...","summary_en":"HAVILAH (Place) Land in the neighborhood of Eden, now unknown but said to be watered by the river Pishon and containing supplies of gold, bdellium, and onyx stone (Gn 2:11-12). The location of Havilah has been a matter of much dispute. It cannot have any connection with the Havilah of 1 Samuel 15:7, where Saul fought against certain Amalekites, because the locale of the Eden narratives is Mesopotamian and not Palestinian. On the same basis, any attempt to locate Havilah in southern Arabia, So...","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":17434,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"India","title_en":"India","content_ro":"<h3>INDIA<\/h3>\nEastern land of uncertain geographical boundaries in Bible times. The only specific reference to the land of India in the Bible occurs in Esther 1:1 and 8:9, where the boundaries of the empire of Ahasuerus are said to have stretched from Hoddu to Kush. The term “Hoddu” seems to have derived from an Old Persian word Hindush,<\/em> which was itself related to a Sanskrit word Sindhu,<\/em> meaning “stream,” that is, the Indus River. Inscriptions from Persia indicate that India was a province of the Achaemenid Empire (559–330 BC<\/span>), and thus support the biblical statements. Even the Greek historian Herodotus in the fifth century BC<\/span> seems to have been poorly informed about India (Persian Wars<\/em> 3.94-106; 4.40, 44). There are Hebrew legends and traditions that place Jews in India in the days of King Solomon. Some interpreters have suggested that the river Pishon in Genesis 2:11 in the land of Havilah may refer to India. Others have proposed that goods brought from Ophir, such as sandalwood (“almug wood,” 1 Kgs 10:11; 2 Chr 2:8), ivory, and apes, were Indian in origin. Also, some of the items carried by merchants to Tyre, such as ivory tusks and ebony (Ez 27:15), may have originated in India.<\/p>\nThere are no references to India in the NT, but there are a number of general references to the land in intertestamental literature and in the later Jewish writings (e.g., the Targums on Esther, the Midrashim, and the Talmud). It was only after the days of Alexander the Great (d. 323 BC<\/span>) that the literary world of Palestine and Europe begin to record information about India. From 1 Maccabees 6:37, it would appear that Seleucid armies used war elephants (possibly Indian), mounted by Indian drivers in the second century BC<\/span>, and the reference in 8:8 indicates that the Romans compelled Antiochus III (223–187 BC<\/span>) to surrender. India is of uncertain value because of textual problems. There is no other evidence that the Seleucid domains stretched as far as India. It is known, however, that the Romans had considerable trading activity in India via Egypt and the Red Sea, and this makes the lack of references in the NT strange. As the Christian centuries passed, references do appear in both Jewish and early Christian literature, and it is certain that early in the Christian era settlements of Jews and monophysite Christians were found in India. According to legend, it was the apostle Thomas who took the gospel to India and founded the Mar Thoma Church.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>INDIA<\/h3>\nEastern land of uncertain geographical boundaries in Bible times. The only specific reference to the land of India in the Bible occurs in Esther 1:1 and 8:9, where the boundaries of the empire of Ahasuerus are said to have stretched from Hoddu to Kush. The term “Hoddu” seems to have derived from an Old Persian word Hindush,<\/em> which was itself related to a Sanskrit word Sindhu,<\/em> meaning “stream,” that is, the Indus River. Inscriptions from Persia indicate that India was a province of the Achaemenid Empire (559–330 BC<\/span>), and thus support the biblical statements. Even the Greek historian Herodotus in the fifth century BC<\/span> seems to have been poorly informed about India (Persian Wars<\/em> 3.94-106; 4.40, 44). There are Hebrew legends and traditions that place Jews in India in the days of King Solomon. Some interpreters have suggested that the river Pishon in Genesis 2:11 in the land of Havilah may refer to India. Others have proposed that goods brought from Ophir, such as sandalwood (“almug wood,” 1 Kgs 10:11; 2 Chr 2:8), ivory, and apes, were Indian in origin. Also, some of the items carried by merchants to Tyre, such as ivory tusks and ebony (Ez 27:15), may have originated in India.<\/p>\nThere are no references to India in the NT, but there are a number of general references to the land in intertestamental literature and in the later Jewish writings (e.g., the Targums on Esther, the Midrashim, and the Talmud). It was only after the days of Alexander the Great (d. 323 BC<\/span>) that the literary world of Palestine and Europe begin to record information about India. From 1 Maccabees 6:37, it would appear that Seleucid armies used war elephants (possibly Indian), mounted by Indian drivers in the second century BC<\/span>, and the reference in 8:8 indicates that the Romans compelled Antiochus III (223–187 BC<\/span>) to surrender. India is of uncertain value because of textual problems. There is no other evidence that the Seleucid domains stretched as far as India. It is known, however, that the Romans had considerable trading activity in India via Egypt and the Red Sea, and this makes the lack of references in the NT strange. As the Christian centuries passed, references do appear in both Jewish and early Christian literature, and it is certain that early in the Christian era settlements of Jews and monophysite Christians were found in India. According to legend, it was the apostle Thomas who took the gospel to India and founded the Mar Thoma Church.<\/p>","summary_ro":"INDIA Eastern land of uncertain geographical boundaries in Bible times. The only specific reference to the land of India in the Bible occurs in Esther 1:1 and 8:9, where the boundaries of the empire of Ahasuerus are said to have stretched from Hoddu to Kush. The term “Hoddu” seems to have derived from an Old Persian word Hindush, which was itself related to a Sanskrit word Sindhu, meaning “stream,” that is, the Indus River. Inscriptions from Persia indicate that India was a province of the Ac...","summary_en":"INDIA Eastern land of uncertain geographical boundaries in Bible times. The only specific reference to the land of India in the Bible occurs in Esther 1:1 and 8:9, where the boundaries of the empire of Ahasuerus are said to have stretched from Hoddu to Kush. The term “Hoddu” seems to have derived from an Old Persian word Hindush, which was itself related to a Sanskrit word Sindhu, meaning “stream,” that is, the Indus River. Inscriptions from Persia indicate that India was a province of the Ac...","source":"Articles\/I.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":30454,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Pishon","title_en":"Pishon","content_ro":"<h3>PISHON<\/h3>\nFirst of four divisions of the river that flowed out of the Garden of Eden (Gn 2:11). Suggestions for its identity include the Rion, the Indus, the Ganges, a canal connecting the Tigris and Euphrates, and a symbol of the Milky Way. No consensus exists on Pishon’s identity.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>PISHON<\/h3>\nFirst of four divisions of the river that flowed out of the Garden of Eden (Gn 2:11). Suggestions for its identity include the Rion, the Indus, the Ganges, a canal connecting the Tigris and Euphrates, and a symbol of the Milky Way. No consensus exists on Pishon’s identity.<\/p>","summary_ro":"PISHON First of four divisions of the river that flowed out of the Garden of Eden (Gn 2:11). Suggestions for its identity include the Rion, the Indus, the Ganges, a canal connecting the Tigris and Euphrates, and a symbol of the Milky Way. No consensus exists on Pishon’s identity.","summary_en":"PISHON First of four divisions of the river that flowed out of the Garden of Eden (Gn 2:11). Suggestions for its identity include the Rion, the Indus, the Ganges, a canal connecting the Tigris and Euphrates, and a symbol of the Milky Way. No consensus exists on Pishon’s identity.","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":30459,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Pison*","title_en":"Pison*","content_ro":"<h3>PISON*<\/h3>\nKJV translation for the Pishon River in Genesis 2:11. See<\/em> Pishon.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>PISON*<\/h3>\nKJV translation for the Pishon River in Genesis 2:11. See<\/em> Pishon.<\/p>","summary_ro":"PISON* KJV translation for the Pishon River in Genesis 2:11. See Pishon.","summary_en":"PISON* KJV translation for the Pishon River in Genesis 2:11. See Pishon.","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":42848,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:11","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:11","content_ro":"2:11<\/strong> The Pishon<\/em> and the Gihon (2:13) cannot be identified with certainty. If the land of Havilah<\/em> was in southeast Arabia or on the African coast, as some biblical data suggest (see 10:7; 25:18; 1 Sam 15:7), then the Pishon was possibly the Nile River. Josephus thought that Havilah and the Pishon were in India (Antiquities<\/em> 1.1.3). Two other proposals suggest: (1) rivers in the mountains of eastern Turkey where the Tigris and Euphrates (Gen 2:14) also flow, and (2) the marshy delta near the Persian Gulf. Current geographical conditions make any theory impossible to prove conclusively.<\/p>","content_en":"2:11<\/strong> The Pishon<\/em> and the Gihon (2:13) cannot be identified with certainty. If the land of Havilah<\/em> was in southeast Arabia or on the African coast, as some biblical data suggest (see 10:7; 25:18; 1 Sam 15:7), then the Pishon was possibly the Nile River. Josephus thought that Havilah and the Pishon were in India (Antiquities<\/em> 1.1.3). Two other proposals suggest: (1) rivers in the mountains of eastern Turkey where the Tigris and Euphrates (Gen 2:14) also flow, and (2) the marshy delta near the Persian Gulf. Current geographical conditions make any theory impossible to prove conclusively.<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:11 The Pishon and the Gihon (2:13) cannot be identified with certainty. If the land of Havilah was in southeast Arabia or on the African coast, as some biblical data suggest (see 10:7; 25:18; 1 Sam 15:7), then the Pishon was possibly the Nile River. Josephus thought that Havilah and the Pishon were in India (Antiquities 1.1.3). Two other proposals suggest: (1) rivers in the mountains of eastern Turkey where the Tigris and Euphrates (Gen 2:14) also flow, and (2) the marshy delta near the Per...","summary_en":"2:11 The Pishon and the Gihon (2:13) cannot be identified with certainty. If the land of Havilah was in southeast Arabia or on the African coast, as some biblical data suggest (see 10:7; 25:18; 1 Sam 15:7), then the Pishon was possibly the Nile River. Josephus thought that Havilah and the Pishon were in India (Antiquities 1.1.3). Two other proposals suggest: (1) rivers in the mountains of eastern Turkey where the Tigris and Euphrates (Gen 2:14) also flow, and (2) the marshy delta near the Per...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":70474,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:11","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:11","content_ro":"2:11<\/strong> The Pishon<\/em> and the Gihon (2:13) cannot be identified with certainty. If the land of Havilah<\/em> was in southeast Arabia or on the African coast, as some biblical data suggest (see 10:7; 25:18; 1 Sam 15:7), then the Pishon was possibly the Nile River. Josephus thought that Havilah and the Pishon were in India (Antiquities<\/em> 1.1.3). Two other proposals suggest: (1) rivers in the mountains of eastern Turkey where the Tigris and Euphrates (Gen 2:14) also flow, and (2) the marshy delta near the Persian Gulf. Current geographical conditions make any theory impossible to prove conclusively.<\/p>","content_en":"2:11<\/strong> The Pishon<\/em> and the Gihon (2:13) cannot be identified with certainty. If the land of Havilah<\/em> was in southeast Arabia or on the African coast, as some biblical data suggest (see 10:7; 25:18; 1 Sam 15:7), then the Pishon was possibly the Nile River. Josephus thought that Havilah and the Pishon were in India (Antiquities<\/em> 1.1.3). Two other proposals suggest: (1) rivers in the mountains of eastern Turkey where the Tigris and Euphrates (Gen 2:14) also flow, and (2) the marshy delta near the Persian Gulf. Current geographical conditions make any theory impossible to prove conclusively.<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:11 The Pishon and the Gihon (2:13) cannot be identified with certainty. If the land of Havilah was in southeast Arabia or on the African coast, as some biblical data suggest (see 10:7; 25:18; 1 Sam 15:7), then the Pishon was possibly the Nile River. Josephus thought that Havilah and the Pishon were in India (Antiquities 1.1.3). Two other proposals suggest: (1) rivers in the mountains of eastern Turkey where the Tigris and Euphrates (Gen 2:14) also flow, and (2) the marshy delta near the Per...","summary_en":"2:11 The Pishon and the Gihon (2:13) cannot be identified with certainty. If the land of Havilah was in southeast Arabia or on the African coast, as some biblical data suggest (see 10:7; 25:18; 1 Sam 15:7), then the Pishon was possibly the Nile River. Josephus thought that Havilah and the Pishon were in India (Antiquities 1.1.3). Two other proposals suggest: (1) rivers in the mountains of eastern Turkey where the Tigris and Euphrates (Gen 2:14) also flow, and (2) the marshy delta near the Per...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":98100,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:11","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:11","content_ro":"2:11<\/strong> The Pishon<\/em> and the Gihon (2:13) cannot be identified with certainty. If the land of Havilah<\/em> was in southeast Arabia or on the African coast, as some biblical data suggest (see 10:7; 25:18; 1 Sam 15:7), then the Pishon was possibly the Nile River. Josephus thought that Havilah and the Pishon were in India (Antiquities<\/em> 1.1.3). Two other proposals suggest: (1) rivers in the mountains of eastern Turkey where the Tigris and Euphrates (Gen 2:14) also flow, and (2) the marshy delta near the Persian Gulf. Current geographical conditions make any theory impossible to prove conclusively.<\/p>","content_en":"2:11<\/strong> The Pishon<\/em> and the Gihon (2:13) cannot be identified with certainty. If the land of Havilah<\/em> was in southeast Arabia or on the African coast, as some biblical data suggest (see 10:7; 25:18; 1 Sam 15:7), then the Pishon was possibly the Nile River. Josephus thought that Havilah and the Pishon were in India (Antiquities<\/em> 1.1.3). Two other proposals suggest: (1) rivers in the mountains of eastern Turkey where the Tigris and Euphrates (Gen 2:14) also flow, and (2) the marshy delta near the Persian Gulf. Current geographical conditions make any theory impossible to prove conclusively.<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:11 The Pishon and the Gihon (2:13) cannot be identified with certainty. If the land of Havilah was in southeast Arabia or on the African coast, as some biblical data suggest (see 10:7; 25:18; 1 Sam 15:7), then the Pishon was possibly the Nile River. Josephus thought that Havilah and the Pishon were in India (Antiquities 1.1.3). Two other proposals suggest: (1) rivers in the mountains of eastern Turkey where the Tigris and Euphrates (Gen 2:14) also flow, and (2) the marshy delta near the Per...","summary_en":"2:11 The Pishon and the Gihon (2:13) cannot be identified with certainty. If the land of Havilah was in southeast Arabia or on the African coast, as some biblical data suggest (see 10:7; 25:18; 1 Sam 15:7), then the Pishon was possibly the Nile River. Josephus thought that Havilah and the Pishon were in India (Antiquities 1.1.3). Two other proposals suggest: (1) rivers in the mountains of eastern Turkey where the Tigris and Euphrates (Gen 2:14) also flow, and (2) the marshy delta near the Per...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":125726,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:11","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:11","content_ro":"2:11<\/strong> The Pishon<\/em> and the Gihon (2:13) cannot be identified with certainty. If the land of Havilah<\/em> was in southeast Arabia or on the African coast, as some biblical data suggest (see 10:7; 25:18; 1 Sam 15:7), then the Pishon was possibly the Nile River. Josephus thought that Havilah and the Pishon were in India (Antiquities<\/em> 1.1.3). Two other proposals suggest: (1) rivers in the mountains of eastern Turkey where the Tigris and Euphrates (Gen 2:14) also flow, and (2) the marshy delta near the Persian Gulf. Current geographical conditions make any theory impossible to prove conclusively.<\/p>","content_en":"2:11<\/strong> The Pishon<\/em> and the Gihon (2:13) cannot be identified with certainty. If the land of Havilah<\/em> was in southeast Arabia or on the African coast, as some biblical data suggest (see 10:7; 25:18; 1 Sam 15:7), then the Pishon was possibly the Nile River. Josephus thought that Havilah and the Pishon were in India (Antiquities<\/em> 1.1.3). Two other proposals suggest: (1) rivers in the mountains of eastern Turkey where the Tigris and Euphrates (Gen 2:14) also flow, and (2) the marshy delta near the Persian Gulf. Current geographical conditions make any theory impossible to prove conclusively.<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:11 The Pishon and the Gihon (2:13) cannot be identified with certainty. If the land of Havilah was in southeast Arabia or on the African coast, as some biblical data suggest (see 10:7; 25:18; 1 Sam 15:7), then the Pishon was possibly the Nile River. Josephus thought that Havilah and the Pishon were in India (Antiquities 1.1.3). Two other proposals suggest: (1) rivers in the mountains of eastern Turkey where the Tigris and Euphrates (Gen 2:14) also flow, and (2) the marshy delta near the Per...","summary_en":"2:11 The Pishon and the Gihon (2:13) cannot be identified with certainty. If the land of Havilah was in southeast Arabia or on the African coast, as some biblical data suggest (see 10:7; 25:18; 1 Sam 15:7), then the Pishon was possibly the Nile River. Josephus thought that Havilah and the Pishon were in India (Antiquities 1.1.3). Two other proposals suggest: (1) rivers in the mountains of eastern Turkey where the Tigris and Euphrates (Gen 2:14) also flow, and (2) the marshy delta near the Per...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"12":[{"id":3991,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Bdellium*","title_en":"Bdellium*","content_ro":"<h3>BDELLIUM*<\/h3>\nSubstance mentioned twice in the OT, evidently the resinous gum of an Arabian shrub (known scientifically as Commiphora africana<\/em>). The same genus of Middle Eastern plants includes the shrub from which myrrh is derived and possibly the one from which the biblical “balm” was obtained.<\/p>\nApart from the Bible, bdellium was described by an English herbalist as an aromatic gum from a tree known in Persia and eastward. In the first century AD<\/span> the Roman writer Pliny mentioned the same tree and described the gum as waxlike and looking like pearl.<\/p>\nThe manna gathered by the Israelites is described in the Bible as having the same color as bdellium (Nm 11:7). Bdellium is also mentioned along with the gold and onyx stone found near the Garden of Eden (Gn 2:12). Because it was included in that list, bdellium was once thought to be pearl or a precious stone.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Plants.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BDELLIUM*<\/h3>\nSubstance mentioned twice in the OT, evidently the resinous gum of an Arabian shrub (known scientifically as Commiphora africana<\/em>). The same genus of Middle Eastern plants includes the shrub from which myrrh is derived and possibly the one from which the biblical “balm” was obtained.<\/p>\nApart from the Bible, bdellium was described by an English herbalist as an aromatic gum from a tree known in Persia and eastward. In the first century AD<\/span> the Roman writer Pliny mentioned the same tree and described the gum as waxlike and looking like pearl.<\/p>\nThe manna gathered by the Israelites is described in the Bible as having the same color as bdellium (Nm 11:7). Bdellium is also mentioned along with the gold and onyx stone found near the Garden of Eden (Gn 2:12). Because it was included in that list, bdellium was once thought to be pearl or a precious stone.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Plants.<\/p>","summary_ro":"BDELLIUM* Substance mentioned twice in the OT, evidently the resinous gum of an Arabian shrub (known scientifically as Commiphora africana). The same genus of Middle Eastern plants includes the shrub from which myrrh is derived and possibly the one from which the biblical “balm” was obtained. Apart from the Bible, bdellium was described by an English herbalist as an aromatic gum from a tree known in Persia and eastward. In the first century AD the Roman writer Pliny mentioned the same tree an...","summary_en":"BDELLIUM* Substance mentioned twice in the OT, evidently the resinous gum of an Arabian shrub (known scientifically as Commiphora africana). The same genus of Middle Eastern plants includes the shrub from which myrrh is derived and possibly the one from which the biblical “balm” was obtained. Apart from the Bible, bdellium was described by an English herbalist as an aromatic gum from a tree known in Persia and eastward. In the first century AD the Roman writer Pliny mentioned the same tree an...","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":30557,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Plants","title_en":"Plants","content_ro":"<h3>PLANTS<\/h3>\nIdentifying biblical plants has always been a difficult task, partly because people continue to identify the biblical elm, sycamore, lily, rose, and vine with modern plants, and also because they assume that all the plants now growing in the Holy Land were there in ancient biblical days, or that the plants referred to in the Bible are still to be found there today. Unfortunately, many plants now quite common in the Holy Land were not there in biblical days. Many plants that once grew in abundance in the Holy Land are now extinct. Some have been driven out by foreign invaders; others have been exterminated or nearly exterminated by overcultivation of the land, the destruction of forests, and the resulting changes in climatic and other environmental conditions. At one time the Holy Land was a land of palm trees, with the date palm as abundant and characteristic there as it was in Egypt, but today the date palm is much less common. Similarly, in antiquity, the towering cedars clothed the slopes of Lebanon and other mountain ranges. Now the few remaining specimens must be carefully fenced in to protect them against trampling and the ravages of goats.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Acacia<\/p>\n• Acanthus<\/p>\n• Algum<\/p>\n• Almond<\/p>\n• Almug<\/p>\n• Aloe<\/p>\n• Apple<\/p>\n• Apricot<\/p>\n• Ash<\/p>\n• Aspen<\/p>\n• Balm<\/p>\n• Barley<\/p>\n• Bdellium<\/p>\n• Bean<\/p>\n• Bitter Herbs<\/p>\n• Boxthorn, European<\/p>\n• Box Tree<\/p>\n• Bramble<\/p>\n• Broom<\/p>\n• Buckthorn<\/p>\n• Bush<\/p>\n• Buttercup<\/p>\n• Calamus<\/p>\n• Cane<\/p>\n• Caper Plant<\/p>\n• Carob Tree<\/p>\n• Cassia<\/p>\n• Castor Oil Plant<\/p>\n• Cedar<\/p>\n• Chicory<\/p>\n• Cinnamon<\/p>\n• Citron Tree<\/p>\n• Coriander<\/p>\n• Cotton<\/p>\n• Cucumber<\/p>\n• Cummin<\/p>\n• Cypress<\/p>\n• Dandelion<\/p>\n• Darnel Grass<\/p>\n• Dill<\/p>\n• Ebony<\/p>\n• Endive<\/p>\n• Fig, Fig Tree<\/p>\n• Fir Tree<\/p>\n• Flax<\/p>\n• Frankincense<\/p>\n• Galbanum<\/p>\n• Garlic<\/p>\n• Gourd, Wild<\/p>\n• Hedge<\/p>\n• Henna<\/p>\n• Hyacinth<\/p>\n• Hyssop<\/p>\n• Juniper<\/p>\n• Laurel or Sweet Bay<\/p>\n• Leek<\/p>\n• Lentil<\/p>\n• Lettuce<\/p>\n• Lily<\/p>\n• Lotus Bush<\/p>\n• Mallow<\/p>\n• Mandrake<\/p>\n• Melon<\/p>\n• Millet<\/p>\n• Mint<\/p>\n• Mulberry<\/p>\n• Mustard<\/p>\n• Myrrh<\/p>\n• Myrtle<\/p>\n• Narcissus<\/p>\n• Nard<\/p>\n• Nettle<\/p>\n• Nutmeg Flower<\/p>\n• Oak<\/p>\n• Oil Tree, Oleaster<\/p>\n• Oleander<\/p>\n• Olive, Olive Tree<\/p>\n• Onion<\/p>\n• Palm<\/p>\n• Papyrus<\/p>\n• Pine Tree<\/p>\n• Pistachio<\/p>\n• Plane Tree<\/p>\n• Pomegranate<\/p>\n• Poplar<\/p>\n• Quince<\/p>\n• Reed<\/p>\n• Rue<\/p>\n• Rush<\/p>\n• Saffron<\/p>\n• Sage<\/p>\n• Spelt<\/p>\n• Storax Tree<\/p>\n• Sycamore<\/p>\n• Tamarisk<\/p>\n• Terebinth<\/p>\n• Thistle, Thorn<\/p>\n• Tulip<\/p>\n• Tumbleweed<\/p>\n• Vegetable<\/p>\n• Vine<\/p>\n• Walnut<\/p>\n• Water Lily<\/p>\n• Wheat<\/p>\n• Wormwood<\/p>\nAcacia (Acacia tortilis<\/em> and A. seyal)<\/em><\/p>\nAny tree or shrub of the mimosa family of plants growing in warm regions. The plant referred to in the kjv<\/span> as “shittah” (singular) or “shittim” (plural) is undoubtedly the acacia tree, the only timber tree of any considerable size in the Arabian desert. Acacia tortilis<\/em> is by far the largest and most common tree in the desert in which the Israelites wandered for 40 years. It is especially conspicuous on Mt Sinai and was probably the species used for the tabernacle furnishings. A. seyal<\/em> is less common, at least today. It can grow as high as 25 feet (7.6 meters), and bears yellow flowers on twisted branches. The wood is close grained, heavy and hard, orange-brown in color, and much valued in cabinetwork. The ancient Egyptians clamped shut mummy coffins with acacia wood.<\/p>\nAcanthus (Acanthus syriacus)<\/em><\/p>\nThe acanthus, perhaps referred to in Job 30:7 and Zephaniah 2:9, is a perennial thistlelike herb or small shrub about three feet (.9 meter) tall, and is a common weed in all Eastern countries. It has been used since time immemorial as a model for the leaf or scroll decorations in art.<\/p>\nAlgum (Juniperus excelsa Bieb)<\/em><\/p>\nThe timber from Lebanon referred to in 2 Chronicles 2:8 is probably the juniper. Some translators hold, however, that algum and almug are Hebrew variants for the same tree (see nlt<\/span> mg, 2 Chr 2:8).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Almug (below).<\/p>\nAlmond (Amygdalus communis)<\/em><\/p>\nThe almond is a peachlike tree with saw-toothed pointed leaves and gray bark. It grows to a height of from 10 to 25 feet (3 to 7.6 meters). It blooms very early in the year; its Hebrew name has its roots in “watch for.” To the Jews it was a welcome harbinger of spring (Jer 1:11).<\/p>\n\nAlmug (Pterocarpus santalinus)<\/em><\/p>\nThe precious wood imported by King Solomon and used in making the pillars for the temple and for making harps and psalteries (1 Kgs 10:11-12). This timber was brought by sea from Ophir to Ezion-geber, near Elath. Modern authorities suggest that Ophir was either in Arabia, India, or East Africa near Mozambique. The reference to “algum“ in 2 Chronicles 2:8 is possibly to this tree. See<\/em> Algum (above).<\/p>\nAloe (Aloe succotrina, Aquilaria agallocha)<\/em><\/p>\nChiefly African, lilylike plant of the genus Aloes,<\/em> certain species of which yield a drug and a fiber. Aloe is an aromatic substance mentioned in the Bible, together with myrrh, balm, and other fragrant plants (Ps 45:8; Prv 7:17; Sg 4:14; Jn 19:39). Most scholars think these passages refer to two different plants. The OT plant is likely to have been Aquilaria agallocha,<\/em> the eaglewood, a large tree growing up to 120 feet (36.6 meters) tall with a trunk 12 feet (3.7 meters) in circumference. It is native to northern India, Malaya, and Indochina. The decaying wood is highly fragrant, and as such is highly valued as perfume and incense and for fumigation.<\/p>\nThe aloe of John 19:39 is thought to be the true aloe (Aloe succotrina),<\/em> the juice of which was used by the Egyptians in embalming. Its smell, however, is not very agreeable, and it has a bitter taste. It is sometimes used by veterinarians as a horse medicine.<\/p>\nApple (Malus sylvestris)<\/em><\/p>\nThe identity of the fruit identified by the Hebrew word tappuach<\/span> (Prv 25:11; Sg 2:3, 5; 7:8; 8:5) continues to be debated. In most English translations it has been rendered “apple” because of its close linguistic tie to the Arabic word tuffah.<\/em> Many scholars identify this tree as the apricot, questioning whether apples fit the biblical description “apples of gold” and whether the apple tree was cultivated in ancient Palestine. Recent excavations at Kadesh-barnea, however, have uncovered carbonized apples, probably a crab apple (Malus sylvestris),<\/em> dating to the ninth century BC<\/span>. This would certainly allow for this ornamental apple’s cultivation in Solomon’s gardens.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Apricot (below).<\/p>\nApricot (Prunus armeniaca)<\/em><\/p>\nThe identification of the Hebrew word tappuach<\/span> with the apricot continues to be debated. The apricot tree produces yellow-orange peachlike edible fruit and is native to western Asia and Africa. It is abundant in the Holy Land and probably has been so since early biblical times. The tree is a round-headed reddish-barked tree growing 30 feet (9.1 meters) tall. Most translations render this Hebrew word “apple,” though many scholars identify it with the apricot because of its descriptions in the biblical text (see Prv 25:11; Sg 2:3, 5; 7:8; 8:5; Jl 1:12).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Apple (above).<\/p>\nAsh (Alhagi maurorum, Fraxinus ornus, Tamarix mannifera)<\/em><\/p>\nThere are several ash trees found in the Near East. One of these, the prickly alhagi (Alhagi maurorum),<\/em> is a member of the pea family. It is a low, many-stemmed, much-branched shrub growing about three feet (.9 meter) tall with somewhat hairy twigs and pealike flowers. During the heat of the day, leaves exude a sweet, gummy substance that hardens in the air and is collected by shaking the bushes over a spread-out cloth.<\/p>\nThe manna tamarisk (Tamarix mannifera)<\/em> is a multibranched shrub or a small tree 9 to 15 feet (2.7 to 4.6 meters) tall with rigid branches that have tiny pink flowers. It is found on deserts from the Holy Land to Arabia and the Sinai.<\/p>\nThe flowering or manna ash (Fraxinus ornus)<\/em> is a tree that grows from 15 to 50 feet (4.6 to 15.2 meters) tall. The fruits are very similar to those produced by our species of ash. The ash of Isaiah 44:14 (kjv<\/span>) is believed to be the Aleppo pine.<\/p>\nAspen (Populus euphratica<\/em> or P. tremula)<\/em><\/p>\nAny of several trees of the genus Populus<\/em> with leaves attached by flattened leafstalks so that they tremble or “quake” in the wind.<\/p>\nBalm (Balanites aegyptiaca, Pistacia lentiscus, Commiphora opobalsamum<\/em>)<\/em><\/p>\nAn oily aromatic resin exuded by chiefly tropical trees and shrubs and used medicinally; trees and shrubs producing this substance. References in Genesis 37:25, Jeremiah 8:22, 46:11, and 51:8 are thought to be either the Jericho balsam (Balanites aegyptiaca)<\/em> or the lentisk or mastic tree (Pistacia lentiscus).<\/em> The Jericho balsam is very common in Egypt, North Africa, the plains of Jericho, and the hot plains bordering on the Dead Sea. It is a small desert-loving plant, 9 to 15 feet (2.7 to 4.6 meters) tall, with slender, thorny branches and small clusters of green flowers.<\/p>\nThe lentisk or mastic tree is native to the Holy Land, and the reference in Genesis 43:11 is probably to this plant, since the implication is that this is a native product of the Holy Land unknown in Egypt at the time. This tree is a shrubby or bushy tree 3 to 10 feet (.9 to 3 meters) tall with evergreen leaves. The “balm” is a fragrant gummy exudation of the sap secured by making incisions in the stems and branches, usually in August. The best grades are in the form of yellow-white translucent tears or drops; they are employed in medicine as an astringent. The poorer grades are used extensively as a varnish. Children in the East use it as chewing gum.<\/p>\nReferences to spices in 1 Kings 10:10, 2 Kings 20:13, Song of Songs 3:6, Isaiah 39:2, and Ezekiel 27:17 are thought to be the balm of Gilead (Commiphora opobalsamum),<\/em> which in spite of its name is not a native of Gilead or even of the Holy Land but is indigenous to Arabia, especially the mountainous regions of Yemen. The trees were still in existence on the plain of Jericho at the time of the Roman conquest. The Roman conquerors carried branches to Rome as trophies of their victory over the Jews.<\/p>\nThis tree is a small, stiff-branched evergreen tree seldom more than 15 feet (4.6 meters) high with straggling branches. The “balm” is obtained by making incisions in the stem and branches of the tree. The sap soon hardens into small irregular nodules that are collected. Gum is also procured from green and ripe fruit.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Myrrh (below).<\/p>\nBarley (Hordeum distichon)<\/em><\/p>\nA cereal grass bearing bearded flower spikes and edible seeds. The common barley (Hordeum distichon),<\/em> the winter barley (H. hex<\/em>astichon),<\/em> and the spring barley (H. vulgare)<\/em> have been cultivated in temperate regions of the world since time immemorial and today still constitute one of the principal grain foods. Barley and wheat were the two staple cereal crops of Egypt and the Holy Land. Being less expensive, barley was mostly used for feeding cattle, although it was also used by itself or mixed with wheat and other seed as food for man (Ez 4:9-12). Barley is mentioned in the Bible over 30 times, either as a plant growing in the fields or in reference to products made from it, such as barley meal, barley bread, barley cakes, and barley loaves. As the common food of the poor, barley was also regarded as a symbol of poverty and cheapness or worthlessness (Hos 3:2).<\/p>\nBdellium (Commiphora africana)<\/em><\/p>\nAromatic gum resin similar to myrrh, produced by various trees of the genus Commiphora<\/em> of Africa and western Asia. The reference in Genesis 2:12 and Numbers 11:7 to bdellium is thought by most scholars today to refer to a gum resin, obtained from a shrub, Commiphora africana<\/em>, that grows in south Arabia and northeastern Africa. The resin is yellowish, transparent, and fragrant, and looks like a pearl.<\/p>\nBean (Faba vulgaris)<\/em><\/p>\nThe references in 2 Samuel 17:27-28 and Ezekiel 4:9 are generally regarded as referring to the broad bean. This species, an annual plant, is thought originally to have grown in northern Persia, but it was extensively cultivated in western Asia in very early times as a food plant. Beans have been found in the mummy coffins of Egyptian tombs, and they were also cultivated by the Greeks and Romans.<\/p>\nBitter Herbs (Cichorium endivia, Taraxacum officinale, Lactuca sativa)<\/em><\/p>\nThe “bitter herbs” of Exodus 12:8 and Numbers 9:11 seem to have been plants like endive (Cichorium endivia),<\/em> the common chicory (Cichorium intybus),<\/em> lettuce (Lactuca sativa),<\/em> or the common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale).<\/em> These are all weedy plants common in modern Egypt and western Asia and are still eaten by people living there. The leaves of the ordinary garden lettuce are intensely bitter when bleached. This is also true of the common dandelion. Others suggest that the bitter herbs were derived from thorns and thistles.<\/p>\nBoxthorn, European (Lycium europaeum)<\/em><\/p>\nVarious thorny shrubs, some species of which bear purplish flowers and brightly colored berries. The reference in Judges 9:14-15 is thought to be to the European boxthorn or desert-thorn. It is a thorny shrub 6 to 12 feet (1.8 to 3.7 meters) tall with clustered leaves and small violet flowers eventually producing small globular red berries. It is native to and common throughout the Holy Land, especially in the region from Lebanon to the Dead Sea.<\/p>\nBox Tree (Buxus longifolia)<\/em><\/p>\nThe long-leaved box tree is a hardy evergreen tree found in the mountainous regions of the northern part of the Holy Land, the Galilean hills, and Lebanon. It grows to a height of about 20 feet (6.1 meters) with a slender trunk seldom more than six to eight inches (15.2 to 20.3 centimeters) in diameter. Its wood is very hard and takes a fine polish. It was cultivated by the Romans for its hard wood, which they inlaid with ivory for cabinets and jewel caskets. Scriptural references include Isaiah 41:19 and 60:13.<\/p>\nBramble (Rubus sanctus, R. ulmifolius)<\/em><\/p>\nThe Palestinian bramble (Rubus sanctus)<\/em> and the closely related elm-leaf bramble (R. ulmifolius)<\/em> are prickly evergreen shrubs that spread by means of suckers. The stems and young shoots are covered with a characteristic bloom or whitish powder and short hairs. The prickles are strong, erect, and hairy. The flowers are white, pink, rose, or purple in color, and the fruit is round and black.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Thistle, Thorn (below).<\/p>\nBroom (Retama raetam)<\/em><\/p>\nA shrub native to Eurasia. The word translated “juniper” in the kjv<\/span> has nothing to do with the true junipers but refers rather to a species of broom, known as the white broom (Retama raetam).<\/em> Its branches are longer and flexible, forming an erect, dense bush 3 to 12 feet (.9 to 3.7 meters) tall. The leaves are small and sparse, yet it forms an agreeable shade in a desert region. The white pealike flowers are sweet and very fragrant and are borne in clusters along the twigs. It is a beautiful shrub that grows in the desert regions of Palestine, Syria, and Persia. In many desert areas it is the only bush that affords any shade (1 Kgs 19:4-5).<\/p>\nThe “juniper roots” of Job 30:4 are not the roots of either the juniper or white broom. The roots of the latter are very nauseating and could not be eaten in the manner described by Job. Job’s “juniper roots” were probably an edible parasitic plant (Cynomorium coccineum).<\/em> This plant grows in salt marshes and maritime sands. It is frequently eaten in times of food scarcity and at one time was highly prized for its supposed medicinal value in the treatment of dysentery.<\/p>\nBuckthorn (Rhamnus palaestina)<\/em><\/p>\nThe Palestinian buckthorn is a shrub or small tree attaining a height of three to six feet (.9 to 1.8 meters) with velvety, thorny branches, evergreen leaves, and clusters of small flowers blooming in March or April. It grows in thickets and on hillsides from Syria and Lebanon through the Holy Land to Arabia and the Sinai.<\/p>\nBush (Acacia nilotica, Loranthus acaciae)<\/em><\/p>\nLow, branching, woody plant, usually smaller than a tree. There are differences of opinion in regard to the bush out of which the Lord appeared to Moses (Ex 3:2-4). From the biblical account, it seems most likely that the event was a miraculous one. However, some seek a natural explanation and believe that the burning bush may have been the crimson-flowered mistletoe or acacia strap flower (Loranthus acaciae),<\/em> which grows in great profusion as a partial parasite on the various acacia shrubs, such as the thorny acacia (Acacia nilotica),<\/em> in the Holy Land and Sinai. When in full bloom, the mistletoe imparts to the shrub or tree the appearance of being on fire because its brilliant flame-colored blossoms stand out against the green foliage and yellow flowers of the host plants.<\/p>\nButtercup (Ranunculus asiaticus)<\/em><\/p>\nThe Persian buttercup is one of the flowers or grasses of the field (Mt 6:28-30). It is a showy plant blooming in all brilliant colors except blue, with double flowers sometimes measuring two inches (5.1 centimeters) across.<\/p>\nCalamus (Acorus calamus, Andropogon aroma<\/em>ticus)<\/em><\/p>\nA plant, or its aromatic root; any of a variety of tropical Asiatic palms. One of the plants that grew in Solomon’s garden (Sg 4:14). The sweet flag (Acorus<\/em> calamus)<\/em> and the beardgrass (Andropogon aromaticus)<\/em> have been suggested as the plants from which calamus came. The sweet flag is highly aromatic and grows in Europe and Asia, but it is not known in the Holy Land. Indigenous to India, beardgrass is highly odoriferous when bruised and is thought to have furnished the calamus of the Bible. It yields an oil known as ginger-grass oil.<\/p>\nCane (Saccharum officinarum)<\/em><\/p>\nIt is thought that there were two species of sugarcane indigenous to and growing wild in the Holy Land. One of these, Saccharum sara,<\/em> is known to be only from Lebanon. The other native species is S. biflorum,<\/em> which grows on the banks of ditches and streams from Syria and Lebanon through the Holy Land south to Stony Arabia and the Sinai. This may be the wild cane familiar to the Jews. Most authorities, however, think that the “sweet cane” of Isaiah 43:24 was the true sugarcane (S. officinarum).<\/em> This plant is thought to have originated in the tropics of the eastern hemisphere. It has been cultivated by people since time immemorial and is not now known in the wild state anywhere. It is a tall, stout perennial grass, maizelike in aspect with many jointed stems and a large plumelike terminal cluster of flowers.<\/p>\nCaper Plant (Capparis sincula)<\/em><\/p>\nSpiny, trailing shrub of Mediterranean region; the flower bud of this shrub. The word “desire” in Ecclesiastes 12:5 may actually refer to the caper berry. The common caper or caper berry grows profusely in Syria, Lebanon, the Holy Land, and in the mountain valleys of Sinai. The plant may sometimes grow upright but more generally spreads itself weakly over the ground like a vine, covering rocks, ruins, and old walls like ivy. The young flower buds, pickled in vinegar, were used by the ancients as a condiment for meat. The berries were also used in cooking.<\/p>\nCarob Tree (Ceratonia siliqua)<\/em><\/p>\nEvergreen of the Mediterranean region having edible pods. Scholars generally agree that the pods of the carob or locust tree were the “husks” of Jesus’ parable of the prodigal son (Lk 15:16). The carob is an attractive evergreen leguminous tree that is very common throughout the Holy Land, Syria, and Egypt. The pods are most abundant in April and May and contain numerous pealike seeds embedded in an agreeably flavored mucilaginous sweetish pulp. The pods are also used abundantly now as they were in antiquity for feeding cattle, horses, and pigs. In time of scarcity, they are used as human food and perhaps even regularly by the very poor. The carob is frequently mentioned in the Talmud as a source of good food for domestic animals. The seeds of the carob were formerly employed as a standard of weight and are the source of the term “carat.” Some commentators suggest that the “locusts” eaten by John the Baptist (Mt 3:4) were not insects but the fruit of the carob tree.<\/p>\nCassia (Cinnamomum cassia, Saussurea lappa)<\/em><\/p>\nTree of tropical Asia with bark similar but inferior to cinnamon. The “cassia” of Exodus 30:24 and Ezekiel 27:19 is the cassia bark tree, Cinnamomum cassia.<\/em> In Psalm 45:8 the reference seems to be to the Indian orris, Saussurea lappa.<\/em><\/p>\nCastor Oil Plant (Ricinus communis)<\/em><\/p>\nLarge plant, native to tropical Africa and Asia, cultivated for ornamental reasons and for extraction of oil from its seeds. The gourd of Jonah 4:6-7 was probably the ordinary castor bean. The castor bean is a tender shrub, growing 3 to 12 or more feet (.9 to 3.7 meters) tall with huge leaves that resemble the outstretched human hand. The castor bean plant is found in waste places, especially near water, in both Lebanon and the Holy Land and often is cultivated. In hot climates it becomes treelike and affords a dense shade by the abundance of its huge, umbrella-like leaves. It is known in the Orient for the rapidity of its growth. The oil extracted from the seeds of the castor bean was used by the Jews in ceremonial rites and is mentioned among the five kinds of oil that rabbinical tradition sanctioned for such use. The seeds themselves are poisonous when eaten.<\/p>\nCedar (Cedrus libani)<\/em><\/p>\nAny of several coniferous evergreen trees of the genus native to the Old World. With few exceptions, the references to “cedar” are to the well-known cedar of Lebanon. This is a noble tree, the tallest and most massive with which the Israelites were acquainted. It grows quite rapidly, attaining a height of up to 120 feet (36.6 meters) with a trunk diameter of as much as 8 feet (2.4 meters). In Solomon’s day these trees were obviously abundant on the mountains of Lebanon, but now, because of excessive lumbering, they are very rare. The cedar of Lebanon was held in high esteem not only for its vigor, beauty, and age but also for the fragrance and remarkable lasting qualities of the wood. It symbolizes grandeur, might, majesty, dignity, lofty stature, and wide expansion. References in Ezekiel 17:3, 22-24, and 31:3-18 beautifully illustrate how these lofty kings of the forest symbolize and typify worldly strength, power, and glory.<\/p>\nChicory (Cichorium intybus)<\/em><\/p>\nSee<\/em> Bitter Herbs (above).<\/p>\nCinnamon (Cinnamomum zeylanicum)<\/em><\/p>\nTwo varieties of trees of this genus, native to tropical Asia, with aromatic bark that, when ground, is used as a spice. The cinnamon of Exodus 30:23, Proverbs 7:17, Song of Songs 4:14, and Revelation 18:13 is undoubtedly Cinnamomum zeylanicum.<\/em> The tree is a rather low-growing one, never getting more than 30 feet (9.1 meters) high, with a smooth, ash-colored bark and widespread branches and white flowers. Its shiny, beautifully veined evergreen leaves grow about nine inches (22.9 centimeters) long and two inches (5.1 centimeters) wide.<\/p>\nThe Jews always regarded cinnamon as a deliciously fragrant substance and valued it highly as a spice and a perfume. It was one of the principal ingredients used in the manufacture of the precious ointments, or “holy oil,” that Moses was commanded to use in the tabernacle for anointing the sacred vessels and officiating priests. It was undoubtedly very costly and precious.<\/p>\nCitron Tree (Tetraclinis articulata)<\/em><\/p>\nTree native to Asia bearing lemonlike fruit with a thick, fragrant rind. It seldom exceeds a height of 30 feet (9.1 meters) and has hard, dark-colored, durable, fragrant wood that takes a fine polish. The wood was one of the most highly prized woods of the ancients, who employed it extensively for cabinetwork. It was commonly referred to as being worth its weight in gold. The wood, owing to its resinous properties, is slow to decay and remains practically uninjured by insects.<\/p>\nCoriander (Coriandrum sativum)<\/em><\/p>\nThe references in Exodus 16:31 and Numbers 11:7 are clearly to the common coriander plant. The coriander was found quite commonly growing along with grain in cultivated fields throughout the Holy Land. It grows wild in Egypt and was used by the ancients both as condiment and as a medicine. The leaves are quite aromatic and are used in soups and for flavoring puddings, curries, and wines. The coriander is still used today as a spice by the Arabs. In Scripture it is mentioned only in connection with manna, which was said to resemble coriander seeds in size, shape, and color.<\/p>\nCotton (Gossypium herbaceum)<\/em><\/p>\nAny of various plants or shrubs of this genus grown in warm climates for the soft white fiber attached to their seeds and the oil from these seeds. The “green” of the kjv<\/span> in Esther 1:6 is undoubtedly a reference to the Levant cotton (Gossypium herbaceum)<\/em> that was cultivated since time immemorial in the Far East. Alexander the Great brought it back from India. It is probable that the Jews became acquainted with cotton during the period of their Persian captivity under King Ahasuerus.<\/p>\nCucumber (Cucumis chate, C. sativus)<\/em><\/p>\nThe cucumber is an annual climbing or trailing vine, the origin of which is unknown. It has been cultivated in all the warm countries of the Old World since prehistoric times. Cucumbers are usually eaten raw; a cucumber and a barley cake or some other kind of bread often constitute a meal. The reference to “a lodge in a garden of cucumbers” (Is 1:8) refers to the crudely built small house or lodge often set up in Palestinian cucumber fields and vineyards.<\/p>\nCummin (Cuminum cyminum)<\/em><\/p>\nThe references in Isaiah 28:25-27 and Matthew 23:23 are clearly to the cummin—a common, annual plant of the carrot family said to be native to Egypt and the region of the eastern Mediterranean. It has long been cultivated for its powerfully aromatic and pungent seeds, which are similar to caraway seeds but larger. They do not have as agreeable a taste as caraway seeds but nevertheless were used extensively as a flavor or spice and sometimes were even mixed with flour in making bread. Cummin was also used medicinally and as a condiment with fish and meats.<\/p>\nCypress (Cupressus sempervirens horizontalis)<\/em><\/p>\nThe cypress is a massive, tall-growing evergreen with scalelike leaves and is widely distributed in the mountainous regions of the Holy Land. On Mt Lebanon and Mt Hermon it grows together with the cedar and oak. Its usual height is 50 to 60 feet (15.2 to 18.3 meters), but it may grow as tall as 80 feet (24.2 meters). It is said to have been used extensively in shipbuilding by the Phoenicians, Cretans, and Greeks. There is general agreement that the “gopher wood” of Genesis 6:14 is cypress because the wood is very durable.<\/p>\nDandelion (Taraxacum officinale)<\/em><\/p>\nSee<\/em> Bitter Herbs (above).<\/p>\nDarnel Grass (Lolium temulentum)<\/em><\/p>\nIt is generally agreed that the “tares” of the kjv<\/span> (Mt 13:24-30) are the annual or bearded darnel grass. It is a strong grass closely resembling wheat or rye in appearance. The seeds are much smaller than those of wheat or rye, but it is extremely difficult to distinguish it from wheat or rye in its early stages. If it is not eradicated early but is left until the time of harvest, it is cut down with the wheat and the two are subsequently very difficult to separate. The seeds are poisonous, either due to some chemicals naturally present or because of a fungus that grows within the seeds.<\/p>\nDill (Anethum graveolens)<\/em><\/p>\nDill is a weedy annual plant resembling parsley and fennel, 12 to 20 inches (30.5 to 50.8 centimeters) tall with yellow flowers. The reference in Matthew 23:23 (kjv<\/span>) to anise is probably a reference to dill. This plant is widely cultivated for seeds that are aromatic and carminative.<\/p>\nEbony (Diospyros ebenaster, D. ebenum, D. mela<\/em>noxylon)<\/em><\/p>\nChiefly tropical tree of southern Asia with hard, dark-colored heartwood. Ebony comes from the date plum or date tree (Diospyros ebenaster<\/em> and D. melanoxylon)<\/em> of India and is quite different from the date palm. It was sent by Phoenician ships across the Arabian Sea and up the Red Sea to the market in Tyre, from which it was carried overland by camel caravans. The outer wood of these trees is white and soft, but when old, the interior wood becomes hard, black, heavy, and durable and still constitutes most of the costly ebony of commerce. Ebony takes on a fine polish and is highly valued for cabinetwork, for turnery, for the manufacture of fancy ornamental articles and instruments, and as a veneer for other woods.<\/p>\nEzekiel mentions ivory and ebony together (Ez 27:15). Ebony was and still is frequently inlaid with ivory, with which it contrasts so strikingly in color.<\/p>\nEndive (Cichorium endivia)<\/em><\/p>\nSee<\/em> Bitter Herbs (above).<\/p>\nFig, Fig Tree (Ficus carica)<\/em><\/p>\nAny of several trees or shrubs of this genus, native to the Mediterranean region; its edible fruit. The common fig, mentioned some 60 times in the Bible, is one of the most important Bible plants. Its leaves are spoken of first in Genesis 3:7. The fig is generally regarded as native to southwestern Asia and Syria, but already in early times it was also cultivated extensively in Egypt and the Holy Land, where it was one of the principal foods. First Samuel 25:18 states that a part of the gift sent by Abigail to David consisted of 200 cakes of figs.<\/p>\nThe fig tree has a very peculiar type of fruit called a syconium, which is actually a very much enlarged and fleshy receptacle. It is pollinated by a wasp, without which it cannot get its fruit; this was discovered when it was first transplanted to California.<\/p>\nThe fig puts out its earliest fruit buds before its leaves, the former in February and the latter in April or May. When the leaves are out, the fruit ought to be ripe (Mt 21:19).<\/p>\nWhenever the prophets of old berated the people for their wickedness, they often threatened that the vine and the fig crops would be destroyed. And when they held out the promise of great rewards, they said that the vine and fig crop would be restored (Jer 8:13; Hos 2:12; Jl 1:7, 12; Mi 4:4; Zec 3:10).<\/p>\nFir Tree (Abies cilicica)<\/em><\/p>\nThis a generic term for various evergreen trees having flat needles and erect cones. In all probability, most of the references in Scripture to the fir are references to the pine, cypress, or juniper. The only true fir in the Holy Land grows in the higher parts of Lebanon and the mountains northward. It attains a height of 30 to 75 feet (9.1 to 22.9 meters) and is widely cultivated.<\/p>\nFlax (Linum usitatissimum)<\/em><\/p>\nAny of several plants of this genus, one particularly being widely cultivated for the linseed oil from its seeds and the fine textile fibers from its stems. Flax is the oldest known of the textile fibers. Cotton is identified only once in the Bible (Est 1:6). There is no mention of any other fiber plant being cultivated in Egypt or the Holy Land in biblical days, and for that reason it is thought that linen was the material out of which clothes other than woolen ones were made. Linen was also used for domestic purposes such as towels (Jn 13:4-5), napkins (11:44), girdles and undergarments (Is 3:23; Mk 14:51), nets (Is 19:8-9), and measuring lines (Ez 40:3). The priests serving in the temple were to wear nothing but linen clothes; a mixed cloth of wool and flax together was strictly forbidden to the Jews (Lv 19:19; Dt 22:11).<\/p>\nAt least three kinds of linen were used in biblical times, and apparently there were particular uses for each kind. Ordinary linen of coarsest texture is mentioned in Leviticus 6:10, Ezekiel 9:2, Daniel 10:5, and Revelation 15:6. The second type of linen of superior quality is mentioned in Exodus 26:1 and 39:27. A third type of linen of finest texture and high cost is mentioned in 1 Chronicles 15:27, Esther 8:15, and Revelation 19:8.<\/p>\nThe common flax plant grows from one to four feet (.3 to 1.2 meters) tall with a simple, slender, wirelike stem and numerous small, pale, lancelike green leaves. The failure of the flax crop is listed as one of God’s punishments (Hos 2:9). The manufacture of linen from flax fibers was a domestic industry of Jewish women (Prv 31:13, 19), ranging from ordinary clothing to the robes and aprons worn by the priest and temple attendants. Linen was also used for wicks in lamps (Is 42:3).<\/p>\nFrankincense (Boswellia)<\/em><\/p>\nAromatic genus resin used chiefly as incense. Frankincense is obtained from three species of a single genus of plants that grow in southern Arabia, Ethiopia, Somaliland, India, and the East Indies. The trees are large in size, related to the turpentine or terebinth tree and to those that produce balsam and myrrh. The gum has a bitter taste and gives off a strong odor in the form of a volatile oil when warmed or burned. It is obtained by successive incisions in the bark of the trunk and in the branches of living trees. It is thought that the Hebrews imported all their frankincense from Arabia, especially from the region about Sheba.<\/p>\nFrankincense is mentioned 21 times in the Bible (e.g., Ex 30:34; 1 Chr 9:29; Neh 13:9; Sg 3:6; 4:6, 14; Mt 2:11; Rv 18:13) and was probably employed almost exclusively in the sacrificial services of the tabernacle and temple until the time of Solomon. It has always been the most important incense resin in the world.<\/p>\nGalbanum (Ferula galbaniflua)<\/em><\/p>\nGalbanum is a malodorous yellowish or brownish gum resin containing the chemical substance umbelliferone, obtained from several species of plants related to the fennel, native to Syria and Persia. The gum is a natural exudation of the stem or is obtained by making a transverse incision in the young stem a few inches above the ground. The milky juice soon hardens and forms one of the kinds of commercial galbanum. Its odor is strongly balsamic, pungent, and disagreeable when burned. Galbanum was one of the ingredients used to form the “holy incense” (Ex 30:34).<\/p>\nGarlic (Allium sativum)<\/em><\/p>\nSee<\/em> Onion (below).<\/p>\nGourd, Wild (Citrullus colocynthis)<\/em><\/p>\nThere has been considerable difference of opinion regarding the meaning of the words translated “wild gourds” (2 Kgs 4:39) or “gall” (Dt 29:18; 32:32; Ps 69:21; Jer 8:14; 9:15; 23:15; Lam 3:5, 19; Am 6:12; Mt 27:34; Acts 8:23). Most scholars today believe the plant referred to was the colocynth, a cucumber-like vine that trails on the ground or climbs over shrubs and fences. The fruit contains a soft spongy pulp, which is intensely bitter, strongly cathartic, and sometimes poisonous.<\/p>\nHedge (Rhamnus palaestina, Balanites aegyptiaca, Lycium europaeum)<\/em><\/p>\nRow of closely planted shrubs or low-growing trees forming a fence or boundary. A number of plants were used to provide hedges in Bible times. One of these was the Palestine buckthorn, Rhamnus palaestina.<\/em> This plant is a shrub or a small tree growing from three to six feet (.9 to 1.8 meters) tall with velvety, thorny branches, evergreen leaves, and clusters of small flowers blooming in March and April. It grows in thickets and on hillsides from Syria through the Holy Land to Arabia and the Sinai. The Jericho balsam (Balanites aegyptiaca)<\/em> and the European boxthorn (Lycium europaeum)<\/em> are also prickly shrubs widely used as hedges in the Holy Land and may be the plants referred to in Proverbs 15:19 and Hosea 2:6.<\/p>\nHenna (Lawsonia inermis)<\/em><\/p>\nTree or shrub of Asia and northern Africa with fragrant reddish or white flowers and leaves from which a reddish dye is made. The plant referred to in Song of Songs 1:14 and 4:13 and translated as “camphire” (kjv<\/span>) is thought by scholars today to refer to the henna plant. It is a native of northern India and grows wild in the Sudan, Egypt, Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, and the Holy Land. It grows from 4 to 12 feet (1.2 to 3.7 meters) tall, and its scent is similar to that of roses.<\/p>\nHenna leaves are dried, crushed into a powder, mixed with water, and made into a paste that has been used since time immemorial as a cosmetic. A number of mummies have been found decorated with henna. Henna was used to provide a bright yellow, orange, or red color to the fingernails, toenails, the tips of the fingers, the palms of the hand, and the soles of the feet of young girls. Men also used it for coloring their beards and the manes and tails of horses. The dye had to be renewed once every two or three weeks. This use of henna as a cosmetic was common in Egypt at the time the children of Israel were there as slaves; they were undoubtedly familiar with it.<\/p>\nHyacinth (Hyacinthus orientalis)<\/em><\/p>\nThe lily referred to in Song of Songs 2:1-2, 16; 4:5; and 6:2-4 may well be the garden hyacinth. It is native to, and very common in, the fields and rocky places in the Holy Land, Lebanon, and northward. Its flowers in the wild form are always deep blue and very fragrant.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Lily (below).<\/p>\nHyssop (Origanum maru)<\/em><\/p>\nWoody plant native to Asia with spikes of small blue flowers and aromatic leaves used as a condiment and in perfumery. There is little agreement among botanists as to the exact identity of the biblical “hyssop.” Some have suggested Hyssopus offici<\/em>nalis,<\/em> the well-known garden herb now called hyssop. However, this plant is not native either to the Holy Land or Egypt, being found only in southern Europe. Moreover, it does not fit the requirements of the biblical plant.<\/p>\nThe “hyssop” of the OT is likely the Syrian or Egyptian marjoram (Origanum maru).<\/em> It is referred to in Exodus 12:22; Leviticus 14:4-6, 52; Numbers 19:6, 18; 1 Kings 4:33; Psalm 51:7; and Hebrews 9:19. The marjorams are mints growing (under favorable conditions) about two or three feet (.6 to .9 meter) tall, but more often are dwarfed when growing in rock crevices and walls (cf. 1 Kgs 4:33). An aromatic substance is obtained from the crushed and dried leaves. If gathered together in a bunch with leaves and flowers, the hairy stems of the marjoram would hold liquid very well and would make an excellent sprinkler.<\/p>\n\nThe hyssop of the crucifixion passage in the NT (Jn 19:29) is probably the sorghum, a tall cereal plant grown primarily for food but also used for brushes and mops.<\/p>\nJuniper (Juniperus)<\/em><\/p>\nVariety of evergreen tree or shrub. The plant referred to in Jeremiah 17:6 and 48:6 and translated in the kjv<\/span> “heath” is probably the savin or Phoenician juniper. The Phoenician juniper, Juniperus phoenicia,<\/em> is found in the hills and rocky places of Arabia. The savin juniper, J. sabina,<\/em> is common throughout the deserts, plains, and rocky places of Syria and Palestine. These references are to the brown-berried cedar, or sharp cedar.<\/p>\nLaurel or Sweet Bay (Laurus nobilis)<\/em><\/p>\nShrub or tree native to the Mediterranean region. While the reference in Psalm 37:35 may be to the cedar of Lebanon, most scholars refer the “green bay tree” (kjv<\/span>) of the psalmist to the sweet bay, a native of the Holy Land, inhabiting thickets and woods from the coast to the middle montane zone. It is an evergreen tree attaining a height from 40 to 60 feet (12.2 to 18.3 meters).<\/p>\nEven though the tree is abundant on Mt Carmel and around Hebron, it is generally not common in the Holy Land. Its leaves are still used as a condiment, and its fruit, leaves, and bark have long been used in medicine.<\/p>\nLeek (Allium porrum)<\/em><\/p>\nSee<\/em> Onion (below).<\/p>\nLentil (Lens esculenta)<\/em><\/p>\nThe lentil plant to which Genesis 25:29-34, 2 Samuel 17:27-29, 23:11, and Ezekiel 4:9 refer is a small, erect, annual, vetchlike plant with slender stems and tendril-bearing leaves. It produces small, white, violet-striped flowers with flat, pealike pods in which the lentils are borne.<\/p>\nLettuce (Lactuca sativa)<\/em><\/p>\nSee<\/em> Bitter Herbs (above).<\/p>\nLily (Lilium)<\/em><\/p>\nAny of various plants of the genus Lilium<\/em> having large, variously colored, trumpet-shaped flowers; and related plants. The lily is one of the most famous of all the plants in the Bible, but it is also one about which there has been considerable difference of opinion. It seems probable that several kinds of plants, perhaps five or six, are called lilies in the kjv<\/span>. Most authorities regard the Palestine anemone or wind flower, Anemone coronaria,<\/em> as the “lily of the field” (Mt 6:28, kjv<\/span>) that surpassed Solomon in all his glory. These flowers are found in every part of the Holy Land in profusion; the most common forms are scarlet or yellow, but the Palestine anemone may also be blue, purple, rose, or white in color. The flower attains a diameter of two and three-quarter inches (7 centimeters).<\/p>\nAn alternative suggestion is the Palestinian chamomile, Anthemis palaestina,<\/em> a common, white, daisylike plant. The chamomile is gathered like dry grass and thrown into the furnace when it dries up.<\/p>\nAnother proposed plant is Lilium chalcedonicum,<\/em> the scarlet or Martagon lily. The statement in Song of Songs 5:13—“his lips like lilies”—would better fit this plant than the Palestine anemone. The reference is apparently to a rare plant of exceptional beauty. The scarlet lily is rare in the Holy Land; indeed, some botanists doubt that it lives there.<\/p>\nThe references in 1 Kings 7:19, 22, 26 and 2 Chronicles 4:5 are probably to the water lily, Nymphaea alba,<\/em> which served as the pattern. The water lily is quite common in Europe and also in the Holy Land and northern Africa.<\/p>\nLotus Bush (Zizyphus lotus)<\/em><\/p>\nThe “shady trees” of Job 40:21-22 (kjv<\/span>; cf. nlt<\/span> “lotus plants”) may refer to the lotus bush of the Middle East, Zizyphus lotus,<\/em> a shrub or low tree that grows to a height of about five feet (1.5 meters) with smooth, zigzag, whitish branches.<\/p>\nOther commentators believe that the shady trees of Job are large-leafed trees such as the plane tree, Platanus orientalis,<\/em> or the oleander, Nerium oleander.<\/em> This suggestion is based on the assumption that the animal described in Job 40 is the hippopotamus, and it seems unlikely that the hippopotamus would live under a lotus bush or even be found in places where this shrub grows. These individuals regard the plane tree or the oleander as more likely.<\/p>\nMallow (Atriplex)<\/em><\/p>\nThe Hebrew word used in Job 30:4 implies saltiness, and for this reason botanists believe that it refers to one of the species of the saltwort or orach. Twenty-one species of saltwort occur in the Holy Land, almost all of which are common and could well meet the requirements of the text. Atriplex halimus<\/em> is the species usually suggested, a strong-growing bushy shrub related to the spinach.<\/p>\nMandrake (Mandragora officinarum)<\/em><\/p>\nThe mandrake or love apple is a stemless herbaceous perennial related to the nightshade, potato, and tomato. It has a large, beetlike, often forked taproot from the top of which arise many dark leaves about a foot (30.5 centimeters) long and four inches (10.2 centimeters) wide. The plant is slightly poisonous, and the thick taproots have some resemblance in shape to the lower parts of the human body. For this reason certain aphrodisiac properties were ascribed to it (cf. Gn 30:14-16).<\/p>\nThe love apple was a common plant in deserted fields throughout the Holy Land. It is native to the entire Mediterranean region, southern Europe, and Asia Minor. The mandrake is mentioned in Song of Songs 7:13, though some scholars believe the writer may actually have been referring to the citron or to the common edible field mushroom, Agaricus campestris.<\/em><\/p>\nMelon (Cucumis melo, Citrullus vulgaris)<\/em><\/p>\nAny of several varieties of these two related vines having a hard rind and juicy flesh. The melons of Numbers 11:5 may be either the muskmelon (Cucumis melo)<\/em> or the watermelon (Citrullus vulgaris).<\/em> It may be that both fruits are referred to.<\/p>\n\nMillet (Panicum miliaceum)<\/em><\/p>\nA grass grown in Eurasia for its edible seed. Millet seeds are the smallest of all the grass seeds cultivated as food but are produced profusely. Millet is an annual grass seldom more that two feet (.6 meter) tall. The small seeds of the millet are used on cakes and eaten uncooked by the poor of the land.<\/p>\nMint (Mentha)<\/em><\/p>\nAny of various plants of this family with aromatic foliage that is processed for flavoring. Quite a few mints are common in the Holy Land, but the horse mint (Mentha longifolia)<\/em> is probably the one referred to in Matthew 23:23 and Luke 11:42. Mints were employed by the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans for flavoring, as a carminative in medicine, and as a condiment in cooking.<\/p>\nMulberry (Morus nigra)<\/em><\/p>\nAny tree of this family, some bearing dark-purple fruit and one bearing white fruit, having leaves used as food for silkworms. The sycamine tree of Luke 17:6 (kjv<\/span>) is evidently the black mulberry, Morus nigra.<\/em> It is a low-growing, thick-crowned, stiff-branched tree standing from 24 to 35 feet (7.3 to 10.7 meters) tall, though rarely more than 30 feet (9.1 meters) tall. Originally native to northern Persia, it is now cultivated throughout the Middle East for its fruit. The Chinese or Indian species, M. alba,<\/em> was until recently widely cultivated in Syria and the Holy Land but is not indigenous.<\/p>\nMustard (Brassica nigra, B. arvensis)<\/em><\/p>\nVarious plants of this genus are native to Eurasia, some of which are cultivated for their edible seeds. While there is disagreement about the identity of the “mustard” of Matthew 13:31-32, 17:20, Mark 4:31, Luke 13:19, and 17:6, it is generally thought to be the ordinary black mustard, Brassica nigra.<\/em><\/p>\nThe mustard Jesus referred to may be the charlock or wild mustard, B. arvensis,<\/em> which normally grows from one to three feet (.3 to .9 meter) tall. Some have suggested that it was actually Salvadora persica,<\/em> found in thickets around the Dead Sea. The plant has a pleasant aromatic taste resembling that of mustard, and if taken in considerable quantity, it will produce an irritation of the nose and eyes similar to that of mustard. However, this plant does not grow as far north as Galilee, and the fruits are rather large and stony, thus hardly fitting the description of the parable.<\/p>\nWhile the seeds of the mustard are not the smallest known, they were probably the smallest familiar to the common people who comprised Jesus’ audience in Galilee.<\/p>\nMyrrh (Commiphora myrrha, C. kataf)<\/em><\/p>\nShrub or tree exuding an aromatic gum resin used in perfume and incense. Most of the references in Scripture to myrrh are to Commiphora myrrha,<\/em> although C. kataf<\/em> may also be involved since it grows in the same region and is similar. The two trees are native to Arabia, Ethiopia, and the Somali coast of east Africa. They yield a gummy exudation that constitutes most of the myrrh of commerce. Both species are low, scrubby, thick- and stiff-branched thorny shrubs or small trees that grow in rocky places, especially on limestone hills. In the East it is highly regarded as an aromatic substance, perfume, and medicine. The ancient Egyptians burned it in their temples and embalmed their dead with it; the Jews also used it for embalming (Jn 19:39). The Hebrews held it in high regard as a perfume (Ps 45:8).<\/p>\n\nMyrtle (Myrtus communis)<\/em><\/p>\nThe myrtle tree is common in the Holy Land, especially around Bethlehem, Lebanon, Hebron, and the slopes of Mt Carmel and Mt Tabor. It is native to western Asia and in good environments grows into a small evergreen tree 20 to 30 feet (6.2 to 9.1 meters) tall. More often, however, it is a straggling bush 1½ to 4 feet (.5 to 1.2 meters) tall.<\/p>\nIn the Bible, myrtle is referred to chiefly as a symbol of God’s generosity. Branches of myrtle trees were included among those that Nehemiah ordered to be gathered for the Feast of Tabernacles (Neh 8:15). The myrtle was symbolic not only of peace but also of justice.<\/p>\n\nNarcissus (Narcissus tazetta)<\/em><\/p>\nWidely cultivated plant of this family with narrow leaves and usually white or yellow flowers with a cup-crown or trumpet-shaped crown. The polyanthus narcissus (Narcissus tazetta)<\/em> appears to be the plant referred to in Isaiah 35:1. This narcissus grows abundantly on the plains of Sharon and elsewhere in Palestine. Being sweet-smelling, it is a great favorite.<\/p>\nNard (Nardostachys jatamansi)<\/em><\/p>\nThe nard is a perennial herb with strong, pleasantly scented roots. It is native to high altitudes in the Himalayas, and its range extends from there into western Asia. The roots and spikelike wooly young stems are dried before the leaves unfold and are used for making perfume. It is still used in India as a perfume for the hair, and there is every reason to believe that the spikenard of Scripture (Sg 1:12; 4:13-14; Mk 14:3; Jn 12:3) came originally from India.<\/p>\nNettle (Urtica)<\/em><\/p>\nPlant of this genus having toothed leaves covered with hairs that exude a stinging flush. Four species of nettle are found in the Holy Land: the common or great nettle, Urtica dioica;<\/em> the Roman nettle, U. pilulifera;<\/em> the small nettle, U. urens;<\/em> and U. caudata,<\/em> which is similar to the small nettle. Some nettles attain a height of five to six feet (1.5 to 1.8 meters). They are common pests of waste places and fields. They are often seen occupying ground that was once cultivated but has since been neglected (Is 34:13; Hos 9:6).<\/p>\nNutmeg Flower (Nigella sativa)<\/em><\/p>\nThe “fitches” of Isaiah 28:25-27 (kjv<\/span>) are probably the nutmeg flower, an annual plant of the buttercup family. The plant grows wild in southern Europe, Syria, Egypt, north Africa, and other Mediterranean lands, where it is extensively cultivated for its strongly pungent, pepperlike aromatic seeds. These are sprinkled over some kinds of bread and cakes in the East and are used for flavoring curries and other dishes in the Holy Land and Egypt. Cummin and nutmeg flowers are still gathered in the Holy Land in the same way described by Isaiah.<\/p>\nOak (Quercus)<\/em><\/p>\nAt least five species of oaks are found in Palestine. One of these is the kermes oak (Quercus coccifera),<\/em> the host of the insect Coccus ilicis,<\/em> which produces the scarlet dye used in coloring linen and wool (Gn 38:28-30; Ex 25:4; 26:1; 28:33; 35:23; 39:24; Lv 14:4-6, 51-52; Nm 19:6; 2 Chr 2:7, 14; 3:14; Is 1:18; Heb 9:19; Rv 18:12). The kermes oak grows from 6 to 35 feet (1.8 to 10.7 meters) tall and is found in the mountainous regions of Syria, Lebanon, and the Holy Land. When it grows alone, the kermes oak often becomes a large tree. It was regularly planted by tombs in the East. The oak was always respected and even venerated in biblical times for its large size and strength, and great men were usually buried in its shade. Abraham’s oak in Hebron is an example.<\/p>\nA second oak is the valonia oak (Q. aegilops),<\/em> perhaps the oak of Isaiah 2:13 and 44:14. It is common in the middle montane zones and probably was abundant in the area around Bashan. The oak of Genesis 35:4, 8 is thought to have been the holm oak (Q. ilex),<\/em> an evergreen oak that grows to a height of 60 feet (18.3 meters). Still another oak is Q. lusitanica,<\/em> the cypress oak, a small deciduous tree seldom more than 20 feet (6.1 meters) tall. The very large acorns of this tree were sometimes eaten.<\/p>\nThe word translated “plain” (kjv<\/span>) in Genesis 12:6, 13:18, 14:13, and 18:1 should probably be translated “oak.”<\/p>\nThe many references to “groves” in the OT, usually in connection with the worship of Baal or other heathen gods (Ex 34:13; Dt 16:21; Jgs 3:7; 1 Kgs 14:23; 18:19; 2 Kgs 17:16—all kjv<\/span>), were probably groves of sacred oak trees.<\/p>\nOil Tree, Oleaster (Elaeagnus angustifolia)<\/em><\/p>\nSmall Eurasian tree with oblong silvery leaves, greenish flowers, and olivelike fruit. There is question as to which tree is referred to when 1 Kings 6:23, 31-33 and 1 Chronicles 27:28 refer to “olive trees.” The same word occurs in Isaiah 41:19 and Micah 6:7. The plant referred to is probably the narrow-leaved oleaster (Elaeagnus angustifolia),<\/em> a small stiff-branched tree or graceful shrub growing from 15 to 20 feet (4.6 to 6.1 meters) tall, common in all parts of the Holy Land except in the Jordan Valley. At one time it was particularly common on Mt Tabor and at Hebron and Samaria. The wood is hard and fine-grained and therefore well suited for carving of images and figures. The oil that it yields is a rather inferior type used in medication but not for food; this may be the oil of Micah 6:7.<\/p>\nOleander (Nerium oleander)<\/em><\/p>\nAny poisonous evergreen shrub of this genus growing in warm climates. One of the suggestions for the plants identified as “roses” in various translations (Ecclus 24:14, kjv<\/span>) is the oleander. This plant, originally native to the East Indies, has been cultivated throughout the warm regions of the world for centuries. It flourishes in the Holy Land today and forms dense thickets in some parts of the Jordan Valley. It is usually a shrub from 3 to 12 feet (.9 to 3.7 meters) tall. Every part of the plant is dangerously poisonous.<\/p>\nOlive, Olive Tree (Olea europaea)<\/em><\/p>\nOld world semitropical evergreen tree bearing edible fruit. The olive, Olea europaea,<\/em> was unquestionably one of the most valuable trees known to the Jews. There are innumerable references to it in Scripture, as well as to olive oil, which was used for anointing. The tree is quite common in the Holy Land, and in many places it is the only tree of any substantial size. The branches of the wild olive are rather stiff and spinescent, and the typical cultivated tree is a multi-branched evergreen, 20 or more feet (6.1 meters) tall, with a gnarled trunk and smooth, ash-colored bark. The leaves are leathery and the flowers are small, yellow or white. The fruits are large, black or violet, ripening in September, and it is the outer fleshy parts of the fruit that yield the valuable olive oil of commerce. Thirty-one percent of the ripe fruit is oil. The ripe fruit is eaten raw, as is the green, unripe fruit. The wood of the trunk and limbs is hard, rich yellow or amber in color, and fine-grained, often handsomely variegated. It is still used today for the finest cabinetwork and turnery. The tree grows very slowly, but it attains a great age. It is difficult to kill the olive tree by cutting it down, because new sprouts are sent up from the root and all around the margins of the old stump, often forming a grove of two to five trunks, all from a single root that originally supported only one tree.<\/p>\nOnion (Allium)<\/em><\/p>\nThe onions referred to in Numbers 11:5 are undoubtedly Allium cepa,<\/em> the Egyptian onion, which is made up of a compact coated bulb formed of layers consisting of broad fleshy bases of closely overlapping leaves. The leaves are slender and hollow. The entire plant has a characteristic pungent taste and odor.<\/p>\n\nClosely related to the onion is the garlic, A. sativum.<\/em> The common garlic is a hardy, bulbous perennial plant that is cultivated in Europe, western Asia, and Egypt. The leaves are narrow, flat, and ribbonlike. It is extremely popular with people of the Mediterranean region.<\/p>\nStill another one of the onions is the leek, A. porrum.<\/em> The bulb of the leek differs from that of the onion and garlic in that it is slender, cylindrical, and more than six inches (15.2 centimeters) in length. The flavor resembles that of the onion but is more pungent. The leaves are eaten as a relish or are cooked in soups. The bulbs are cut into small pieces and employed as seasoning for meat.<\/p>\nPalm (Phoenix dactylifera)<\/em><\/p>\nThe palm tree of the Bible is undoubtedly the date palm. At one time it was as characteristic of the Holy Land as it is still today of Egypt. It is characterized by a branchless, tapering stem of up to 80 feet (24.2 meters) or more in height and a large terminal cluster of feathery leaves, each six to nine feet (1.8 to 2.7 meters) or more long. Because of its height and unusual structure, it was natural that it should be used as a form of ornamentation in Eastern architecture. The stem and leaves were favorite subjects of architectural embellishment. The immense, branchlike leaves that are referred to as branches in the Bible were symbols of triumph and were used on occasions of great rejoicing (Jn 12:13; Rv 7:9). The large leaves are still used to cover the roofs and sides of houses and to give solidity to reed fences. Mats, baskets, and even dishes are made of them. Small leaves are used as dusters, and the wood of the trunk is used for timber. Rope is made from the weblike integument in the crown. The fruit, borne in an immense drooping cluster, which may weigh from 30 to 50 pounds (13.6 to 22.7 kilograms), is the chief food of many natives of Arabia and north Africa. A single tree may yield up to 200 pounds (90.7 kilograms) of dates a year. They may be dried for future use.<\/p>\nPapyrus (Cyperus papyrus)<\/em><\/p>\nThe Egyptian bulrush or papyrus (Ex 2:3-5; Jb 8:11; Is 18:2; 19:6-7; 35:7; 58:5) has smooth three-sided stems ordinarily attaining a height of 8 to 10 feet (2.4 to 3 meters), but sometimes even 16 feet (4.9 meters), and a thickness of two to three inches (5.1 to 7.6 centimeters) at the base with a large tuft of florets at the end. The papyrus formerly grew in great abundance along the banks of the Nile, forming what was almost a dense jungle. Today it is practically extinct in lower Egypt, although it is still found along the White Nile and in the Sudan. The papyrus still grows in parts of the Holy Land, especially around the north end of the plain of Galilee and the Huleh swamps.<\/p>\n\nIn addition to being used for making small vessels to float in water (Ex 2:3), for mats, and for various other domestic purposes, it is best known as the source of ancient paper. In manufacturing paper from papyrus, the stems of the plant were first peeled and the pitch then cut longitudinally into thin slices that were laid side by side. These were then sprinkled with water and pressed to unite the whole into one piece. The sheet was then dried and cut into pieces of the required size. In the better grades of papyrus paper, several layers of stem slices were laid crosswise on each other.<\/p>\nThe pale, fawn-colored, tassel-like inflorescences at the summit of the stems were used to adorn Egyptian temples and to crown the statues of gods. They were also worn as crowns by famous men and national heroes.<\/p>\nPine Tree (Pinus brutia, P. halepensis)<\/em><\/p>\nVarious evergreen trees of this family with needle-shaped leaves in clusters and seed-bearing cones. While there is considerable confusion concerning the conifers of the Bible, it seems apparent that pines are referred to in such passages as Leviticus 23:40; Nehemiah 8:15; Isaiah 41:19; and 60:13. One of the Holy Land’s pines is the Brutian pine (Pinus brutia),<\/em> a mountain-inhabiting species of the northern regions of Palestine. It attains a height of 10 to 35 feet (3 to 10.7 meters) with a rather diffuse growth and branches in whorls.<\/p>\nAnother of the pines is the Aleppo pine, Pinus halepensis.<\/em> Most of the instances of the occurrence of “fir” or “fir tree” in the kjv<\/span> probably refer to the Aleppo pine (2 Sm 6:5; 1 Kgs 5:8, 10; 6:34; 2 Kgs 19:23; 2 Chr 2:8; Ps 104:17; Sg 1:17; Is 14:8; 37:24; 55:13; 60:13; Ez 27:5; 31:8; Hos 14:8; Na 2:3; Zec 11:2). It grows from 9 to 60 feet (2.7 to 18.3 meters) tall with diffuse ascending branches and yellowish or brownish branchlets.<\/p>\nPistachio (Pistacia terebinthus, P. vera)<\/em><\/p>\nThe Palestine terebinth or turpentine tree is a large deciduous tree with straggling boughs. In the winter, without its leaves, it looks much like the oak. It grows from 12 to 25 feet (3.7 to 7.6 meters) tall. Every part of the tree contains a fragrant, resinous juice. It is common on the lower slopes of the hills throughout Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, and Arabia, generally growing as a solitary tree and found mostly in localities too warm or too dry for the oak that it generally replaces. Since it is native to Gilead, it is quite probable that its resinous juice formed part of the spicery that the Israelites carried to Egypt from Gilead (Gn 37:25).<\/p>\nThe nuts of Genesis 43:11 are apparently pistachio nuts from the pistachio tree, Pistacia vera,<\/em> closely related to the terebinth. It attains a height of 10 to 30 feet (3 to 9.1 meters) with a spreading top. It is found wild in many rocky parts of Lebanon and the Holy Land. The nut has a light-colored shell and the kernel has a sweet delicate flavor much relished wherever it grows.<\/p>\nPlane Tree (Platanus orientalis)<\/em><\/p>\nAny of several trees of this family with bell-shaped fruit clusters and usually an outer bark that flakes off in patches or strips. The references in Genesis 30:37 and Ezekiel 31:8 are apparently not to the chestnut tree, which is not indigenous to Palestine, but to the oriental plane tree, Platanus orientalis.<\/em><\/p>\nThe plane tree is a massive tree 60 feet (18.3 meters) or more tall with a trunk often of vast circumference, sometimes as much as 40 feet (12.2 meters). The outer bark peels off in sheets or scales, thus exposing a smooth whitish or yellowish inner bark. The tree is common throughout Lebanon, Syria, and the Holy Land, growing even in subalpine regions. However, it is primarily a tree of the plains and lowlands, growing on the edges of streams and lakes and in marshy places.<\/p>\nPomegranate (Punica granatum)<\/em><\/p>\nThe pomegranate is usually a small, bushlike tree but may occasionally become a large, branching shrub or small tree reaching a height of 20 to 30 feet (6.1 to 9.1 meters). The branches are often thorny. The showy bell-like flowers are usually scarlet, though sometimes yellow or white. The globular fruit is as large as an orange or medium-size apple. It has a hard rind of a bright red or yellowish color when ripe and is surmounted by the dry sepals that resemble a crown. The fruit itself is a crimson juicy pulp in which many red seeds are imbedded. The flowers of the pomegranate undoubtedly served as a pattern for the golden bells referred to in Exodus 28:33-34 and 39:24-26, and the open flowers of 1 Kings 6:32. The erect calyx lobes on the fruit served as a model for crowns of kings.<\/p>\nThe pomegranate is native to Asia, but it has been cultivated since prehistoric times and is now quite common in the Holy Land, in Egypt, and along the shores of the Mediterranean. It is listed as one of the pleasant fruits of Egypt (Nm 20:5) and one of the promised blessings of the Holy Land (Dt 8:8).<\/p>\nPoplar (Populus euphratica, P. alba)<\/em><\/p>\nFast-growing deciduous tree of the same genus as the aspen and cottonwood. The kjv<\/span> references in 2 Samuel 5:23-24 and 1 Chronicles 14:14-15 to mulberry trees are more probably to the Euphrates poplar or aspen, Populus euphratica.<\/em> This tree grows to a height of 30 to 45 feet (9.1 to 13.7 meters) with spreading branches. The Euphrates aspen is found only on rivers and stream banks throughout the area from Syria through the Holy Land to Stony Arabia. It is especially common in the Jordan Valley.<\/p>\nThe white poplar (Populus alba)<\/em> is common in wet places in Syria, Lebanon, the Holy Land, and Sinai. It attains a height of 30 to 60 feet (9.1 to 18.3 meters) with spreading branches. Some suggest that the altars of various pagan religions were usually erected on the top of a hill and in the shade of a poplar grove.<\/p>\nQuince (Cydonia oblonga)<\/em><\/p>\nTree native to western Asia, having white flowers and applelike fruit that is edible when cooked. Some believe that the “apples” of the OT were quinces, Cydonia oblonga.<\/em> The quince tree is quite common in the Holy Land, though chiefly as a cultivated tree. It may occur wild in the northern parts of Syria. It is native to northern Persia and Asia Minor. The fruit is yellowish and highly fragrant, and it is the fragrance that caused it to be held in high regard by the ancients.<\/p>\nReed (Juncus, Scirpus, Typha angustata, Arundo donax)<\/em><\/p>\nNumerous species of the rush and bulrush grow in the Holy Land. There are at least 21 varieties of rushes. The common soft rush or bog rush (Juncus effusus)<\/em> is found in wet places, even in the Sinai and other deserts. The sea or hard rush (J. maritimus)<\/em> is found in damp places throughout the Holy Land and even in Sinai.<\/p>\nAt least 15 kinds of bulrushes (Scirpus)<\/em> are known in the Holy Land. The cluster-headed club rush (Scirpus holoschoenus)<\/em> is common in damp places throughout the Holy Land to the Sinai. The lake club rush or tall bulrush (S. lacustris)<\/em> is found in swamps and ditches throughout northern Africa to the Dead Sea. The sea club rush or salt marsh club rush (S. maritimus)<\/em> is found in ditches and swamps in many places of the Holy Land. Any of these species may be the one referred to in Job 8:11; Isaiah 9:14; 19:6, 15.<\/p>\nThe reference in Genesis 41:2 to the feeding of cattle in the meadow seems to be to the tall reed (Arundo donax),<\/em> which grows 18 feet (5.5 meters) or more in height. This plant is also known as the Persian reed and is common throughout the Holy Land, Syria, and the Sinai peninsula. It is a gigantic grass that may have a stem diameter of two or three inches (5.1 to 7.6 centimeters) at the base and is terminated by a plume of white flowers similar to those of the sugarcane or pampas grass. The plant was used for many purposes by the ancients: for walking sticks, fishing rods, measuring rods, and musical pipes. It is, therefore, quite possible that the “reed” of Matthew 27:48 and Mark 15:36 was a carpenter’s reed or measuring rod.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Papyrus.<\/p>\nRue (Ruta chalepensis, R. graveolens)<\/em><\/p>\nAromatic Eurasian plant with evergreen leaves that yield an acrid, volatile oil once used in medicine. There is little question as to the correctness of the translation of “rue” in Luke 11:42, but there is some doubt as to the exact species. Most writers think that it was the common rue (Rue graveolens),<\/em> a perennial shrubby plant with erect stems two to three feet (.6 to .9 meter) tall and deeply cut leaves. A very strong odor emanates from the foliage. This species is native to the Mediterranean region and grows wild in the Holy Land, especially on Mt Tabor.<\/p>\nRue was highly thought of by the ancients as a medicinal, supposed to prevent dizziness, dumbness, epilepsy, eye inflammations, insanity, and the “evil eye.” Rue was also used for seasoning dishes.<\/p>\nRush (Butomus umbellatus)<\/em><\/p>\nGeneric term for any of various grasslike marsh plants having pliant, hollow, or pithy stems. There is considerable uncertainty about the identification of the plant referred to in Genesis 41:2 translated in the kjv<\/span> as “meadow,” and in Job 8:11 as “flag.” Since it is mentioned along with the papyrus in the Job passage, it seems that it refers to a specific kind of plant rather than to an aggregate of plants in a meadow. From the description in Genesis as being a plant on which Pharaoh’s cattle might feed along the banks of the Nile and yet not the papyrus, it may refer to the flowering rush or water gladiola (Butomus umbellatus),<\/em> which flourishes both in Egypt and in the Holy Land, along with the papyrus.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Reed.<\/p>\nSaffron (Crocus sativus)<\/em><\/p>\nSaffron, referred to in Song of Songs 4:14, is the product of several species of Crocus,<\/em> especially of the blue-flowered saffron crocus (C. sativus),<\/em> which is native to Greece and Asia Minor. The commercial product consists of the stigma and upper portions of the style, the top parts of the flower ovary, which are collected shortly after the flower opens. It requires at least 4,000 stigmas to make an ounce of saffron. After being gathered, the stigmas are dried in the sun, pounded, and made into small cakes. Saffron is used principally as a yellow dye and also as a fruit coloring for curries and stews.<\/p>\nAnother, entirely different kind of dye-producing plant (Carthamus tinctorius)<\/em> called carthamine, bastard saffron, or safflower is a member of the thistle family. Its red florets yield a dye used extensively for coloring silk, in cooking, and for adulterating genuine saffron. It is an annual spiny plant three to four and a half feet (1.4 meters) tall, native to Syria and Egypt. In Egypt the grave clothes of mummies were dyed with this material, and it is quite possible that this plant may also have been the saffron of the Bible.<\/p>\nSage (Salvia judaica)<\/em><\/p>\nThe Judean sage grows to three feet (.9 meter) tall in the mountains and hills of Palestine. Its stems are four-angled, stiff, and rough. The plant grows from Syria south through Nazareth, Hebron, Tiberius, Samaria, and Judea.<\/p>\nThis plant is the origin of the design of the seven-branched lampstand of Exodus 37:17-18, which is known as the menorah, the traditional Jewish symbol. The inflorescence of the plant, when pressed flat, has almost exactly the same shape and form as the seven-branched candlestick, with its central spike and three pairs of side branches each bending upward and inward in a symmetrical fashion. On each branch of the plant’s inflorescence are whorls or buds that perhaps give the idea for the “knops” (kjv<\/span>) or “knobs” on the biblical golden candlesticks.<\/p>\nSpelt (Triticum aestivum)<\/em><\/p>\nHardy member of the wheat family. The rye of Exodus 9:32 and Isaiah 28:25, as well as the fitches of Ezekiel 4:9 (all kjv<\/span>) are thought to be spelt. It is a hard-grained species of wheat with loose ears and grains triangular in cross-section, and was the most common form of wheat in early times. It has a stouter stem than wheat and strong spikes of grain. Bread made of its flour is much inferior to that made from wheat, but spelt will thrive in almost any kind of soil and will yield a crop on land that is unfit for wheat. The ancients preferred it to barley for bread.<\/p>\nStorax Tree (Styrax officinalis)<\/em><\/p>\nVarious trees of this genus yielding an aromatic resin. Today it is thought that the stacte of Exodus 30:34 was derived from the storax tree. It is an irregularly stiff-branched shrub or small tree 9 to 20 feet (2.7 to 6.1 meters) tall. This tree is abundant on low hills and rocky places from Lebanon through the Holy Land. Its gum is obtained by making incisions in the stems and branches. It is highly perfumed and is still prized today as a perfume.<\/p>\nSycamore-fig (Ficus sycomorus)<\/em><\/p>\nTree of northeastern Africa and adjacent Asia, related to the fig. The word translated “sycamore” in 1 Kings 10:27; 1 Chronicles 27:28; 2 Chronicles 1:15; 9:27; Psalm 78:47; Isaiah 9:10; Amos 7:14; and Luke 19:4 undoubtedly refers to the well-known sycamore-fig, which is also known as the mulberry-fig or fig-mulberry. It should not be confused with the common sycamore of the North American continent, which is actually a plane tree. The sycamore-fig of the Bible is a strong-growing, robust, wide-spreading tree growing 30 to 40 feet (9.1 to 12.2 meters) tall and sometimes attaining a trunk circumference of 20 feet (6.1 meters) or more with a crown 120 feet (36.6 meters) in diameter. It is a tree that is easily climbed and is frequently planted along roadsides, which accounts for the reference in Luke 19:4. It produces an abundant amount of fruit in clusters on all parts of the tree, on both young and old branches and even on the trunk itself. It is very similar to the common fig, only smaller and much inferior in quality. In David’s day it was so valuable that he appointed a special overseer for the sycamore trees (1 Chr 27:28). It is thought that Amos was not a gatherer of sycamore fruit but rather a dresser of sycamore trees.<\/p>\nTamarisk (Tamarix)<\/em><\/p>\nThe references in Genesis 21:33 and 1 Samuel 22:6 and 31:13 seem to be to the tamarisk. These trees or shrubs are small and fast-growing with a durable wood. They are abundant in deserts, dunes, and salt marshes. Tamarix aphylla<\/em> is leafless and has small white flowers. These trees or shrubs often provide a soothing touch of green foliage and a promise of cooling shade to the traveler. Tamarisks are able to survive because they either have small, scalelike leaves, which lose little moisture by transpiration, or no leaves at all. The larger of the tamarisks are valued for their wood in a region where wood is scarce. The wood was used for building and also as a source of an excellent type of charcoal.<\/p>\nTerebinth (Pistacia terebinthus)<\/em><\/p>\nSee<\/em> Pistachio (above).<\/p>\nThistle, Thorn (Lycium europaeum, Solanum incanum, Centaurea, Silybum marianum, Ruscus aculeatus, Agrostemma githago, Paliurus spina-christi, Zizyphus spina-christi)<\/em><\/p>\nThere are 22 different Hebrew and Greek words used in Scripture to refer to spiny or prickly shrubs or weeds, and these are translated as “bramble,” “brier,” “cockle,” “thorn,” and “thistle.” At present, there are about 125 species of thorns and thistles that grow in the Holy Land.<\/p>\nThe bramble in the allegory of Judges 9:14-15 is believed to refer to the European boxthorn or desert-thorn, Lycium europaeum.<\/em><\/p>\nThe general consensus is that the “briers” of Isaiah 10:17, 55:13, Micah 7:4, and Hebrews 6:8 are the Palestine nightshade (Solanum incanum),<\/em> or “Jericho potato.”<\/p>\nThe thistles of Genesis 3:17-18, 2 Kings 14:9, 2 Chronicles 25:18, Hosea 10:8, and Matthew 7:16, as well as the thorns of Matthew 13:7 and Hebrews 6:8, are thought to be one of the species of the thistle, Centaurea.<\/em> Among the more common thistles in the Holy Land are the true star-thistle (Centaurea calcitrapa),<\/em> the dwarf centaury (C. verutum),<\/em> the Iberian centaury (C. iberica),<\/em> and the lady’s thistle (Silybum marianum).<\/em> Some thistles attain a height of five to six feet (.9 to 1.8 meters). Thistles are characteristic of an area that is uncultivated and neglected. Many have beautiful flowers, but all are covered with sharp spines.<\/p>\nThe references in Ezekiel 2:6 to “briers” and Ezekiel 28:24 to a “pricking brier” may be to the prickly butchers-broom or knee-holly, Ruscus aculeatus.<\/em> The plant is common in rocky woods in the northern regions of the Holy Land, especially around Mt Tabor and Mt Carmel.<\/p>\nThe cockle of Job 31:40 (nlt<\/span> “weeds”) perhaps refers to the corn cockle, Agrostemma githago.<\/em> This plant is common in grainfields throughout the Holy Land. It is a strong-growing and troublesome weed in grainfields, growing from one to three feet (.3 to .9 meter) tall.<\/p>\nMany commentators think that the “thorns” out of which the crown of thorns (Mt 27:29; Jn 19:2) was made were from the Christ-thorn (Paliurus spina-christi).<\/em> This belief has led to its specific name; the Christ-thorn is a spiny plant that ordinarily grows as a straggling shrub three to nine feet (.9 to 2.7 meters) tall. The flexible branches are armed at the base of each leaf with a pair of unequal, stiff, sharp spines. The unusual pliable texture of the young branches renders it particularly easy to plait into a crownlike wreath.<\/p>\nThe thorns of Judges 8:7, Isaiah 7:19, 9:18, 55:13, and Matthew 7:16 may refer to the Syrian Christ-thorn (Zizyphus spina-christi),<\/em> a shrub or small tree 9 to 15 feet (2.7 to 4.6 meters) tall, sometimes growing into a 40-foot (12.2-meter) tree with smooth white branches bearing a pair of stout, unequal, recurved spines at the back of each leaf.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Bramble; Buckthorn (above).<\/p>\nTulip (Tulipa montana, T. sharonensis)<\/em><\/p>\nAny of several bulbous plants of this family native to Asia. The rose of Sharon in Song of Songs 2:1 may be the mountain tulip, Tulipa montana,<\/em> or the closely related Sharon tulip, T. sharonensis.<\/em> The former is an attractive plant that grows from a bulb and has leaves that are often wavy-margined. The species is common in the mountainous regions of Syria, Lebanon, and the Anti-Lebanon. It is primarily a mountainous species. The Sharon tulip (T. sharonensis)<\/em> is found in sandy places on the Sharon coastal plains.<\/p>\nTumbleweed (Gundelia tournefortii, Anastatica hierochuntica)<\/em><\/p>\nThe references in Psalm 83:13 to “whirling dust” and in Isaiah 17:13 to “wheel” or “rolling thing” (niv<\/span> “tumbleweed”) seem to be to the Palestinian tumbleweed (Gundelia tournefortii),<\/em> a member of the thistle family. It is a prickly herb with milky juice. It rolls over the land and gathers in tremendous heaps in hollows.<\/p>\nVegetable<\/p>\nScriptural references to vegetables are probably, in most cases, to the dried leguminous seeds of beans and lentils.<\/p>\nVine (Vitis vinifera)<\/em><\/p>\nAny plant with a flexible stem that climbs, twines, or creeps along a surface or support. The common grapevine (Vitis vinifera)<\/em> is mentioned throughout the Bible. The fruitful vine (Ez 17:5-10) and the vine brought out of Egypt (Ps 80:8) were symbolic of the Jewish people. Jesus compares himself to the true vine, of which his disciples were the branches (Jn 15:1-6).<\/p>\nThe grapevine of the Old World sometimes assumes the characteristics of a tree, with stems up to a foot and a half (45.7 centimeters) in diameter, the branches then being trained on a trellis and bearing bunches of grapes 10 to 12 pounds (4.5 to 5.4 kilograms) in weight, with the individual grapes the size of small plums. Bunches have been produced weighing as much as 26 pounds (11.8 kilograms). The vines of the Holy Land were always renowned both for the luxuriance of their growth and for the immense clusters of grapes they produced. Thus it does not seem improbable that the spies sent to the Promised Land should have employed a pole to transport some of the clusters home (Nm 13:23-24).<\/p>\nThe wild grape (Vitis orientalis)<\/em> is referred to in Isaiah 5:2-4, Jeremiah 2:21, and Ezekiel 15:2-6. It is known as the native wild fox grape and has small, black, acidic berries about the size of currants with little juice.<\/p>\nWalnut (Juglans regia)<\/em><\/p>\nAny of several trees of this genus having round, sticky fruit enclosing an edible nut. The reference in Song of Songs 6:11 to “nuts” is thought to refer to the Persian or common walnut, Juglans regia.<\/em> The tree is believed to have been indigenous to northern Persia, but it is actually found wild in many parts of northern India, eastward as far as China, and westward through Persia. At the time of Solomon, it was widely cultivated for its fruit throughout the East. Perhaps Solomon’s garden of nuts was a part of his extensive gardens at Etham, six miles (9.7 kilometers) from Jerusalem.<\/p>\nWater Lily (Nymphaea)<\/em><\/p>\nAny of numerous aquatic plants of this genus with floating leaves and showy flowers. The carved lily ornamentation of 1 Kings 7:19-26 and 2 Chronicles 4:5 was probably patterned after the flowers of the water lily. Few flowers can equal the Egyptian lotus or water lily (Nymphaea lotus)<\/em> in beauty. It looks very much like a large white rose and at one time floated in profusion on the waters of the Nile.<\/p>\nThe common European white water lily (N. alba)<\/em> was also familiar to the children of Israel. It grows not only in Europe but also in the Holy Land and North Africa. It is, however, not as common in Egypt as is the white lotus.<\/p>\nAnother water lily with which the Israelites were probably familiar is the blue lotus, N. caerulea.<\/em> Its leaves are 12 to 16 inches (30.5 to 40.6 centimeters) across and it has light-blue flowers that are three to six inches (7.6 to 15.2 centimeters) in diameter.<\/p>\nWheat (Triticum aestivum, T. compositum)<\/em><\/p>\nVarious cereal grasses of this family widely cultivated for its edible grain. Five kinds of wheat are native to—and still wild in—the Holy Land, and at least eight others are cultivated there today; probably most, if not all, were known in Bible times. The wild varieties were probably more abundant then than they are today. Among these are the einkorn (T. monococcum),<\/em> the thaoudar (T. thaoudar),<\/em> and the wild emmer (T. dicoccoides).<\/em> The composite wheat (T. compositum),<\/em> with its branched spikes, often bearing as many as seven heads per stalk, is definitely referred to in Genesis 41:5-57. It is depicted on numerous Egyptian monuments and on inscriptions and is still commonly seen in the Nile Delta, where it is known as “mummy wheat.” It is also cultivated in the Holy Land.<\/p>\nThe most frequently mentioned wheat of the Bible is undoubtedly the commonly cultivated summer and winter wheat, Triticum aestivum.<\/em> It is an abundant annual grass cultivated in Egypt and other Eastern lands since earliest times. The exact place of its origin is unknown. Grains of wheat have been found in the most ancient Egyptian tombs and in the remains of prehistoric lake dwellings in Switzerland. It was certainly the chief grain of Mesopotamia in Jacob’s time (Gn 30:14).<\/p>\nCorn in biblical days often included a mixture of peas, beans, lentils, cummin, barley, millet, and spelt, but wheat was always its main constituent. Egypt was a great grain-producing country, and Abram (Gn 12:10) and Joseph’s brothers (ch 42) naturally turned to Egypt for wheat when famine visited Canaan.<\/p>\nThe mills, millstones, granaries, and threshing floors mentioned in the Bible all refer to equipment employed in processing grain to produce flour. The fine flour of which the showbread loaves were made (Lv 24:5) was unquestionably wheat flour. Wheat intended for home consumption was often stored in the central part of the house; this explains the story told in 2 Samuel 4:6. It was also sometimes stored in dry wells (2 Sm 17:19).<\/p>\nWormwood (Artemisia judaica, A. herba-alba)<\/em><\/p>\nWormwood is a general name given to a group of woody plants with a strong aromatic odor. Wormwood plants have a strong, bitter taste, and their young shoots and branch tips furnish the “wormwood” of commerce. Its bitter taste accounts for its being spoken of with gall—as being symbolic of bitter calamity and sorrow (Prv 5:4; Jer 9:15; 23:15; Lam 3:15, 19). Artemisia herba-alba<\/em> is the common species of wormwood in the Holy Land today. It is strongly aromatic, smelling like camphor, and bitter. A. judaica<\/em> occurs only in the Sinai.<\/p>\nAbsinthe is made from species of this group. It first leads to greater activity and pleasant sensations and fills the mind with grandiose ideas (Lam 3:15). The habitual use of it, however, brings on a stupor and gradual diminution of intellectual faculties, ending in delirium and even death. Perhaps the hemlock of Amos 6:12 was wormwood.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>PLANTS<\/h3>\nIdentifying biblical plants has always been a difficult task, partly because people continue to identify the biblical elm, sycamore, lily, rose, and vine with modern plants, and also because they assume that all the plants now growing in the Holy Land were there in ancient biblical days, or that the plants referred to in the Bible are still to be found there today. Unfortunately, many plants now quite common in the Holy Land were not there in biblical days. Many plants that once grew in abundance in the Holy Land are now extinct. Some have been driven out by foreign invaders; others have been exterminated or nearly exterminated by overcultivation of the land, the destruction of forests, and the resulting changes in climatic and other environmental conditions. At one time the Holy Land was a land of palm trees, with the date palm as abundant and characteristic there as it was in Egypt, but today the date palm is much less common. Similarly, in antiquity, the towering cedars clothed the slopes of Lebanon and other mountain ranges. Now the few remaining specimens must be carefully fenced in to protect them against trampling and the ravages of goats.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Acacia<\/p>\n• Acanthus<\/p>\n• Algum<\/p>\n• Almond<\/p>\n• Almug<\/p>\n• Aloe<\/p>\n• Apple<\/p>\n• Apricot<\/p>\n• Ash<\/p>\n• Aspen<\/p>\n• Balm<\/p>\n• Barley<\/p>\n• Bdellium<\/p>\n• Bean<\/p>\n• Bitter Herbs<\/p>\n• Boxthorn, European<\/p>\n• Box Tree<\/p>\n• Bramble<\/p>\n• Broom<\/p>\n• Buckthorn<\/p>\n• Bush<\/p>\n• Buttercup<\/p>\n• Calamus<\/p>\n• Cane<\/p>\n• Caper Plant<\/p>\n• Carob Tree<\/p>\n• Cassia<\/p>\n• Castor Oil Plant<\/p>\n• Cedar<\/p>\n• Chicory<\/p>\n• Cinnamon<\/p>\n• Citron Tree<\/p>\n• Coriander<\/p>\n• Cotton<\/p>\n• Cucumber<\/p>\n• Cummin<\/p>\n• Cypress<\/p>\n• Dandelion<\/p>\n• Darnel Grass<\/p>\n• Dill<\/p>\n• Ebony<\/p>\n• Endive<\/p>\n• Fig, Fig Tree<\/p>\n• Fir Tree<\/p>\n• Flax<\/p>\n• Frankincense<\/p>\n• Galbanum<\/p>\n• Garlic<\/p>\n• Gourd, Wild<\/p>\n• Hedge<\/p>\n• Henna<\/p>\n• Hyacinth<\/p>\n• Hyssop<\/p>\n• Juniper<\/p>\n• Laurel or Sweet Bay<\/p>\n• Leek<\/p>\n• Lentil<\/p>\n• Lettuce<\/p>\n• Lily<\/p>\n• Lotus Bush<\/p>\n• Mallow<\/p>\n• Mandrake<\/p>\n• Melon<\/p>\n• Millet<\/p>\n• Mint<\/p>\n• Mulberry<\/p>\n• Mustard<\/p>\n• Myrrh<\/p>\n• Myrtle<\/p>\n• Narcissus<\/p>\n• Nard<\/p>\n• Nettle<\/p>\n• Nutmeg Flower<\/p>\n• Oak<\/p>\n• Oil Tree, Oleaster<\/p>\n• Oleander<\/p>\n• Olive, Olive Tree<\/p>\n• Onion<\/p>\n• Palm<\/p>\n• Papyrus<\/p>\n• Pine Tree<\/p>\n• Pistachio<\/p>\n• Plane Tree<\/p>\n• Pomegranate<\/p>\n• Poplar<\/p>\n• Quince<\/p>\n• Reed<\/p>\n• Rue<\/p>\n• Rush<\/p>\n• Saffron<\/p>\n• Sage<\/p>\n• Spelt<\/p>\n• Storax Tree<\/p>\n• Sycamore<\/p>\n• Tamarisk<\/p>\n• Terebinth<\/p>\n• Thistle, Thorn<\/p>\n• Tulip<\/p>\n• Tumbleweed<\/p>\n• Vegetable<\/p>\n• Vine<\/p>\n• Walnut<\/p>\n• Water Lily<\/p>\n• Wheat<\/p>\n• Wormwood<\/p>\nAcacia (Acacia tortilis<\/em> and A. seyal)<\/em><\/p>\nAny tree or shrub of the mimosa family of plants growing in warm regions. The plant referred to in the kjv<\/span> as “shittah” (singular) or “shittim” (plural) is undoubtedly the acacia tree, the only timber tree of any considerable size in the Arabian desert. Acacia tortilis<\/em> is by far the largest and most common tree in the desert in which the Israelites wandered for 40 years. It is especially conspicuous on Mt Sinai and was probably the species used for the tabernacle furnishings. A. seyal<\/em> is less common, at least today. It can grow as high as 25 feet (7.6 meters), and bears yellow flowers on twisted branches. The wood is close grained, heavy and hard, orange-brown in color, and much valued in cabinetwork. The ancient Egyptians clamped shut mummy coffins with acacia wood.<\/p>\nAcanthus (Acanthus syriacus)<\/em><\/p>\nThe acanthus, perhaps referred to in Job 30:7 and Zephaniah 2:9, is a perennial thistlelike herb or small shrub about three feet (.9 meter) tall, and is a common weed in all Eastern countries. It has been used since time immemorial as a model for the leaf or scroll decorations in art.<\/p>\nAlgum (Juniperus excelsa Bieb)<\/em><\/p>\nThe timber from Lebanon referred to in 2 Chronicles 2:8 is probably the juniper. Some translators hold, however, that algum and almug are Hebrew variants for the same tree (see nlt<\/span> mg, 2 Chr 2:8).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Almug (below).<\/p>\nAlmond (Amygdalus communis)<\/em><\/p>\nThe almond is a peachlike tree with saw-toothed pointed leaves and gray bark. It grows to a height of from 10 to 25 feet (3 to 7.6 meters). It blooms very early in the year; its Hebrew name has its roots in “watch for.” To the Jews it was a welcome harbinger of spring (Jer 1:11).<\/p>\n\nAlmug (Pterocarpus santalinus)<\/em><\/p>\nThe precious wood imported by King Solomon and used in making the pillars for the temple and for making harps and psalteries (1 Kgs 10:11-12). This timber was brought by sea from Ophir to Ezion-geber, near Elath. Modern authorities suggest that Ophir was either in Arabia, India, or East Africa near Mozambique. The reference to “algum“ in 2 Chronicles 2:8 is possibly to this tree. See<\/em> Algum (above).<\/p>\nAloe (Aloe succotrina, Aquilaria agallocha)<\/em><\/p>\nChiefly African, lilylike plant of the genus Aloes,<\/em> certain species of which yield a drug and a fiber. Aloe is an aromatic substance mentioned in the Bible, together with myrrh, balm, and other fragrant plants (Ps 45:8; Prv 7:17; Sg 4:14; Jn 19:39). Most scholars think these passages refer to two different plants. The OT plant is likely to have been Aquilaria agallocha,<\/em> the eaglewood, a large tree growing up to 120 feet (36.6 meters) tall with a trunk 12 feet (3.7 meters) in circumference. It is native to northern India, Malaya, and Indochina. The decaying wood is highly fragrant, and as such is highly valued as perfume and incense and for fumigation.<\/p>\nThe aloe of John 19:39 is thought to be the true aloe (Aloe succotrina),<\/em> the juice of which was used by the Egyptians in embalming. Its smell, however, is not very agreeable, and it has a bitter taste. It is sometimes used by veterinarians as a horse medicine.<\/p>\nApple (Malus sylvestris)<\/em><\/p>\nThe identity of the fruit identified by the Hebrew word tappuach<\/span> (Prv 25:11; Sg 2:3, 5; 7:8; 8:5) continues to be debated. In most English translations it has been rendered “apple” because of its close linguistic tie to the Arabic word tuffah.<\/em> Many scholars identify this tree as the apricot, questioning whether apples fit the biblical description “apples of gold” and whether the apple tree was cultivated in ancient Palestine. Recent excavations at Kadesh-barnea, however, have uncovered carbonized apples, probably a crab apple (Malus sylvestris),<\/em> dating to the ninth century BC<\/span>. This would certainly allow for this ornamental apple’s cultivation in Solomon’s gardens.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Apricot (below).<\/p>\nApricot (Prunus armeniaca)<\/em><\/p>\nThe identification of the Hebrew word tappuach<\/span> with the apricot continues to be debated. The apricot tree produces yellow-orange peachlike edible fruit and is native to western Asia and Africa. It is abundant in the Holy Land and probably has been so since early biblical times. The tree is a round-headed reddish-barked tree growing 30 feet (9.1 meters) tall. Most translations render this Hebrew word “apple,” though many scholars identify it with the apricot because of its descriptions in the biblical text (see Prv 25:11; Sg 2:3, 5; 7:8; 8:5; Jl 1:12).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Apple (above).<\/p>\nAsh (Alhagi maurorum, Fraxinus ornus, Tamarix mannifera)<\/em><\/p>\nThere are several ash trees found in the Near East. One of these, the prickly alhagi (Alhagi maurorum),<\/em> is a member of the pea family. It is a low, many-stemmed, much-branched shrub growing about three feet (.9 meter) tall with somewhat hairy twigs and pealike flowers. During the heat of the day, leaves exude a sweet, gummy substance that hardens in the air and is collected by shaking the bushes over a spread-out cloth.<\/p>\nThe manna tamarisk (Tamarix mannifera)<\/em> is a multibranched shrub or a small tree 9 to 15 feet (2.7 to 4.6 meters) tall with rigid branches that have tiny pink flowers. It is found on deserts from the Holy Land to Arabia and the Sinai.<\/p>\nThe flowering or manna ash (Fraxinus ornus)<\/em> is a tree that grows from 15 to 50 feet (4.6 to 15.2 meters) tall. The fruits are very similar to those produced by our species of ash. The ash of Isaiah 44:14 (kjv<\/span>) is believed to be the Aleppo pine.<\/p>\nAspen (Populus euphratica<\/em> or P. tremula)<\/em><\/p>\nAny of several trees of the genus Populus<\/em> with leaves attached by flattened leafstalks so that they tremble or “quake” in the wind.<\/p>\nBalm (Balanites aegyptiaca, Pistacia lentiscus, Commiphora opobalsamum<\/em>)<\/em><\/p>\nAn oily aromatic resin exuded by chiefly tropical trees and shrubs and used medicinally; trees and shrubs producing this substance. References in Genesis 37:25, Jeremiah 8:22, 46:11, and 51:8 are thought to be either the Jericho balsam (Balanites aegyptiaca)<\/em> or the lentisk or mastic tree (Pistacia lentiscus).<\/em> The Jericho balsam is very common in Egypt, North Africa, the plains of Jericho, and the hot plains bordering on the Dead Sea. It is a small desert-loving plant, 9 to 15 feet (2.7 to 4.6 meters) tall, with slender, thorny branches and small clusters of green flowers.<\/p>\nThe lentisk or mastic tree is native to the Holy Land, and the reference in Genesis 43:11 is probably to this plant, since the implication is that this is a native product of the Holy Land unknown in Egypt at the time. This tree is a shrubby or bushy tree 3 to 10 feet (.9 to 3 meters) tall with evergreen leaves. The “balm” is a fragrant gummy exudation of the sap secured by making incisions in the stems and branches, usually in August. The best grades are in the form of yellow-white translucent tears or drops; they are employed in medicine as an astringent. The poorer grades are used extensively as a varnish. Children in the East use it as chewing gum.<\/p>\nReferences to spices in 1 Kings 10:10, 2 Kings 20:13, Song of Songs 3:6, Isaiah 39:2, and Ezekiel 27:17 are thought to be the balm of Gilead (Commiphora opobalsamum),<\/em> which in spite of its name is not a native of Gilead or even of the Holy Land but is indigenous to Arabia, especially the mountainous regions of Yemen. The trees were still in existence on the plain of Jericho at the time of the Roman conquest. The Roman conquerors carried branches to Rome as trophies of their victory over the Jews.<\/p>\nThis tree is a small, stiff-branched evergreen tree seldom more than 15 feet (4.6 meters) high with straggling branches. The “balm” is obtained by making incisions in the stem and branches of the tree. The sap soon hardens into small irregular nodules that are collected. Gum is also procured from green and ripe fruit.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Myrrh (below).<\/p>\nBarley (Hordeum distichon)<\/em><\/p>\nA cereal grass bearing bearded flower spikes and edible seeds. The common barley (Hordeum distichon),<\/em> the winter barley (H. hex<\/em>astichon),<\/em> and the spring barley (H. vulgare)<\/em> have been cultivated in temperate regions of the world since time immemorial and today still constitute one of the principal grain foods. Barley and wheat were the two staple cereal crops of Egypt and the Holy Land. Being less expensive, barley was mostly used for feeding cattle, although it was also used by itself or mixed with wheat and other seed as food for man (Ez 4:9-12). Barley is mentioned in the Bible over 30 times, either as a plant growing in the fields or in reference to products made from it, such as barley meal, barley bread, barley cakes, and barley loaves. As the common food of the poor, barley was also regarded as a symbol of poverty and cheapness or worthlessness (Hos 3:2).<\/p>\nBdellium (Commiphora africana)<\/em><\/p>\nAromatic gum resin similar to myrrh, produced by various trees of the genus Commiphora<\/em> of Africa and western Asia. The reference in Genesis 2:12 and Numbers 11:7 to bdellium is thought by most scholars today to refer to a gum resin, obtained from a shrub, Commiphora africana<\/em>, that grows in south Arabia and northeastern Africa. The resin is yellowish, transparent, and fragrant, and looks like a pearl.<\/p>\nBean (Faba vulgaris)<\/em><\/p>\nThe references in 2 Samuel 17:27-28 and Ezekiel 4:9 are generally regarded as referring to the broad bean. This species, an annual plant, is thought originally to have grown in northern Persia, but it was extensively cultivated in western Asia in very early times as a food plant. Beans have been found in the mummy coffins of Egyptian tombs, and they were also cultivated by the Greeks and Romans.<\/p>\nBitter Herbs (Cichorium endivia, Taraxacum officinale, Lactuca sativa)<\/em><\/p>\nThe “bitter herbs” of Exodus 12:8 and Numbers 9:11 seem to have been plants like endive (Cichorium endivia),<\/em> the common chicory (Cichorium intybus),<\/em> lettuce (Lactuca sativa),<\/em> or the common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale).<\/em> These are all weedy plants common in modern Egypt and western Asia and are still eaten by people living there. The leaves of the ordinary garden lettuce are intensely bitter when bleached. This is also true of the common dandelion. Others suggest that the bitter herbs were derived from thorns and thistles.<\/p>\nBoxthorn, European (Lycium europaeum)<\/em><\/p>\nVarious thorny shrubs, some species of which bear purplish flowers and brightly colored berries. The reference in Judges 9:14-15 is thought to be to the European boxthorn or desert-thorn. It is a thorny shrub 6 to 12 feet (1.8 to 3.7 meters) tall with clustered leaves and small violet flowers eventually producing small globular red berries. It is native to and common throughout the Holy Land, especially in the region from Lebanon to the Dead Sea.<\/p>\nBox Tree (Buxus longifolia)<\/em><\/p>\nThe long-leaved box tree is a hardy evergreen tree found in the mountainous regions of the northern part of the Holy Land, the Galilean hills, and Lebanon. It grows to a height of about 20 feet (6.1 meters) with a slender trunk seldom more than six to eight inches (15.2 to 20.3 centimeters) in diameter. Its wood is very hard and takes a fine polish. It was cultivated by the Romans for its hard wood, which they inlaid with ivory for cabinets and jewel caskets. Scriptural references include Isaiah 41:19 and 60:13.<\/p>\nBramble (Rubus sanctus, R. ulmifolius)<\/em><\/p>\nThe Palestinian bramble (Rubus sanctus)<\/em> and the closely related elm-leaf bramble (R. ulmifolius)<\/em> are prickly evergreen shrubs that spread by means of suckers. The stems and young shoots are covered with a characteristic bloom or whitish powder and short hairs. The prickles are strong, erect, and hairy. The flowers are white, pink, rose, or purple in color, and the fruit is round and black.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Thistle, Thorn (below).<\/p>\nBroom (Retama raetam)<\/em><\/p>\nA shrub native to Eurasia. The word translated “juniper” in the kjv<\/span> has nothing to do with the true junipers but refers rather to a species of broom, known as the white broom (Retama raetam).<\/em> Its branches are longer and flexible, forming an erect, dense bush 3 to 12 feet (.9 to 3.7 meters) tall. The leaves are small and sparse, yet it forms an agreeable shade in a desert region. The white pealike flowers are sweet and very fragrant and are borne in clusters along the twigs. It is a beautiful shrub that grows in the desert regions of Palestine, Syria, and Persia. In many desert areas it is the only bush that affords any shade (1 Kgs 19:4-5).<\/p>\nThe “juniper roots” of Job 30:4 are not the roots of either the juniper or white broom. The roots of the latter are very nauseating and could not be eaten in the manner described by Job. Job’s “juniper roots” were probably an edible parasitic plant (Cynomorium coccineum).<\/em> This plant grows in salt marshes and maritime sands. It is frequently eaten in times of food scarcity and at one time was highly prized for its supposed medicinal value in the treatment of dysentery.<\/p>\nBuckthorn (Rhamnus palaestina)<\/em><\/p>\nThe Palestinian buckthorn is a shrub or small tree attaining a height of three to six feet (.9 to 1.8 meters) with velvety, thorny branches, evergreen leaves, and clusters of small flowers blooming in March or April. It grows in thickets and on hillsides from Syria and Lebanon through the Holy Land to Arabia and the Sinai.<\/p>\nBush (Acacia nilotica, Loranthus acaciae)<\/em><\/p>\nLow, branching, woody plant, usually smaller than a tree. There are differences of opinion in regard to the bush out of which the Lord appeared to Moses (Ex 3:2-4). From the biblical account, it seems most likely that the event was a miraculous one. However, some seek a natural explanation and believe that the burning bush may have been the crimson-flowered mistletoe or acacia strap flower (Loranthus acaciae),<\/em> which grows in great profusion as a partial parasite on the various acacia shrubs, such as the thorny acacia (Acacia nilotica),<\/em> in the Holy Land and Sinai. When in full bloom, the mistletoe imparts to the shrub or tree the appearance of being on fire because its brilliant flame-colored blossoms stand out against the green foliage and yellow flowers of the host plants.<\/p>\nButtercup (Ranunculus asiaticus)<\/em><\/p>\nThe Persian buttercup is one of the flowers or grasses of the field (Mt 6:28-30). It is a showy plant blooming in all brilliant colors except blue, with double flowers sometimes measuring two inches (5.1 centimeters) across.<\/p>\nCalamus (Acorus calamus, Andropogon aroma<\/em>ticus)<\/em><\/p>\nA plant, or its aromatic root; any of a variety of tropical Asiatic palms. One of the plants that grew in Solomon’s garden (Sg 4:14). The sweet flag (Acorus<\/em> calamus)<\/em> and the beardgrass (Andropogon aromaticus)<\/em> have been suggested as the plants from which calamus came. The sweet flag is highly aromatic and grows in Europe and Asia, but it is not known in the Holy Land. Indigenous to India, beardgrass is highly odoriferous when bruised and is thought to have furnished the calamus of the Bible. It yields an oil known as ginger-grass oil.<\/p>\nCane (Saccharum officinarum)<\/em><\/p>\nIt is thought that there were two species of sugarcane indigenous to and growing wild in the Holy Land. One of these, Saccharum sara,<\/em> is known to be only from Lebanon. The other native species is S. biflorum,<\/em> which grows on the banks of ditches and streams from Syria and Lebanon through the Holy Land south to Stony Arabia and the Sinai. This may be the wild cane familiar to the Jews. Most authorities, however, think that the “sweet cane” of Isaiah 43:24 was the true sugarcane (S. officinarum).<\/em> This plant is thought to have originated in the tropics of the eastern hemisphere. It has been cultivated by people since time immemorial and is not now known in the wild state anywhere. It is a tall, stout perennial grass, maizelike in aspect with many jointed stems and a large plumelike terminal cluster of flowers.<\/p>\nCaper Plant (Capparis sincula)<\/em><\/p>\nSpiny, trailing shrub of Mediterranean region; the flower bud of this shrub. The word “desire” in Ecclesiastes 12:5 may actually refer to the caper berry. The common caper or caper berry grows profusely in Syria, Lebanon, the Holy Land, and in the mountain valleys of Sinai. The plant may sometimes grow upright but more generally spreads itself weakly over the ground like a vine, covering rocks, ruins, and old walls like ivy. The young flower buds, pickled in vinegar, were used by the ancients as a condiment for meat. The berries were also used in cooking.<\/p>\nCarob Tree (Ceratonia siliqua)<\/em><\/p>\nEvergreen of the Mediterranean region having edible pods. Scholars generally agree that the pods of the carob or locust tree were the “husks” of Jesus’ parable of the prodigal son (Lk 15:16). The carob is an attractive evergreen leguminous tree that is very common throughout the Holy Land, Syria, and Egypt. The pods are most abundant in April and May and contain numerous pealike seeds embedded in an agreeably flavored mucilaginous sweetish pulp. The pods are also used abundantly now as they were in antiquity for feeding cattle, horses, and pigs. In time of scarcity, they are used as human food and perhaps even regularly by the very poor. The carob is frequently mentioned in the Talmud as a source of good food for domestic animals. The seeds of the carob were formerly employed as a standard of weight and are the source of the term “carat.” Some commentators suggest that the “locusts” eaten by John the Baptist (Mt 3:4) were not insects but the fruit of the carob tree.<\/p>\nCassia (Cinnamomum cassia, Saussurea lappa)<\/em><\/p>\nTree of tropical Asia with bark similar but inferior to cinnamon. The “cassia” of Exodus 30:24 and Ezekiel 27:19 is the cassia bark tree, Cinnamomum cassia.<\/em> In Psalm 45:8 the reference seems to be to the Indian orris, Saussurea lappa.<\/em><\/p>\nCastor Oil Plant (Ricinus communis)<\/em><\/p>\nLarge plant, native to tropical Africa and Asia, cultivated for ornamental reasons and for extraction of oil from its seeds. The gourd of Jonah 4:6-7 was probably the ordinary castor bean. The castor bean is a tender shrub, growing 3 to 12 or more feet (.9 to 3.7 meters) tall with huge leaves that resemble the outstretched human hand. The castor bean plant is found in waste places, especially near water, in both Lebanon and the Holy Land and often is cultivated. In hot climates it becomes treelike and affords a dense shade by the abundance of its huge, umbrella-like leaves. It is known in the Orient for the rapidity of its growth. The oil extracted from the seeds of the castor bean was used by the Jews in ceremonial rites and is mentioned among the five kinds of oil that rabbinical tradition sanctioned for such use. The seeds themselves are poisonous when eaten.<\/p>\nCedar (Cedrus libani)<\/em><\/p>\nAny of several coniferous evergreen trees of the genus native to the Old World. With few exceptions, the references to “cedar” are to the well-known cedar of Lebanon. This is a noble tree, the tallest and most massive with which the Israelites were acquainted. It grows quite rapidly, attaining a height of up to 120 feet (36.6 meters) with a trunk diameter of as much as 8 feet (2.4 meters). In Solomon’s day these trees were obviously abundant on the mountains of Lebanon, but now, because of excessive lumbering, they are very rare. The cedar of Lebanon was held in high esteem not only for its vigor, beauty, and age but also for the fragrance and remarkable lasting qualities of the wood. It symbolizes grandeur, might, majesty, dignity, lofty stature, and wide expansion. References in Ezekiel 17:3, 22-24, and 31:3-18 beautifully illustrate how these lofty kings of the forest symbolize and typify worldly strength, power, and glory.<\/p>\nChicory (Cichorium intybus)<\/em><\/p>\nSee<\/em> Bitter Herbs (above).<\/p>\nCinnamon (Cinnamomum zeylanicum)<\/em><\/p>\nTwo varieties of trees of this genus, native to tropical Asia, with aromatic bark that, when ground, is used as a spice. The cinnamon of Exodus 30:23, Proverbs 7:17, Song of Songs 4:14, and Revelation 18:13 is undoubtedly Cinnamomum zeylanicum.<\/em> The tree is a rather low-growing one, never getting more than 30 feet (9.1 meters) high, with a smooth, ash-colored bark and widespread branches and white flowers. Its shiny, beautifully veined evergreen leaves grow about nine inches (22.9 centimeters) long and two inches (5.1 centimeters) wide.<\/p>\nThe Jews always regarded cinnamon as a deliciously fragrant substance and valued it highly as a spice and a perfume. It was one of the principal ingredients used in the manufacture of the precious ointments, or “holy oil,” that Moses was commanded to use in the tabernacle for anointing the sacred vessels and officiating priests. It was undoubtedly very costly and precious.<\/p>\nCitron Tree (Tetraclinis articulata)<\/em><\/p>\nTree native to Asia bearing lemonlike fruit with a thick, fragrant rind. It seldom exceeds a height of 30 feet (9.1 meters) and has hard, dark-colored, durable, fragrant wood that takes a fine polish. The wood was one of the most highly prized woods of the ancients, who employed it extensively for cabinetwork. It was commonly referred to as being worth its weight in gold. The wood, owing to its resinous properties, is slow to decay and remains practically uninjured by insects.<\/p>\nCoriander (Coriandrum sativum)<\/em><\/p>\nThe references in Exodus 16:31 and Numbers 11:7 are clearly to the common coriander plant. The coriander was found quite commonly growing along with grain in cultivated fields throughout the Holy Land. It grows wild in Egypt and was used by the ancients both as condiment and as a medicine. The leaves are quite aromatic and are used in soups and for flavoring puddings, curries, and wines. The coriander is still used today as a spice by the Arabs. In Scripture it is mentioned only in connection with manna, which was said to resemble coriander seeds in size, shape, and color.<\/p>\nCotton (Gossypium herbaceum)<\/em><\/p>\nAny of various plants or shrubs of this genus grown in warm climates for the soft white fiber attached to their seeds and the oil from these seeds. The “green” of the kjv<\/span> in Esther 1:6 is undoubtedly a reference to the Levant cotton (Gossypium herbaceum)<\/em> that was cultivated since time immemorial in the Far East. Alexander the Great brought it back from India. It is probable that the Jews became acquainted with cotton during the period of their Persian captivity under King Ahasuerus.<\/p>\nCucumber (Cucumis chate, C. sativus)<\/em><\/p>\nThe cucumber is an annual climbing or trailing vine, the origin of which is unknown. It has been cultivated in all the warm countries of the Old World since prehistoric times. Cucumbers are usually eaten raw; a cucumber and a barley cake or some other kind of bread often constitute a meal. The reference to “a lodge in a garden of cucumbers” (Is 1:8) refers to the crudely built small house or lodge often set up in Palestinian cucumber fields and vineyards.<\/p>\nCummin (Cuminum cyminum)<\/em><\/p>\nThe references in Isaiah 28:25-27 and Matthew 23:23 are clearly to the cummin—a common, annual plant of the carrot family said to be native to Egypt and the region of the eastern Mediterranean. It has long been cultivated for its powerfully aromatic and pungent seeds, which are similar to caraway seeds but larger. They do not have as agreeable a taste as caraway seeds but nevertheless were used extensively as a flavor or spice and sometimes were even mixed with flour in making bread. Cummin was also used medicinally and as a condiment with fish and meats.<\/p>\nCypress (Cupressus sempervirens horizontalis)<\/em><\/p>\nThe cypress is a massive, tall-growing evergreen with scalelike leaves and is widely distributed in the mountainous regions of the Holy Land. On Mt Lebanon and Mt Hermon it grows together with the cedar and oak. Its usual height is 50 to 60 feet (15.2 to 18.3 meters), but it may grow as tall as 80 feet (24.2 meters). It is said to have been used extensively in shipbuilding by the Phoenicians, Cretans, and Greeks. There is general agreement that the “gopher wood” of Genesis 6:14 is cypress because the wood is very durable.<\/p>\nDandelion (Taraxacum officinale)<\/em><\/p>\nSee<\/em> Bitter Herbs (above).<\/p>\nDarnel Grass (Lolium temulentum)<\/em><\/p>\nIt is generally agreed that the “tares” of the kjv<\/span> (Mt 13:24-30) are the annual or bearded darnel grass. It is a strong grass closely resembling wheat or rye in appearance. The seeds are much smaller than those of wheat or rye, but it is extremely difficult to distinguish it from wheat or rye in its early stages. If it is not eradicated early but is left until the time of harvest, it is cut down with the wheat and the two are subsequently very difficult to separate. The seeds are poisonous, either due to some chemicals naturally present or because of a fungus that grows within the seeds.<\/p>\nDill (Anethum graveolens)<\/em><\/p>\nDill is a weedy annual plant resembling parsley and fennel, 12 to 20 inches (30.5 to 50.8 centimeters) tall with yellow flowers. The reference in Matthew 23:23 (kjv<\/span>) to anise is probably a reference to dill. This plant is widely cultivated for seeds that are aromatic and carminative.<\/p>\nEbony (Diospyros ebenaster, D. ebenum, D. mela<\/em>noxylon)<\/em><\/p>\nChiefly tropical tree of southern Asia with hard, dark-colored heartwood. Ebony comes from the date plum or date tree (Diospyros ebenaster<\/em> and D. melanoxylon)<\/em> of India and is quite different from the date palm. It was sent by Phoenician ships across the Arabian Sea and up the Red Sea to the market in Tyre, from which it was carried overland by camel caravans. The outer wood of these trees is white and soft, but when old, the interior wood becomes hard, black, heavy, and durable and still constitutes most of the costly ebony of commerce. Ebony takes on a fine polish and is highly valued for cabinetwork, for turnery, for the manufacture of fancy ornamental articles and instruments, and as a veneer for other woods.<\/p>\nEzekiel mentions ivory and ebony together (Ez 27:15). Ebony was and still is frequently inlaid with ivory, with which it contrasts so strikingly in color.<\/p>\nEndive (Cichorium endivia)<\/em><\/p>\nSee<\/em> Bitter Herbs (above).<\/p>\nFig, Fig Tree (Ficus carica)<\/em><\/p>\nAny of several trees or shrubs of this genus, native to the Mediterranean region; its edible fruit. The common fig, mentioned some 60 times in the Bible, is one of the most important Bible plants. Its leaves are spoken of first in Genesis 3:7. The fig is generally regarded as native to southwestern Asia and Syria, but already in early times it was also cultivated extensively in Egypt and the Holy Land, where it was one of the principal foods. First Samuel 25:18 states that a part of the gift sent by Abigail to David consisted of 200 cakes of figs.<\/p>\nThe fig tree has a very peculiar type of fruit called a syconium, which is actually a very much enlarged and fleshy receptacle. It is pollinated by a wasp, without which it cannot get its fruit; this was discovered when it was first transplanted to California.<\/p>\nThe fig puts out its earliest fruit buds before its leaves, the former in February and the latter in April or May. When the leaves are out, the fruit ought to be ripe (Mt 21:19).<\/p>\nWhenever the prophets of old berated the people for their wickedness, they often threatened that the vine and the fig crops would be destroyed. And when they held out the promise of great rewards, they said that the vine and fig crop would be restored (Jer 8:13; Hos 2:12; Jl 1:7, 12; Mi 4:4; Zec 3:10).<\/p>\nFir Tree (Abies cilicica)<\/em><\/p>\nThis a generic term for various evergreen trees having flat needles and erect cones. In all probability, most of the references in Scripture to the fir are references to the pine, cypress, or juniper. The only true fir in the Holy Land grows in the higher parts of Lebanon and the mountains northward. It attains a height of 30 to 75 feet (9.1 to 22.9 meters) and is widely cultivated.<\/p>\nFlax (Linum usitatissimum)<\/em><\/p>\nAny of several plants of this genus, one particularly being widely cultivated for the linseed oil from its seeds and the fine textile fibers from its stems. Flax is the oldest known of the textile fibers. Cotton is identified only once in the Bible (Est 1:6). There is no mention of any other fiber plant being cultivated in Egypt or the Holy Land in biblical days, and for that reason it is thought that linen was the material out of which clothes other than woolen ones were made. Linen was also used for domestic purposes such as towels (Jn 13:4-5), napkins (11:44), girdles and undergarments (Is 3:23; Mk 14:51), nets (Is 19:8-9), and measuring lines (Ez 40:3). The priests serving in the temple were to wear nothing but linen clothes; a mixed cloth of wool and flax together was strictly forbidden to the Jews (Lv 19:19; Dt 22:11).<\/p>\nAt least three kinds of linen were used in biblical times, and apparently there were particular uses for each kind. Ordinary linen of coarsest texture is mentioned in Leviticus 6:10, Ezekiel 9:2, Daniel 10:5, and Revelation 15:6. The second type of linen of superior quality is mentioned in Exodus 26:1 and 39:27. A third type of linen of finest texture and high cost is mentioned in 1 Chronicles 15:27, Esther 8:15, and Revelation 19:8.<\/p>\nThe common flax plant grows from one to four feet (.3 to 1.2 meters) tall with a simple, slender, wirelike stem and numerous small, pale, lancelike green leaves. The failure of the flax crop is listed as one of God’s punishments (Hos 2:9). The manufacture of linen from flax fibers was a domestic industry of Jewish women (Prv 31:13, 19), ranging from ordinary clothing to the robes and aprons worn by the priest and temple attendants. Linen was also used for wicks in lamps (Is 42:3).<\/p>\nFrankincense (Boswellia)<\/em><\/p>\nAromatic genus resin used chiefly as incense. Frankincense is obtained from three species of a single genus of plants that grow in southern Arabia, Ethiopia, Somaliland, India, and the East Indies. The trees are large in size, related to the turpentine or terebinth tree and to those that produce balsam and myrrh. The gum has a bitter taste and gives off a strong odor in the form of a volatile oil when warmed or burned. It is obtained by successive incisions in the bark of the trunk and in the branches of living trees. It is thought that the Hebrews imported all their frankincense from Arabia, especially from the region about Sheba.<\/p>\nFrankincense is mentioned 21 times in the Bible (e.g., Ex 30:34; 1 Chr 9:29; Neh 13:9; Sg 3:6; 4:6, 14; Mt 2:11; Rv 18:13) and was probably employed almost exclusively in the sacrificial services of the tabernacle and temple until the time of Solomon. It has always been the most important incense resin in the world.<\/p>\nGalbanum (Ferula galbaniflua)<\/em><\/p>\nGalbanum is a malodorous yellowish or brownish gum resin containing the chemical substance umbelliferone, obtained from several species of plants related to the fennel, native to Syria and Persia. The gum is a natural exudation of the stem or is obtained by making a transverse incision in the young stem a few inches above the ground. The milky juice soon hardens and forms one of the kinds of commercial galbanum. Its odor is strongly balsamic, pungent, and disagreeable when burned. Galbanum was one of the ingredients used to form the “holy incense” (Ex 30:34).<\/p>\nGarlic (Allium sativum)<\/em><\/p>\nSee<\/em> Onion (below).<\/p>\nGourd, Wild (Citrullus colocynthis)<\/em><\/p>\nThere has been considerable difference of opinion regarding the meaning of the words translated “wild gourds” (2 Kgs 4:39) or “gall” (Dt 29:18; 32:32; Ps 69:21; Jer 8:14; 9:15; 23:15; Lam 3:5, 19; Am 6:12; Mt 27:34; Acts 8:23). Most scholars today believe the plant referred to was the colocynth, a cucumber-like vine that trails on the ground or climbs over shrubs and fences. The fruit contains a soft spongy pulp, which is intensely bitter, strongly cathartic, and sometimes poisonous.<\/p>\nHedge (Rhamnus palaestina, Balanites aegyptiaca, Lycium europaeum)<\/em><\/p>\nRow of closely planted shrubs or low-growing trees forming a fence or boundary. A number of plants were used to provide hedges in Bible times. One of these was the Palestine buckthorn, Rhamnus palaestina.<\/em> This plant is a shrub or a small tree growing from three to six feet (.9 to 1.8 meters) tall with velvety, thorny branches, evergreen leaves, and clusters of small flowers blooming in March and April. It grows in thickets and on hillsides from Syria through the Holy Land to Arabia and the Sinai. The Jericho balsam (Balanites aegyptiaca)<\/em> and the European boxthorn (Lycium europaeum)<\/em> are also prickly shrubs widely used as hedges in the Holy Land and may be the plants referred to in Proverbs 15:19 and Hosea 2:6.<\/p>\nHenna (Lawsonia inermis)<\/em><\/p>\nTree or shrub of Asia and northern Africa with fragrant reddish or white flowers and leaves from which a reddish dye is made. The plant referred to in Song of Songs 1:14 and 4:13 and translated as “camphire” (kjv<\/span>) is thought by scholars today to refer to the henna plant. It is a native of northern India and grows wild in the Sudan, Egypt, Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, and the Holy Land. It grows from 4 to 12 feet (1.2 to 3.7 meters) tall, and its scent is similar to that of roses.<\/p>\nHenna leaves are dried, crushed into a powder, mixed with water, and made into a paste that has been used since time immemorial as a cosmetic. A number of mummies have been found decorated with henna. Henna was used to provide a bright yellow, orange, or red color to the fingernails, toenails, the tips of the fingers, the palms of the hand, and the soles of the feet of young girls. Men also used it for coloring their beards and the manes and tails of horses. The dye had to be renewed once every two or three weeks. This use of henna as a cosmetic was common in Egypt at the time the children of Israel were there as slaves; they were undoubtedly familiar with it.<\/p>\nHyacinth (Hyacinthus orientalis)<\/em><\/p>\nThe lily referred to in Song of Songs 2:1-2, 16; 4:5; and 6:2-4 may well be the garden hyacinth. It is native to, and very common in, the fields and rocky places in the Holy Land, Lebanon, and northward. Its flowers in the wild form are always deep blue and very fragrant.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Lily (below).<\/p>\nHyssop (Origanum maru)<\/em><\/p>\nWoody plant native to Asia with spikes of small blue flowers and aromatic leaves used as a condiment and in perfumery. There is little agreement among botanists as to the exact identity of the biblical “hyssop.” Some have suggested Hyssopus offici<\/em>nalis,<\/em> the well-known garden herb now called hyssop. However, this plant is not native either to the Holy Land or Egypt, being found only in southern Europe. Moreover, it does not fit the requirements of the biblical plant.<\/p>\nThe “hyssop” of the OT is likely the Syrian or Egyptian marjoram (Origanum maru).<\/em> It is referred to in Exodus 12:22; Leviticus 14:4-6, 52; Numbers 19:6, 18; 1 Kings 4:33; Psalm 51:7; and Hebrews 9:19. The marjorams are mints growing (under favorable conditions) about two or three feet (.6 to .9 meter) tall, but more often are dwarfed when growing in rock crevices and walls (cf. 1 Kgs 4:33). An aromatic substance is obtained from the crushed and dried leaves. If gathered together in a bunch with leaves and flowers, the hairy stems of the marjoram would hold liquid very well and would make an excellent sprinkler.<\/p>\n\nThe hyssop of the crucifixion passage in the NT (Jn 19:29) is probably the sorghum, a tall cereal plant grown primarily for food but also used for brushes and mops.<\/p>\nJuniper (Juniperus)<\/em><\/p>\nVariety of evergreen tree or shrub. The plant referred to in Jeremiah 17:6 and 48:6 and translated in the kjv<\/span> “heath” is probably the savin or Phoenician juniper. The Phoenician juniper, Juniperus phoenicia,<\/em> is found in the hills and rocky places of Arabia. The savin juniper, J. sabina,<\/em> is common throughout the deserts, plains, and rocky places of Syria and Palestine. These references are to the brown-berried cedar, or sharp cedar.<\/p>\nLaurel or Sweet Bay (Laurus nobilis)<\/em><\/p>\nShrub or tree native to the Mediterranean region. While the reference in Psalm 37:35 may be to the cedar of Lebanon, most scholars refer the “green bay tree” (kjv<\/span>) of the psalmist to the sweet bay, a native of the Holy Land, inhabiting thickets and woods from the coast to the middle montane zone. It is an evergreen tree attaining a height from 40 to 60 feet (12.2 to 18.3 meters).<\/p>\nEven though the tree is abundant on Mt Carmel and around Hebron, it is generally not common in the Holy Land. Its leaves are still used as a condiment, and its fruit, leaves, and bark have long been used in medicine.<\/p>\nLeek (Allium porrum)<\/em><\/p>\nSee<\/em> Onion (below).<\/p>\nLentil (Lens esculenta)<\/em><\/p>\nThe lentil plant to which Genesis 25:29-34, 2 Samuel 17:27-29, 23:11, and Ezekiel 4:9 refer is a small, erect, annual, vetchlike plant with slender stems and tendril-bearing leaves. It produces small, white, violet-striped flowers with flat, pealike pods in which the lentils are borne.<\/p>\nLettuce (Lactuca sativa)<\/em><\/p>\nSee<\/em> Bitter Herbs (above).<\/p>\nLily (Lilium)<\/em><\/p>\nAny of various plants of the genus Lilium<\/em> having large, variously colored, trumpet-shaped flowers; and related plants. The lily is one of the most famous of all the plants in the Bible, but it is also one about which there has been considerable difference of opinion. It seems probable that several kinds of plants, perhaps five or six, are called lilies in the kjv<\/span>. Most authorities regard the Palestine anemone or wind flower, Anemone coronaria,<\/em> as the “lily of the field” (Mt 6:28, kjv<\/span>) that surpassed Solomon in all his glory. These flowers are found in every part of the Holy Land in profusion; the most common forms are scarlet or yellow, but the Palestine anemone may also be blue, purple, rose, or white in color. The flower attains a diameter of two and three-quarter inches (7 centimeters).<\/p>\nAn alternative suggestion is the Palestinian chamomile, Anthemis palaestina,<\/em> a common, white, daisylike plant. The chamomile is gathered like dry grass and thrown into the furnace when it dries up.<\/p>\nAnother proposed plant is Lilium chalcedonicum,<\/em> the scarlet or Martagon lily. The statement in Song of Songs 5:13—“his lips like lilies”—would better fit this plant than the Palestine anemone. The reference is apparently to a rare plant of exceptional beauty. The scarlet lily is rare in the Holy Land; indeed, some botanists doubt that it lives there.<\/p>\nThe references in 1 Kings 7:19, 22, 26 and 2 Chronicles 4:5 are probably to the water lily, Nymphaea alba,<\/em> which served as the pattern. The water lily is quite common in Europe and also in the Holy Land and northern Africa.<\/p>\nLotus Bush (Zizyphus lotus)<\/em><\/p>\nThe “shady trees” of Job 40:21-22 (kjv<\/span>; cf. nlt<\/span> “lotus plants”) may refer to the lotus bush of the Middle East, Zizyphus lotus,<\/em> a shrub or low tree that grows to a height of about five feet (1.5 meters) with smooth, zigzag, whitish branches.<\/p>\nOther commentators believe that the shady trees of Job are large-leafed trees such as the plane tree, Platanus orientalis,<\/em> or the oleander, Nerium oleander.<\/em> This suggestion is based on the assumption that the animal described in Job 40 is the hippopotamus, and it seems unlikely that the hippopotamus would live under a lotus bush or even be found in places where this shrub grows. These individuals regard the plane tree or the oleander as more likely.<\/p>\nMallow (Atriplex)<\/em><\/p>\nThe Hebrew word used in Job 30:4 implies saltiness, and for this reason botanists believe that it refers to one of the species of the saltwort or orach. Twenty-one species of saltwort occur in the Holy Land, almost all of which are common and could well meet the requirements of the text. Atriplex halimus<\/em> is the species usually suggested, a strong-growing bushy shrub related to the spinach.<\/p>\nMandrake (Mandragora officinarum)<\/em><\/p>\nThe mandrake or love apple is a stemless herbaceous perennial related to the nightshade, potato, and tomato. It has a large, beetlike, often forked taproot from the top of which arise many dark leaves about a foot (30.5 centimeters) long and four inches (10.2 centimeters) wide. The plant is slightly poisonous, and the thick taproots have some resemblance in shape to the lower parts of the human body. For this reason certain aphrodisiac properties were ascribed to it (cf. Gn 30:14-16).<\/p>\nThe love apple was a common plant in deserted fields throughout the Holy Land. It is native to the entire Mediterranean region, southern Europe, and Asia Minor. The mandrake is mentioned in Song of Songs 7:13, though some scholars believe the writer may actually have been referring to the citron or to the common edible field mushroom, Agaricus campestris.<\/em><\/p>\nMelon (Cucumis melo, Citrullus vulgaris)<\/em><\/p>\nAny of several varieties of these two related vines having a hard rind and juicy flesh. The melons of Numbers 11:5 may be either the muskmelon (Cucumis melo)<\/em> or the watermelon (Citrullus vulgaris).<\/em> It may be that both fruits are referred to.<\/p>\n\nMillet (Panicum miliaceum)<\/em><\/p>\nA grass grown in Eurasia for its edible seed. Millet seeds are the smallest of all the grass seeds cultivated as food but are produced profusely. Millet is an annual grass seldom more that two feet (.6 meter) tall. The small seeds of the millet are used on cakes and eaten uncooked by the poor of the land.<\/p>\nMint (Mentha)<\/em><\/p>\nAny of various plants of this family with aromatic foliage that is processed for flavoring. Quite a few mints are common in the Holy Land, but the horse mint (Mentha longifolia)<\/em> is probably the one referred to in Matthew 23:23 and Luke 11:42. Mints were employed by the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans for flavoring, as a carminative in medicine, and as a condiment in cooking.<\/p>\nMulberry (Morus nigra)<\/em><\/p>\nAny tree of this family, some bearing dark-purple fruit and one bearing white fruit, having leaves used as food for silkworms. The sycamine tree of Luke 17:6 (kjv<\/span>) is evidently the black mulberry, Morus nigra.<\/em> It is a low-growing, thick-crowned, stiff-branched tree standing from 24 to 35 feet (7.3 to 10.7 meters) tall, though rarely more than 30 feet (9.1 meters) tall. Originally native to northern Persia, it is now cultivated throughout the Middle East for its fruit. The Chinese or Indian species, M. alba,<\/em> was until recently widely cultivated in Syria and the Holy Land but is not indigenous.<\/p>\nMustard (Brassica nigra, B. arvensis)<\/em><\/p>\nVarious plants of this genus are native to Eurasia, some of which are cultivated for their edible seeds. While there is disagreement about the identity of the “mustard” of Matthew 13:31-32, 17:20, Mark 4:31, Luke 13:19, and 17:6, it is generally thought to be the ordinary black mustard, Brassica nigra.<\/em><\/p>\nThe mustard Jesus referred to may be the charlock or wild mustard, B. arvensis,<\/em> which normally grows from one to three feet (.3 to .9 meter) tall. Some have suggested that it was actually Salvadora persica,<\/em> found in thickets around the Dead Sea. The plant has a pleasant aromatic taste resembling that of mustard, and if taken in considerable quantity, it will produce an irritation of the nose and eyes similar to that of mustard. However, this plant does not grow as far north as Galilee, and the fruits are rather large and stony, thus hardly fitting the description of the parable.<\/p>\nWhile the seeds of the mustard are not the smallest known, they were probably the smallest familiar to the common people who comprised Jesus’ audience in Galilee.<\/p>\nMyrrh (Commiphora myrrha, C. kataf)<\/em><\/p>\nShrub or tree exuding an aromatic gum resin used in perfume and incense. Most of the references in Scripture to myrrh are to Commiphora myrrha,<\/em> although C. kataf<\/em> may also be involved since it grows in the same region and is similar. The two trees are native to Arabia, Ethiopia, and the Somali coast of east Africa. They yield a gummy exudation that constitutes most of the myrrh of commerce. Both species are low, scrubby, thick- and stiff-branched thorny shrubs or small trees that grow in rocky places, especially on limestone hills. In the East it is highly regarded as an aromatic substance, perfume, and medicine. The ancient Egyptians burned it in their temples and embalmed their dead with it; the Jews also used it for embalming (Jn 19:39). The Hebrews held it in high regard as a perfume (Ps 45:8).<\/p>\n\nMyrtle (Myrtus communis)<\/em><\/p>\nThe myrtle tree is common in the Holy Land, especially around Bethlehem, Lebanon, Hebron, and the slopes of Mt Carmel and Mt Tabor. It is native to western Asia and in good environments grows into a small evergreen tree 20 to 30 feet (6.2 to 9.1 meters) tall. More often, however, it is a straggling bush 1½ to 4 feet (.5 to 1.2 meters) tall.<\/p>\nIn the Bible, myrtle is referred to chiefly as a symbol of God’s generosity. Branches of myrtle trees were included among those that Nehemiah ordered to be gathered for the Feast of Tabernacles (Neh 8:15). The myrtle was symbolic not only of peace but also of justice.<\/p>\n\nNarcissus (Narcissus tazetta)<\/em><\/p>\nWidely cultivated plant of this family with narrow leaves and usually white or yellow flowers with a cup-crown or trumpet-shaped crown. The polyanthus narcissus (Narcissus tazetta)<\/em> appears to be the plant referred to in Isaiah 35:1. This narcissus grows abundantly on the plains of Sharon and elsewhere in Palestine. Being sweet-smelling, it is a great favorite.<\/p>\nNard (Nardostachys jatamansi)<\/em><\/p>\nThe nard is a perennial herb with strong, pleasantly scented roots. It is native to high altitudes in the Himalayas, and its range extends from there into western Asia. The roots and spikelike wooly young stems are dried before the leaves unfold and are used for making perfume. It is still used in India as a perfume for the hair, and there is every reason to believe that the spikenard of Scripture (Sg 1:12; 4:13-14; Mk 14:3; Jn 12:3) came originally from India.<\/p>\nNettle (Urtica)<\/em><\/p>\nPlant of this genus having toothed leaves covered with hairs that exude a stinging flush. Four species of nettle are found in the Holy Land: the common or great nettle, Urtica dioica;<\/em> the Roman nettle, U. pilulifera;<\/em> the small nettle, U. urens;<\/em> and U. caudata,<\/em> which is similar to the small nettle. Some nettles attain a height of five to six feet (1.5 to 1.8 meters). They are common pests of waste places and fields. They are often seen occupying ground that was once cultivated but has since been neglected (Is 34:13; Hos 9:6).<\/p>\nNutmeg Flower (Nigella sativa)<\/em><\/p>\nThe “fitches” of Isaiah 28:25-27 (kjv<\/span>) are probably the nutmeg flower, an annual plant of the buttercup family. The plant grows wild in southern Europe, Syria, Egypt, north Africa, and other Mediterranean lands, where it is extensively cultivated for its strongly pungent, pepperlike aromatic seeds. These are sprinkled over some kinds of bread and cakes in the East and are used for flavoring curries and other dishes in the Holy Land and Egypt. Cummin and nutmeg flowers are still gathered in the Holy Land in the same way described by Isaiah.<\/p>\nOak (Quercus)<\/em><\/p>\nAt least five species of oaks are found in Palestine. One of these is the kermes oak (Quercus coccifera),<\/em> the host of the insect Coccus ilicis,<\/em> which produces the scarlet dye used in coloring linen and wool (Gn 38:28-30; Ex 25:4; 26:1; 28:33; 35:23; 39:24; Lv 14:4-6, 51-52; Nm 19:6; 2 Chr 2:7, 14; 3:14; Is 1:18; Heb 9:19; Rv 18:12). The kermes oak grows from 6 to 35 feet (1.8 to 10.7 meters) tall and is found in the mountainous regions of Syria, Lebanon, and the Holy Land. When it grows alone, the kermes oak often becomes a large tree. It was regularly planted by tombs in the East. The oak was always respected and even venerated in biblical times for its large size and strength, and great men were usually buried in its shade. Abraham’s oak in Hebron is an example.<\/p>\nA second oak is the valonia oak (Q. aegilops),<\/em> perhaps the oak of Isaiah 2:13 and 44:14. It is common in the middle montane zones and probably was abundant in the area around Bashan. The oak of Genesis 35:4, 8 is thought to have been the holm oak (Q. ilex),<\/em> an evergreen oak that grows to a height of 60 feet (18.3 meters). Still another oak is Q. lusitanica,<\/em> the cypress oak, a small deciduous tree seldom more than 20 feet (6.1 meters) tall. The very large acorns of this tree were sometimes eaten.<\/p>\nThe word translated “plain” (kjv<\/span>) in Genesis 12:6, 13:18, 14:13, and 18:1 should probably be translated “oak.”<\/p>\nThe many references to “groves” in the OT, usually in connection with the worship of Baal or other heathen gods (Ex 34:13; Dt 16:21; Jgs 3:7; 1 Kgs 14:23; 18:19; 2 Kgs 17:16—all kjv<\/span>), were probably groves of sacred oak trees.<\/p>\nOil Tree, Oleaster (Elaeagnus angustifolia)<\/em><\/p>\nSmall Eurasian tree with oblong silvery leaves, greenish flowers, and olivelike fruit. There is question as to which tree is referred to when 1 Kings 6:23, 31-33 and 1 Chronicles 27:28 refer to “olive trees.” The same word occurs in Isaiah 41:19 and Micah 6:7. The plant referred to is probably the narrow-leaved oleaster (Elaeagnus angustifolia),<\/em> a small stiff-branched tree or graceful shrub growing from 15 to 20 feet (4.6 to 6.1 meters) tall, common in all parts of the Holy Land except in the Jordan Valley. At one time it was particularly common on Mt Tabor and at Hebron and Samaria. The wood is hard and fine-grained and therefore well suited for carving of images and figures. The oil that it yields is a rather inferior type used in medication but not for food; this may be the oil of Micah 6:7.<\/p>\nOleander (Nerium oleander)<\/em><\/p>\nAny poisonous evergreen shrub of this genus growing in warm climates. One of the suggestions for the plants identified as “roses” in various translations (Ecclus 24:14, kjv<\/span>) is the oleander. This plant, originally native to the East Indies, has been cultivated throughout the warm regions of the world for centuries. It flourishes in the Holy Land today and forms dense thickets in some parts of the Jordan Valley. It is usually a shrub from 3 to 12 feet (.9 to 3.7 meters) tall. Every part of the plant is dangerously poisonous.<\/p>\nOlive, Olive Tree (Olea europaea)<\/em><\/p>\nOld world semitropical evergreen tree bearing edible fruit. The olive, Olea europaea,<\/em> was unquestionably one of the most valuable trees known to the Jews. There are innumerable references to it in Scripture, as well as to olive oil, which was used for anointing. The tree is quite common in the Holy Land, and in many places it is the only tree of any substantial size. The branches of the wild olive are rather stiff and spinescent, and the typical cultivated tree is a multi-branched evergreen, 20 or more feet (6.1 meters) tall, with a gnarled trunk and smooth, ash-colored bark. The leaves are leathery and the flowers are small, yellow or white. The fruits are large, black or violet, ripening in September, and it is the outer fleshy parts of the fruit that yield the valuable olive oil of commerce. Thirty-one percent of the ripe fruit is oil. The ripe fruit is eaten raw, as is the green, unripe fruit. The wood of the trunk and limbs is hard, rich yellow or amber in color, and fine-grained, often handsomely variegated. It is still used today for the finest cabinetwork and turnery. The tree grows very slowly, but it attains a great age. It is difficult to kill the olive tree by cutting it down, because new sprouts are sent up from the root and all around the margins of the old stump, often forming a grove of two to five trunks, all from a single root that originally supported only one tree.<\/p>\nOnion (Allium)<\/em><\/p>\nThe onions referred to in Numbers 11:5 are undoubtedly Allium cepa,<\/em> the Egyptian onion, which is made up of a compact coated bulb formed of layers consisting of broad fleshy bases of closely overlapping leaves. The leaves are slender and hollow. The entire plant has a characteristic pungent taste and odor.<\/p>\n\nClosely related to the onion is the garlic, A. sativum.<\/em> The common garlic is a hardy, bulbous perennial plant that is cultivated in Europe, western Asia, and Egypt. The leaves are narrow, flat, and ribbonlike. It is extremely popular with people of the Mediterranean region.<\/p>\nStill another one of the onions is the leek, A. porrum.<\/em> The bulb of the leek differs from that of the onion and garlic in that it is slender, cylindrical, and more than six inches (15.2 centimeters) in length. The flavor resembles that of the onion but is more pungent. The leaves are eaten as a relish or are cooked in soups. The bulbs are cut into small pieces and employed as seasoning for meat.<\/p>\nPalm (Phoenix dactylifera)<\/em><\/p>\nThe palm tree of the Bible is undoubtedly the date palm. At one time it was as characteristic of the Holy Land as it is still today of Egypt. It is characterized by a branchless, tapering stem of up to 80 feet (24.2 meters) or more in height and a large terminal cluster of feathery leaves, each six to nine feet (1.8 to 2.7 meters) or more long. Because of its height and unusual structure, it was natural that it should be used as a form of ornamentation in Eastern architecture. The stem and leaves were favorite subjects of architectural embellishment. The immense, branchlike leaves that are referred to as branches in the Bible were symbols of triumph and were used on occasions of great rejoicing (Jn 12:13; Rv 7:9). The large leaves are still used to cover the roofs and sides of houses and to give solidity to reed fences. Mats, baskets, and even dishes are made of them. Small leaves are used as dusters, and the wood of the trunk is used for timber. Rope is made from the weblike integument in the crown. The fruit, borne in an immense drooping cluster, which may weigh from 30 to 50 pounds (13.6 to 22.7 kilograms), is the chief food of many natives of Arabia and north Africa. A single tree may yield up to 200 pounds (90.7 kilograms) of dates a year. They may be dried for future use.<\/p>\nPapyrus (Cyperus papyrus)<\/em><\/p>\nThe Egyptian bulrush or papyrus (Ex 2:3-5; Jb 8:11; Is 18:2; 19:6-7; 35:7; 58:5) has smooth three-sided stems ordinarily attaining a height of 8 to 10 feet (2.4 to 3 meters), but sometimes even 16 feet (4.9 meters), and a thickness of two to three inches (5.1 to 7.6 centimeters) at the base with a large tuft of florets at the end. The papyrus formerly grew in great abundance along the banks of the Nile, forming what was almost a dense jungle. Today it is practically extinct in lower Egypt, although it is still found along the White Nile and in the Sudan. The papyrus still grows in parts of the Holy Land, especially around the north end of the plain of Galilee and the Huleh swamps.<\/p>\n\nIn addition to being used for making small vessels to float in water (Ex 2:3), for mats, and for various other domestic purposes, it is best known as the source of ancient paper. In manufacturing paper from papyrus, the stems of the plant were first peeled and the pitch then cut longitudinally into thin slices that were laid side by side. These were then sprinkled with water and pressed to unite the whole into one piece. The sheet was then dried and cut into pieces of the required size. In the better grades of papyrus paper, several layers of stem slices were laid crosswise on each other.<\/p>\nThe pale, fawn-colored, tassel-like inflorescences at the summit of the stems were used to adorn Egyptian temples and to crown the statues of gods. They were also worn as crowns by famous men and national heroes.<\/p>\nPine Tree (Pinus brutia, P. halepensis)<\/em><\/p>\nVarious evergreen trees of this family with needle-shaped leaves in clusters and seed-bearing cones. While there is considerable confusion concerning the conifers of the Bible, it seems apparent that pines are referred to in such passages as Leviticus 23:40; Nehemiah 8:15; Isaiah 41:19; and 60:13. One of the Holy Land’s pines is the Brutian pine (Pinus brutia),<\/em> a mountain-inhabiting species of the northern regions of Palestine. It attains a height of 10 to 35 feet (3 to 10.7 meters) with a rather diffuse growth and branches in whorls.<\/p>\nAnother of the pines is the Aleppo pine, Pinus halepensis.<\/em> Most of the instances of the occurrence of “fir” or “fir tree” in the kjv<\/span> probably refer to the Aleppo pine (2 Sm 6:5; 1 Kgs 5:8, 10; 6:34; 2 Kgs 19:23; 2 Chr 2:8; Ps 104:17; Sg 1:17; Is 14:8; 37:24; 55:13; 60:13; Ez 27:5; 31:8; Hos 14:8; Na 2:3; Zec 11:2). It grows from 9 to 60 feet (2.7 to 18.3 meters) tall with diffuse ascending branches and yellowish or brownish branchlets.<\/p>\nPistachio (Pistacia terebinthus, P. vera)<\/em><\/p>\nThe Palestine terebinth or turpentine tree is a large deciduous tree with straggling boughs. In the winter, without its leaves, it looks much like the oak. It grows from 12 to 25 feet (3.7 to 7.6 meters) tall. Every part of the tree contains a fragrant, resinous juice. It is common on the lower slopes of the hills throughout Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, and Arabia, generally growing as a solitary tree and found mostly in localities too warm or too dry for the oak that it generally replaces. Since it is native to Gilead, it is quite probable that its resinous juice formed part of the spicery that the Israelites carried to Egypt from Gilead (Gn 37:25).<\/p>\nThe nuts of Genesis 43:11 are apparently pistachio nuts from the pistachio tree, Pistacia vera,<\/em> closely related to the terebinth. It attains a height of 10 to 30 feet (3 to 9.1 meters) with a spreading top. It is found wild in many rocky parts of Lebanon and the Holy Land. The nut has a light-colored shell and the kernel has a sweet delicate flavor much relished wherever it grows.<\/p>\nPlane Tree (Platanus orientalis)<\/em><\/p>\nAny of several trees of this family with bell-shaped fruit clusters and usually an outer bark that flakes off in patches or strips. The references in Genesis 30:37 and Ezekiel 31:8 are apparently not to the chestnut tree, which is not indigenous to Palestine, but to the oriental plane tree, Platanus orientalis.<\/em><\/p>\nThe plane tree is a massive tree 60 feet (18.3 meters) or more tall with a trunk often of vast circumference, sometimes as much as 40 feet (12.2 meters). The outer bark peels off in sheets or scales, thus exposing a smooth whitish or yellowish inner bark. The tree is common throughout Lebanon, Syria, and the Holy Land, growing even in subalpine regions. However, it is primarily a tree of the plains and lowlands, growing on the edges of streams and lakes and in marshy places.<\/p>\nPomegranate (Punica granatum)<\/em><\/p>\nThe pomegranate is usually a small, bushlike tree but may occasionally become a large, branching shrub or small tree reaching a height of 20 to 30 feet (6.1 to 9.1 meters). The branches are often thorny. The showy bell-like flowers are usually scarlet, though sometimes yellow or white. The globular fruit is as large as an orange or medium-size apple. It has a hard rind of a bright red or yellowish color when ripe and is surmounted by the dry sepals that resemble a crown. The fruit itself is a crimson juicy pulp in which many red seeds are imbedded. The flowers of the pomegranate undoubtedly served as a pattern for the golden bells referred to in Exodus 28:33-34 and 39:24-26, and the open flowers of 1 Kings 6:32. The erect calyx lobes on the fruit served as a model for crowns of kings.<\/p>\nThe pomegranate is native to Asia, but it has been cultivated since prehistoric times and is now quite common in the Holy Land, in Egypt, and along the shores of the Mediterranean. It is listed as one of the pleasant fruits of Egypt (Nm 20:5) and one of the promised blessings of the Holy Land (Dt 8:8).<\/p>\nPoplar (Populus euphratica, P. alba)<\/em><\/p>\nFast-growing deciduous tree of the same genus as the aspen and cottonwood. The kjv<\/span> references in 2 Samuel 5:23-24 and 1 Chronicles 14:14-15 to mulberry trees are more probably to the Euphrates poplar or aspen, Populus euphratica.<\/em> This tree grows to a height of 30 to 45 feet (9.1 to 13.7 meters) with spreading branches. The Euphrates aspen is found only on rivers and stream banks throughout the area from Syria through the Holy Land to Stony Arabia. It is especially common in the Jordan Valley.<\/p>\nThe white poplar (Populus alba)<\/em> is common in wet places in Syria, Lebanon, the Holy Land, and Sinai. It attains a height of 30 to 60 feet (9.1 to 18.3 meters) with spreading branches. Some suggest that the altars of various pagan religions were usually erected on the top of a hill and in the shade of a poplar grove.<\/p>\nQuince (Cydonia oblonga)<\/em><\/p>\nTree native to western Asia, having white flowers and applelike fruit that is edible when cooked. Some believe that the “apples” of the OT were quinces, Cydonia oblonga.<\/em> The quince tree is quite common in the Holy Land, though chiefly as a cultivated tree. It may occur wild in the northern parts of Syria. It is native to northern Persia and Asia Minor. The fruit is yellowish and highly fragrant, and it is the fragrance that caused it to be held in high regard by the ancients.<\/p>\nReed (Juncus, Scirpus, Typha angustata, Arundo donax)<\/em><\/p>\nNumerous species of the rush and bulrush grow in the Holy Land. There are at least 21 varieties of rushes. The common soft rush or bog rush (Juncus effusus)<\/em> is found in wet places, even in the Sinai and other deserts. The sea or hard rush (J. maritimus)<\/em> is found in damp places throughout the Holy Land and even in Sinai.<\/p>\nAt least 15 kinds of bulrushes (Scirpus)<\/em> are known in the Holy Land. The cluster-headed club rush (Scirpus holoschoenus)<\/em> is common in damp places throughout the Holy Land to the Sinai. The lake club rush or tall bulrush (S. lacustris)<\/em> is found in swamps and ditches throughout northern Africa to the Dead Sea. The sea club rush or salt marsh club rush (S. maritimus)<\/em> is found in ditches and swamps in many places of the Holy Land. Any of these species may be the one referred to in Job 8:11; Isaiah 9:14; 19:6, 15.<\/p>\nThe reference in Genesis 41:2 to the feeding of cattle in the meadow seems to be to the tall reed (Arundo donax),<\/em> which grows 18 feet (5.5 meters) or more in height. This plant is also known as the Persian reed and is common throughout the Holy Land, Syria, and the Sinai peninsula. It is a gigantic grass that may have a stem diameter of two or three inches (5.1 to 7.6 centimeters) at the base and is terminated by a plume of white flowers similar to those of the sugarcane or pampas grass. The plant was used for many purposes by the ancients: for walking sticks, fishing rods, measuring rods, and musical pipes. It is, therefore, quite possible that the “reed” of Matthew 27:48 and Mark 15:36 was a carpenter’s reed or measuring rod.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Papyrus.<\/p>\nRue (Ruta chalepensis, R. graveolens)<\/em><\/p>\nAromatic Eurasian plant with evergreen leaves that yield an acrid, volatile oil once used in medicine. There is little question as to the correctness of the translation of “rue” in Luke 11:42, but there is some doubt as to the exact species. Most writers think that it was the common rue (Rue graveolens),<\/em> a perennial shrubby plant with erect stems two to three feet (.6 to .9 meter) tall and deeply cut leaves. A very strong odor emanates from the foliage. This species is native to the Mediterranean region and grows wild in the Holy Land, especially on Mt Tabor.<\/p>\nRue was highly thought of by the ancients as a medicinal, supposed to prevent dizziness, dumbness, epilepsy, eye inflammations, insanity, and the “evil eye.” Rue was also used for seasoning dishes.<\/p>\nRush (Butomus umbellatus)<\/em><\/p>\nGeneric term for any of various grasslike marsh plants having pliant, hollow, or pithy stems. There is considerable uncertainty about the identification of the plant referred to in Genesis 41:2 translated in the kjv<\/span> as “meadow,” and in Job 8:11 as “flag.” Since it is mentioned along with the papyrus in the Job passage, it seems that it refers to a specific kind of plant rather than to an aggregate of plants in a meadow. From the description in Genesis as being a plant on which Pharaoh’s cattle might feed along the banks of the Nile and yet not the papyrus, it may refer to the flowering rush or water gladiola (Butomus umbellatus),<\/em> which flourishes both in Egypt and in the Holy Land, along with the papyrus.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Reed.<\/p>\nSaffron (Crocus sativus)<\/em><\/p>\nSaffron, referred to in Song of Songs 4:14, is the product of several species of Crocus,<\/em> especially of the blue-flowered saffron crocus (C. sativus),<\/em> which is native to Greece and Asia Minor. The commercial product consists of the stigma and upper portions of the style, the top parts of the flower ovary, which are collected shortly after the flower opens. It requires at least 4,000 stigmas to make an ounce of saffron. After being gathered, the stigmas are dried in the sun, pounded, and made into small cakes. Saffron is used principally as a yellow dye and also as a fruit coloring for curries and stews.<\/p>\nAnother, entirely different kind of dye-producing plant (Carthamus tinctorius)<\/em> called carthamine, bastard saffron, or safflower is a member of the thistle family. Its red florets yield a dye used extensively for coloring silk, in cooking, and for adulterating genuine saffron. It is an annual spiny plant three to four and a half feet (1.4 meters) tall, native to Syria and Egypt. In Egypt the grave clothes of mummies were dyed with this material, and it is quite possible that this plant may also have been the saffron of the Bible.<\/p>\nSage (Salvia judaica)<\/em><\/p>\nThe Judean sage grows to three feet (.9 meter) tall in the mountains and hills of Palestine. Its stems are four-angled, stiff, and rough. The plant grows from Syria south through Nazareth, Hebron, Tiberius, Samaria, and Judea.<\/p>\nThis plant is the origin of the design of the seven-branched lampstand of Exodus 37:17-18, which is known as the menorah, the traditional Jewish symbol. The inflorescence of the plant, when pressed flat, has almost exactly the same shape and form as the seven-branched candlestick, with its central spike and three pairs of side branches each bending upward and inward in a symmetrical fashion. On each branch of the plant’s inflorescence are whorls or buds that perhaps give the idea for the “knops” (kjv<\/span>) or “knobs” on the biblical golden candlesticks.<\/p>\nSpelt (Triticum aestivum)<\/em><\/p>\nHardy member of the wheat family. The rye of Exodus 9:32 and Isaiah 28:25, as well as the fitches of Ezekiel 4:9 (all kjv<\/span>) are thought to be spelt. It is a hard-grained species of wheat with loose ears and grains triangular in cross-section, and was the most common form of wheat in early times. It has a stouter stem than wheat and strong spikes of grain. Bread made of its flour is much inferior to that made from wheat, but spelt will thrive in almost any kind of soil and will yield a crop on land that is unfit for wheat. The ancients preferred it to barley for bread.<\/p>\nStorax Tree (Styrax officinalis)<\/em><\/p>\nVarious trees of this genus yielding an aromatic resin. Today it is thought that the stacte of Exodus 30:34 was derived from the storax tree. It is an irregularly stiff-branched shrub or small tree 9 to 20 feet (2.7 to 6.1 meters) tall. This tree is abundant on low hills and rocky places from Lebanon through the Holy Land. Its gum is obtained by making incisions in the stems and branches. It is highly perfumed and is still prized today as a perfume.<\/p>\nSycamore-fig (Ficus sycomorus)<\/em><\/p>\nTree of northeastern Africa and adjacent Asia, related to the fig. The word translated “sycamore” in 1 Kings 10:27; 1 Chronicles 27:28; 2 Chronicles 1:15; 9:27; Psalm 78:47; Isaiah 9:10; Amos 7:14; and Luke 19:4 undoubtedly refers to the well-known sycamore-fig, which is also known as the mulberry-fig or fig-mulberry. It should not be confused with the common sycamore of the North American continent, which is actually a plane tree. The sycamore-fig of the Bible is a strong-growing, robust, wide-spreading tree growing 30 to 40 feet (9.1 to 12.2 meters) tall and sometimes attaining a trunk circumference of 20 feet (6.1 meters) or more with a crown 120 feet (36.6 meters) in diameter. It is a tree that is easily climbed and is frequently planted along roadsides, which accounts for the reference in Luke 19:4. It produces an abundant amount of fruit in clusters on all parts of the tree, on both young and old branches and even on the trunk itself. It is very similar to the common fig, only smaller and much inferior in quality. In David’s day it was so valuable that he appointed a special overseer for the sycamore trees (1 Chr 27:28). It is thought that Amos was not a gatherer of sycamore fruit but rather a dresser of sycamore trees.<\/p>\nTamarisk (Tamarix)<\/em><\/p>\nThe references in Genesis 21:33 and 1 Samuel 22:6 and 31:13 seem to be to the tamarisk. These trees or shrubs are small and fast-growing with a durable wood. They are abundant in deserts, dunes, and salt marshes. Tamarix aphylla<\/em> is leafless and has small white flowers. These trees or shrubs often provide a soothing touch of green foliage and a promise of cooling shade to the traveler. Tamarisks are able to survive because they either have small, scalelike leaves, which lose little moisture by transpiration, or no leaves at all. The larger of the tamarisks are valued for their wood in a region where wood is scarce. The wood was used for building and also as a source of an excellent type of charcoal.<\/p>\nTerebinth (Pistacia terebinthus)<\/em><\/p>\nSee<\/em> Pistachio (above).<\/p>\nThistle, Thorn (Lycium europaeum, Solanum incanum, Centaurea, Silybum marianum, Ruscus aculeatus, Agrostemma githago, Paliurus spina-christi, Zizyphus spina-christi)<\/em><\/p>\nThere are 22 different Hebrew and Greek words used in Scripture to refer to spiny or prickly shrubs or weeds, and these are translated as “bramble,” “brier,” “cockle,” “thorn,” and “thistle.” At present, there are about 125 species of thorns and thistles that grow in the Holy Land.<\/p>\nThe bramble in the allegory of Judges 9:14-15 is believed to refer to the European boxthorn or desert-thorn, Lycium europaeum.<\/em><\/p>\nThe general consensus is that the “briers” of Isaiah 10:17, 55:13, Micah 7:4, and Hebrews 6:8 are the Palestine nightshade (Solanum incanum),<\/em> or “Jericho potato.”<\/p>\nThe thistles of Genesis 3:17-18, 2 Kings 14:9, 2 Chronicles 25:18, Hosea 10:8, and Matthew 7:16, as well as the thorns of Matthew 13:7 and Hebrews 6:8, are thought to be one of the species of the thistle, Centaurea.<\/em> Among the more common thistles in the Holy Land are the true star-thistle (Centaurea calcitrapa),<\/em> the dwarf centaury (C. verutum),<\/em> the Iberian centaury (C. iberica),<\/em> and the lady’s thistle (Silybum marianum).<\/em> Some thistles attain a height of five to six feet (.9 to 1.8 meters). Thistles are characteristic of an area that is uncultivated and neglected. Many have beautiful flowers, but all are covered with sharp spines.<\/p>\nThe references in Ezekiel 2:6 to “briers” and Ezekiel 28:24 to a “pricking brier” may be to the prickly butchers-broom or knee-holly, Ruscus aculeatus.<\/em> The plant is common in rocky woods in the northern regions of the Holy Land, especially around Mt Tabor and Mt Carmel.<\/p>\nThe cockle of Job 31:40 (nlt<\/span> “weeds”) perhaps refers to the corn cockle, Agrostemma githago.<\/em> This plant is common in grainfields throughout the Holy Land. It is a strong-growing and troublesome weed in grainfields, growing from one to three feet (.3 to .9 meter) tall.<\/p>\nMany commentators think that the “thorns” out of which the crown of thorns (Mt 27:29; Jn 19:2) was made were from the Christ-thorn (Paliurus spina-christi).<\/em> This belief has led to its specific name; the Christ-thorn is a spiny plant that ordinarily grows as a straggling shrub three to nine feet (.9 to 2.7 meters) tall. The flexible branches are armed at the base of each leaf with a pair of unequal, stiff, sharp spines. The unusual pliable texture of the young branches renders it particularly easy to plait into a crownlike wreath.<\/p>\nThe thorns of Judges 8:7, Isaiah 7:19, 9:18, 55:13, and Matthew 7:16 may refer to the Syrian Christ-thorn (Zizyphus spina-christi),<\/em> a shrub or small tree 9 to 15 feet (2.7 to 4.6 meters) tall, sometimes growing into a 40-foot (12.2-meter) tree with smooth white branches bearing a pair of stout, unequal, recurved spines at the back of each leaf.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Bramble; Buckthorn (above).<\/p>\nTulip (Tulipa montana, T. sharonensis)<\/em><\/p>\nAny of several bulbous plants of this family native to Asia. The rose of Sharon in Song of Songs 2:1 may be the mountain tulip, Tulipa montana,<\/em> or the closely related Sharon tulip, T. sharonensis.<\/em> The former is an attractive plant that grows from a bulb and has leaves that are often wavy-margined. The species is common in the mountainous regions of Syria, Lebanon, and the Anti-Lebanon. It is primarily a mountainous species. The Sharon tulip (T. sharonensis)<\/em> is found in sandy places on the Sharon coastal plains.<\/p>\nTumbleweed (Gundelia tournefortii, Anastatica hierochuntica)<\/em><\/p>\nThe references in Psalm 83:13 to “whirling dust” and in Isaiah 17:13 to “wheel” or “rolling thing” (niv<\/span> “tumbleweed”) seem to be to the Palestinian tumbleweed (Gundelia tournefortii),<\/em> a member of the thistle family. It is a prickly herb with milky juice. It rolls over the land and gathers in tremendous heaps in hollows.<\/p>\nVegetable<\/p>\nScriptural references to vegetables are probably, in most cases, to the dried leguminous seeds of beans and lentils.<\/p>\nVine (Vitis vinifera)<\/em><\/p>\nAny plant with a flexible stem that climbs, twines, or creeps along a surface or support. The common grapevine (Vitis vinifera)<\/em> is mentioned throughout the Bible. The fruitful vine (Ez 17:5-10) and the vine brought out of Egypt (Ps 80:8) were symbolic of the Jewish people. Jesus compares himself to the true vine, of which his disciples were the branches (Jn 15:1-6).<\/p>\nThe grapevine of the Old World sometimes assumes the characteristics of a tree, with stems up to a foot and a half (45.7 centimeters) in diameter, the branches then being trained on a trellis and bearing bunches of grapes 10 to 12 pounds (4.5 to 5.4 kilograms) in weight, with the individual grapes the size of small plums. Bunches have been produced weighing as much as 26 pounds (11.8 kilograms). The vines of the Holy Land were always renowned both for the luxuriance of their growth and for the immense clusters of grapes they produced. Thus it does not seem improbable that the spies sent to the Promised Land should have employed a pole to transport some of the clusters home (Nm 13:23-24).<\/p>\nThe wild grape (Vitis orientalis)<\/em> is referred to in Isaiah 5:2-4, Jeremiah 2:21, and Ezekiel 15:2-6. It is known as the native wild fox grape and has small, black, acidic berries about the size of currants with little juice.<\/p>\nWalnut (Juglans regia)<\/em><\/p>\nAny of several trees of this genus having round, sticky fruit enclosing an edible nut. The reference in Song of Songs 6:11 to “nuts” is thought to refer to the Persian or common walnut, Juglans regia.<\/em> The tree is believed to have been indigenous to northern Persia, but it is actually found wild in many parts of northern India, eastward as far as China, and westward through Persia. At the time of Solomon, it was widely cultivated for its fruit throughout the East. Perhaps Solomon’s garden of nuts was a part of his extensive gardens at Etham, six miles (9.7 kilometers) from Jerusalem.<\/p>\nWater Lily (Nymphaea)<\/em><\/p>\nAny of numerous aquatic plants of this genus with floating leaves and showy flowers. The carved lily ornamentation of 1 Kings 7:19-26 and 2 Chronicles 4:5 was probably patterned after the flowers of the water lily. Few flowers can equal the Egyptian lotus or water lily (Nymphaea lotus)<\/em> in beauty. It looks very much like a large white rose and at one time floated in profusion on the waters of the Nile.<\/p>\nThe common European white water lily (N. alba)<\/em> was also familiar to the children of Israel. It grows not only in Europe but also in the Holy Land and North Africa. It is, however, not as common in Egypt as is the white lotus.<\/p>\nAnother water lily with which the Israelites were probably familiar is the blue lotus, N. caerulea.<\/em> Its leaves are 12 to 16 inches (30.5 to 40.6 centimeters) across and it has light-blue flowers that are three to six inches (7.6 to 15.2 centimeters) in diameter.<\/p>\nWheat (Triticum aestivum, T. compositum)<\/em><\/p>\nVarious cereal grasses of this family widely cultivated for its edible grain. Five kinds of wheat are native to—and still wild in—the Holy Land, and at least eight others are cultivated there today; probably most, if not all, were known in Bible times. The wild varieties were probably more abundant then than they are today. Among these are the einkorn (T. monococcum),<\/em> the thaoudar (T. thaoudar),<\/em> and the wild emmer (T. dicoccoides).<\/em> The composite wheat (T. compositum),<\/em> with its branched spikes, often bearing as many as seven heads per stalk, is definitely referred to in Genesis 41:5-57. It is depicted on numerous Egyptian monuments and on inscriptions and is still commonly seen in the Nile Delta, where it is known as “mummy wheat.” It is also cultivated in the Holy Land.<\/p>\nThe most frequently mentioned wheat of the Bible is undoubtedly the commonly cultivated summer and winter wheat, Triticum aestivum.<\/em> It is an abundant annual grass cultivated in Egypt and other Eastern lands since earliest times. The exact place of its origin is unknown. Grains of wheat have been found in the most ancient Egyptian tombs and in the remains of prehistoric lake dwellings in Switzerland. It was certainly the chief grain of Mesopotamia in Jacob’s time (Gn 30:14).<\/p>\nCorn in biblical days often included a mixture of peas, beans, lentils, cummin, barley, millet, and spelt, but wheat was always its main constituent. Egypt was a great grain-producing country, and Abram (Gn 12:10) and Joseph’s brothers (ch 42) naturally turned to Egypt for wheat when famine visited Canaan.<\/p>\nThe mills, millstones, granaries, and threshing floors mentioned in the Bible all refer to equipment employed in processing grain to produce flour. The fine flour of which the showbread loaves were made (Lv 24:5) was unquestionably wheat flour. Wheat intended for home consumption was often stored in the central part of the house; this explains the story told in 2 Samuel 4:6. It was also sometimes stored in dry wells (2 Sm 17:19).<\/p>\nWormwood (Artemisia judaica, A. herba-alba)<\/em><\/p>\nWormwood is a general name given to a group of woody plants with a strong aromatic odor. Wormwood plants have a strong, bitter taste, and their young shoots and branch tips furnish the “wormwood” of commerce. Its bitter taste accounts for its being spoken of with gall—as being symbolic of bitter calamity and sorrow (Prv 5:4; Jer 9:15; 23:15; Lam 3:15, 19). Artemisia herba-alba<\/em> is the common species of wormwood in the Holy Land today. It is strongly aromatic, smelling like camphor, and bitter. A. judaica<\/em> occurs only in the Sinai.<\/p>\nAbsinthe is made from species of this group. It first leads to greater activity and pleasant sensations and fills the mind with grandiose ideas (Lam 3:15). The habitual use of it, however, brings on a stupor and gradual diminution of intellectual faculties, ending in delirium and even death. Perhaps the hemlock of Amos 6:12 was wormwood.<\/p>","summary_ro":"PLANTS Identifying biblical plants has always been a difficult task, partly because people continue to identify the biblical elm, sycamore, lily, rose, and vine with modern plants, and also because they assume that all the plants now growing in the Holy Land were there in ancient biblical days, or that the plants referred to in the Bible are still to be found there today. Unfortunately, many plants now quite common in the Holy Land were not there in biblical days. Many plants that once grew i...","summary_en":"PLANTS Identifying biblical plants has always been a difficult task, partly because people continue to identify the biblical elm, sycamore, lily, rose, and vine with modern plants, and also because they assume that all the plants now growing in the Holy Land were there in ancient biblical days, or that the plants referred to in the Bible are still to be found there today. Unfortunately, many plants now quite common in the Holy Land were not there in biblical days. Many plants that once grew i...","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":36351,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Precious Stones","title_en":"Precious Stones","content_ro":"<h3>STONES, Precious<\/h3>\nA lengthy list of the precious stones used in OT times occurs in Exodus 28:17-20 and 39:10-13, where four rows of three stones, each engraved with the name of one of the 12 tribes of Israel, were set in the high priest’s breastplate. Other lists occur in Ezekiel 28:13 and Revelation 21:19-21. It is difficult to properly identify all of these stones, since an accurate translation is not always possible. Some of the differences of translation are indicated in the following list, as translated in the rsv<\/span>:<\/p>\n 1. Agate, an oxide of silicon, a type of translucent quartz with layers of different colors (Ex 28:19; 39:12; Is 54:12; Rv 21:19).<\/p>\n<li> 2. Alabaster, a finely granular banded variety of calcium carbonate (gypsum), often white and translucent and widely used in Bible times for ornamental vases, bowls, kohl pots, statues, perfume jars, and so on (Sg 5:15; Mt 26:7; Mk 14:3; Lk 7:37).<\/li>\n<li> 3. Amethyst, an oxide of silicon, a purple or violet variety of transparent crystalline quartz (Ex 28:19; 39:12; Rv 21:20).<\/li>\n<li> 4. Beryl, a silicate of aluminum (Ex 28:20; 39:13; Sg 5:14; Dn 10:6). It is usually green in color (Rv 21:20) but can be blue, white, or golden and may be either opaque or transparent—the latter variety including the gems emerald and aquamarine.<\/li>\n<li> 5. Carbuncle. See Emerald below.<\/li>\n 6. Carnelian, a silicon oxide reddish in color. In translations it is sometimes equated with sardius (Ex 28:17; 39:10; Ez 28:13), a type of deep brown or red quartz (Rv 4:3; 21:20).<\/p>\n<li> 7. Chalcedony. See Agate above.<\/li>\n<li> 8. Chrysolite, an aluminum fluosilicate, yellowish in color (Rv 21:20), probably equivalent to topaz (Ex 28:17) or beryl (Ez 1:16; 10:9; 28:13).<\/li>\n<li> 9. Chrysoprase, a nickel-stained apple-green chalcedony widely used in jewelry (Rv 21:20).<\/li>\n<li>10. Coral, the hard calcareous skeleton of a variety of marine animals occurring in various colors—red, white, and black. It is not strictly a stone (Jb 28:18; Ez 27:16).<\/li>\n<li>11. Crystal, a clear, translucent crystalline quartz (Jb 28:18). In Revelation 4:6, 21:11, and 22:1 the Greek word krystallon<\/span> may be rock crystal or even ice.<\/li>\n<li>12. Diamond, a stone of uncertain identification (Ex 28:18; 39:11; Ez 28:13). It may not be the equivalent of the modern diamond. In Jeremiah 17:1, adamant was probably a form of corundum, a very hard substance.<\/li>\n13. Emerald, probably a green stone like the modern emerald (Ex 28:18; 39:11; Ez 27:16; 28:13). The Septuagint suggests a purple stone like a garnet. In the NT smaragdinos<\/span> in Revelation 4:3 and smaragdos<\/span> in Revelation 21:19 suggest an emerald.<\/p>\n<li>14. Jacinth, perhaps a reddish-orange zircon or a blue stone such as turquoise, amethyst, or sapphire (Ex 28:19; 39:12). In Revelation 21:20 huakinthos<\/span> is a blue stone. The exact identification is uncertain.<\/li>\n<li>15. Jasper, a compact, opaque, often highly colored crystalline quartz substance (Ex 28:20; 39:13). In the NT the Greek term iaspis<\/span> (Rv 4:3; 21:11, 18-19) is a green quartz.<\/li>\n<li>16. Lapis lazuli, a deep blue stone; a compound of sodium, aluminum, calcium, sulphur, and silver containing a mixture of several minerals. It generally has golden flecks of iron pyrites and was widely used for ornamental purposes in the ancient world. It is akin to sapphire.<\/li>\n<li>17. Marble, a limestone crystallized by metamorphism, taking a high polish, durable and suitable for building purposes (1 Chr 29:2; Est 1:6; Rv 18:12).<\/li>\n<li>18. Onyx, a quartz consisting of straight layers or bands which differ in color (Gn 2:12; Ex 25:7; 28:9, 20; 39:6, 13; 1 Chr 29:2; Jb 28:16; Ez 28:13). See Sardonyx below.<\/li>\n<li>19. Pearl, a hard smooth substance, white or variously colored, which grows in the shell of various bivalve mollusks. In the NT “pearls” are known as ornaments for women (1 Tm 2:9; Rv 17:4) or as items for trade (Rv 18:12, 16). The kingdom of heaven is likened to a fine pearl, which people seek at great cost (Mt 13:45-46).<\/li>\n<li>20. Ruby, an uncertain translation of the Hebrew word peninim<\/span> in six places (Jb 28:18; Prv 3:15; 8:11; 20:15; 31:10; Lam 4:7). This deep red or carmine stone was probably known in the ancient world, but there are difficulties in the translation of terms that may refer to it.<\/li>\n<li>21. Sapphire, a deep blue stone (Ex 24:10; 28:18; 39:11; Jb 28:6, 16; Sg 5:14; Is 54:11; Lam 4:7; Ez 1:26; 10:1; 28:13), which may have referred at times to lapis lazuli as in Job 28:6 and Revelation 21:19.<\/li>\n<li>22. Sardius, a red or deep brown form of quartz (Ex 28:17; 39:10; Ez 28:13 kjv<\/span>). It is referred to also in Revelation 4:3 (kjv<\/span> “sardine stone”), though in modern versions it is often rendered as “carnelian.” See Carnelian above.<\/li>\n23. Sardonyx, a form of agate with layers of brown and white (Rv 21:20, kjv<\/span>, nasb<\/span>; “onyx” in nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<li>24. Topaz, a yellow stone, a fluosilicate of aluminum occurring in crystalline form (Ex 28:17; 39:10; Jb 28:19; Ez 28:13; Rv 21:20).<\/li>\n<p\/>\nSee also<\/em> Minerals and Metals.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>STONES, Precious<\/h3>\nA lengthy list of the precious stones used in OT times occurs in Exodus 28:17-20 and 39:10-13, where four rows of three stones, each engraved with the name of one of the 12 tribes of Israel, were set in the high priest’s breastplate. Other lists occur in Ezekiel 28:13 and Revelation 21:19-21. It is difficult to properly identify all of these stones, since an accurate translation is not always possible. Some of the differences of translation are indicated in the following list, as translated in the rsv<\/span>:<\/p>\n 1. Agate, an oxide of silicon, a type of translucent quartz with layers of different colors (Ex 28:19; 39:12; Is 54:12; Rv 21:19).<\/p>\n<li> 2. Alabaster, a finely granular banded variety of calcium carbonate (gypsum), often white and translucent and widely used in Bible times for ornamental vases, bowls, kohl pots, statues, perfume jars, and so on (Sg 5:15; Mt 26:7; Mk 14:3; Lk 7:37).<\/li>\n<li> 3. Amethyst, an oxide of silicon, a purple or violet variety of transparent crystalline quartz (Ex 28:19; 39:12; Rv 21:20).<\/li>\n<li> 4. Beryl, a silicate of aluminum (Ex 28:20; 39:13; Sg 5:14; Dn 10:6). It is usually green in color (Rv 21:20) but can be blue, white, or golden and may be either opaque or transparent—the latter variety including the gems emerald and aquamarine.<\/li>\n<li> 5. Carbuncle. See Emerald below.<\/li>\n 6. Carnelian, a silicon oxide reddish in color. In translations it is sometimes equated with sardius (Ex 28:17; 39:10; Ez 28:13), a type of deep brown or red quartz (Rv 4:3; 21:20).<\/p>\n<li> 7. Chalcedony. See Agate above.<\/li>\n<li> 8. Chrysolite, an aluminum fluosilicate, yellowish in color (Rv 21:20), probably equivalent to topaz (Ex 28:17) or beryl (Ez 1:16; 10:9; 28:13).<\/li>\n<li> 9. Chrysoprase, a nickel-stained apple-green chalcedony widely used in jewelry (Rv 21:20).<\/li>\n<li>10. Coral, the hard calcareous skeleton of a variety of marine animals occurring in various colors—red, white, and black. It is not strictly a stone (Jb 28:18; Ez 27:16).<\/li>\n<li>11. Crystal, a clear, translucent crystalline quartz (Jb 28:18). In Revelation 4:6, 21:11, and 22:1 the Greek word krystallon<\/span> may be rock crystal or even ice.<\/li>\n<li>12. Diamond, a stone of uncertain identification (Ex 28:18; 39:11; Ez 28:13). It may not be the equivalent of the modern diamond. In Jeremiah 17:1, adamant was probably a form of corundum, a very hard substance.<\/li>\n13. Emerald, probably a green stone like the modern emerald (Ex 28:18; 39:11; Ez 27:16; 28:13). The Septuagint suggests a purple stone like a garnet. In the NT smaragdinos<\/span> in Revelation 4:3 and smaragdos<\/span> in Revelation 21:19 suggest an emerald.<\/p>\n<li>14. Jacinth, perhaps a reddish-orange zircon or a blue stone such as turquoise, amethyst, or sapphire (Ex 28:19; 39:12). In Revelation 21:20 huakinthos<\/span> is a blue stone. The exact identification is uncertain.<\/li>\n<li>15. Jasper, a compact, opaque, often highly colored crystalline quartz substance (Ex 28:20; 39:13). In the NT the Greek term iaspis<\/span> (Rv 4:3; 21:11, 18-19) is a green quartz.<\/li>\n<li>16. Lapis lazuli, a deep blue stone; a compound of sodium, aluminum, calcium, sulphur, and silver containing a mixture of several minerals. It generally has golden flecks of iron pyrites and was widely used for ornamental purposes in the ancient world. It is akin to sapphire.<\/li>\n<li>17. Marble, a limestone crystallized by metamorphism, taking a high polish, durable and suitable for building purposes (1 Chr 29:2; Est 1:6; Rv 18:12).<\/li>\n<li>18. Onyx, a quartz consisting of straight layers or bands which differ in color (Gn 2:12; Ex 25:7; 28:9, 20; 39:6, 13; 1 Chr 29:2; Jb 28:16; Ez 28:13). See Sardonyx below.<\/li>\n<li>19. Pearl, a hard smooth substance, white or variously colored, which grows in the shell of various bivalve mollusks. In the NT “pearls” are known as ornaments for women (1 Tm 2:9; Rv 17:4) or as items for trade (Rv 18:12, 16). The kingdom of heaven is likened to a fine pearl, which people seek at great cost (Mt 13:45-46).<\/li>\n<li>20. Ruby, an uncertain translation of the Hebrew word peninim<\/span> in six places (Jb 28:18; Prv 3:15; 8:11; 20:15; 31:10; Lam 4:7). This deep red or carmine stone was probably known in the ancient world, but there are difficulties in the translation of terms that may refer to it.<\/li>\n<li>21. Sapphire, a deep blue stone (Ex 24:10; 28:18; 39:11; Jb 28:6, 16; Sg 5:14; Is 54:11; Lam 4:7; Ez 1:26; 10:1; 28:13), which may have referred at times to lapis lazuli as in Job 28:6 and Revelation 21:19.<\/li>\n<li>22. Sardius, a red or deep brown form of quartz (Ex 28:17; 39:10; Ez 28:13 kjv<\/span>). It is referred to also in Revelation 4:3 (kjv<\/span> “sardine stone”), though in modern versions it is often rendered as “carnelian.” See Carnelian above.<\/li>\n23. Sardonyx, a form of agate with layers of brown and white (Rv 21:20, kjv<\/span>, nasb<\/span>; “onyx” in nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<li>24. Topaz, a yellow stone, a fluosilicate of aluminum occurring in crystalline form (Ex 28:17; 39:10; Jb 28:19; Ez 28:13; Rv 21:20).<\/li>\n<p\/>\nSee also<\/em> Minerals and Metals.<\/p>","summary_ro":"STONES, Precious A lengthy list of the precious stones used in OT times occurs in Exodus 28:17-20 and 39:10-13, where four rows of three stones, each engraved with the name of one of the 12 tribes of Israel, were set in the high priest’s breastplate. Other lists occur in Ezekiel 28:13 and Revelation 21:19-21. It is difficult to properly identify all of these stones, since an accurate translation is not always possible. Some of the differences of translation are indicated in the following list...","summary_en":"STONES, Precious A lengthy list of the precious stones used in OT times occurs in Exodus 28:17-20 and 39:10-13, where four rows of three stones, each engraved with the name of one of the 12 tribes of Israel, were set in the high priest’s breastplate. Other lists occur in Ezekiel 28:13 and Revelation 21:19-21. It is difficult to properly identify all of these stones, since an accurate translation is not always possible. Some of the differences of translation are indicated in the following list...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":42849,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:12","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:12","content_ro":"2:12<\/strong> The magnificence and fertility of the garden are pictured as spreading to the surrounding regions through the rivers flowing out from it. The four rivers possibly imply that the garden’s bounty flowed out to the four corners of the earth. • Gold<\/em> and onyx<\/em> were later used for decorating the Tabernacle, the Temple (Exod 25:3-9; 1 Chr 29:2), and the priests’ clothing (Exod 28:9-14, 20). • Resin<\/em> was used in sacred incense (Exod 30:34).<\/p>","content_en":"2:12<\/strong> The magnificence and fertility of the garden are pictured as spreading to the surrounding regions through the rivers flowing out from it. The four rivers possibly imply that the garden’s bounty flowed out to the four corners of the earth. • Gold<\/em> and onyx<\/em> were later used for decorating the Tabernacle, the Temple (Exod 25:3-9; 1 Chr 29:2), and the priests’ clothing (Exod 28:9-14, 20). • Resin<\/em> was used in sacred incense (Exod 30:34).<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:12 The magnificence and fertility of the garden are pictured as spreading to the surrounding regions through the rivers flowing out from it. The four rivers possibly imply that the garden’s bounty flowed out to the four corners of the earth. • Gold and onyx were later used for decorating the Tabernacle, the Temple (Exod 25:3-9; 1 Chr 29:2), and the priests’ clothing (Exod 28:9-14, 20). • Resin was used in sacred incense (Exod 30:34).","summary_en":"2:12 The magnificence and fertility of the garden are pictured as spreading to the surrounding regions through the rivers flowing out from it. The four rivers possibly imply that the garden’s bounty flowed out to the four corners of the earth. • Gold and onyx were later used for decorating the Tabernacle, the Temple (Exod 25:3-9; 1 Chr 29:2), and the priests’ clothing (Exod 28:9-14, 20). • Resin was used in sacred incense (Exod 30:34).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":70475,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:12","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:12","content_ro":"2:12<\/strong> The magnificence and fertility of the garden are pictured as spreading to the surrounding regions through the rivers flowing out from it. The four rivers possibly imply that the garden’s bounty flowed out to the four corners of the earth. • Gold<\/em> and onyx<\/em> were later used for decorating the Tabernacle, the Temple (Exod 25:3-9; 1 Chr 29:2), and the priests’ clothing (Exod 28:9-14, 20). • Resin<\/em> was used in sacred incense (Exod 30:34).<\/p>","content_en":"2:12<\/strong> The magnificence and fertility of the garden are pictured as spreading to the surrounding regions through the rivers flowing out from it. The four rivers possibly imply that the garden’s bounty flowed out to the four corners of the earth. • Gold<\/em> and onyx<\/em> were later used for decorating the Tabernacle, the Temple (Exod 25:3-9; 1 Chr 29:2), and the priests’ clothing (Exod 28:9-14, 20). • Resin<\/em> was used in sacred incense (Exod 30:34).<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:12 The magnificence and fertility of the garden are pictured as spreading to the surrounding regions through the rivers flowing out from it. The four rivers possibly imply that the garden’s bounty flowed out to the four corners of the earth. • Gold and onyx were later used for decorating the Tabernacle, the Temple (Exod 25:3-9; 1 Chr 29:2), and the priests’ clothing (Exod 28:9-14, 20). • Resin was used in sacred incense (Exod 30:34).","summary_en":"2:12 The magnificence and fertility of the garden are pictured as spreading to the surrounding regions through the rivers flowing out from it. The four rivers possibly imply that the garden’s bounty flowed out to the four corners of the earth. • Gold and onyx were later used for decorating the Tabernacle, the Temple (Exod 25:3-9; 1 Chr 29:2), and the priests’ clothing (Exod 28:9-14, 20). • Resin was used in sacred incense (Exod 30:34).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":98101,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:12","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:12","content_ro":"2:12<\/strong> The magnificence and fertility of the garden are pictured as spreading to the surrounding regions through the rivers flowing out from it. The four rivers possibly imply that the garden’s bounty flowed out to the four corners of the earth. • Gold<\/em> and onyx<\/em> were later used for decorating the Tabernacle, the Temple (Exod 25:3-9; 1 Chr 29:2), and the priests’ clothing (Exod 28:9-14, 20). • Resin<\/em> was used in sacred incense (Exod 30:34).<\/p>","content_en":"2:12<\/strong> The magnificence and fertility of the garden are pictured as spreading to the surrounding regions through the rivers flowing out from it. The four rivers possibly imply that the garden’s bounty flowed out to the four corners of the earth. • Gold<\/em> and onyx<\/em> were later used for decorating the Tabernacle, the Temple (Exod 25:3-9; 1 Chr 29:2), and the priests’ clothing (Exod 28:9-14, 20). • Resin<\/em> was used in sacred incense (Exod 30:34).<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:12 The magnificence and fertility of the garden are pictured as spreading to the surrounding regions through the rivers flowing out from it. The four rivers possibly imply that the garden’s bounty flowed out to the four corners of the earth. • Gold and onyx were later used for decorating the Tabernacle, the Temple (Exod 25:3-9; 1 Chr 29:2), and the priests’ clothing (Exod 28:9-14, 20). • Resin was used in sacred incense (Exod 30:34).","summary_en":"2:12 The magnificence and fertility of the garden are pictured as spreading to the surrounding regions through the rivers flowing out from it. The four rivers possibly imply that the garden’s bounty flowed out to the four corners of the earth. • Gold and onyx were later used for decorating the Tabernacle, the Temple (Exod 25:3-9; 1 Chr 29:2), and the priests’ clothing (Exod 28:9-14, 20). • Resin was used in sacred incense (Exod 30:34).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":125727,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:12","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:12","content_ro":"2:12<\/strong> The magnificence and fertility of the garden are pictured as spreading to the surrounding regions through the rivers flowing out from it. The four rivers possibly imply that the garden’s bounty flowed out to the four corners of the earth. • Gold<\/em> and onyx<\/em> were later used for decorating the Tabernacle, the Temple (Exod 25:3-9; 1 Chr 29:2), and the priests’ clothing (Exod 28:9-14, 20). • Resin<\/em> was used in sacred incense (Exod 30:34).<\/p>","content_en":"2:12<\/strong> The magnificence and fertility of the garden are pictured as spreading to the surrounding regions through the rivers flowing out from it. The four rivers possibly imply that the garden’s bounty flowed out to the four corners of the earth. • Gold<\/em> and onyx<\/em> were later used for decorating the Tabernacle, the Temple (Exod 25:3-9; 1 Chr 29:2), and the priests’ clothing (Exod 28:9-14, 20). • Resin<\/em> was used in sacred incense (Exod 30:34).<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:12 The magnificence and fertility of the garden are pictured as spreading to the surrounding regions through the rivers flowing out from it. The four rivers possibly imply that the garden’s bounty flowed out to the four corners of the earth. • Gold and onyx were later used for decorating the Tabernacle, the Temple (Exod 25:3-9; 1 Chr 29:2), and the priests’ clothing (Exod 28:9-14, 20). • Resin was used in sacred incense (Exod 30:34).","summary_en":"2:12 The magnificence and fertility of the garden are pictured as spreading to the surrounding regions through the rivers flowing out from it. The four rivers possibly imply that the garden’s bounty flowed out to the four corners of the earth. • Gold and onyx were later used for decorating the Tabernacle, the Temple (Exod 25:3-9; 1 Chr 29:2), and the priests’ clothing (Exod 28:9-14, 20). • Resin was used in sacred incense (Exod 30:34).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"13":[{"id":8395,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Cush (Place)","title_en":"Cush (Place)","content_ro":"<h3>CUSH (Place<\/span>)<\/h3>\nEgyptian, Akkadian, and Hebrew term broadly referring to the countries of the Upper Nile south of Egypt. In a narrower sense Cush consisted of the territory between the second and fourth cataracts of the Nile, roughly the present northern Sudan (equivalent to ancient Nubia). The OT generally uses the term in that sense. The Greeks called it Ethiopia, which eventually gave its name to modern Ethiopia (farther to the south and east).<\/p>\nThe meaning of “Cush” in the book of Genesis, however, is problematic. In the Garden of Eden narrative (Gn 2:13), Cush seems to be located in Mesopotamia, the region of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers (v 14). Perhaps the term there should be equated with Kassite (Cossaean), the usual designation of the Babylonian rulers who held sway in Mesopotamia for about half a millennium down to the 12th century BC<\/span>. The Cush of Genesis 10:6-8, then, could be divided into two locales: Nubia (vv 6-7) and Mesopotamia (vv 9-12). Alternatively, the Cush of Genesis 2:13 and 10:8 could be Kish, the Mesopotamian city that was traditionally the seat of the first Sumerian dynasty after the Flood.<\/p>\nLess uncertainty exists over use of the term “Cushite.” With one possible exception (Nm 12:1), Cushite always refers to people from Nubia, the African Cush.<\/p>\nThe first messenger whom Joab, King David’s commander in chief, sent to announce Absalom’s defeat to David was a Cushite (2 Sm 18:21-32). That messenger’s foreign origin is reflected in the fact that he was unaware of a shortcut as well as in his insensitivity to the feelings of David when he gave him the message. The kjv<\/span> transliterates the Hebrew word as a proper name (Cushi), but that rendering is unlikely. Most English versions translate the other occurrences of Cush and Cushite as Ethiopia and Ethiopians.<\/p>\nMoses had a wife who was known as a Cushite (Nm 12:1). In that context it is possible to understand Cushite in several ways: as a person from Nubia—which would make her a second wife, different from Zipporah; as a person from Cushan—making her possibly a Midianite, perhaps identical with Zipporah; or as a reference to her darker skin and foreign origin—possibly but not necessarily a reference to Zipporah.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Cushan; Cushi #1; Ethiopia.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>CUSH (Place<\/span>)<\/h3>\nEgyptian, Akkadian, and Hebrew term broadly referring to the countries of the Upper Nile south of Egypt. In a narrower sense Cush consisted of the territory between the second and fourth cataracts of the Nile, roughly the present northern Sudan (equivalent to ancient Nubia). The OT generally uses the term in that sense. The Greeks called it Ethiopia, which eventually gave its name to modern Ethiopia (farther to the south and east).<\/p>\nThe meaning of “Cush” in the book of Genesis, however, is problematic. In the Garden of Eden narrative (Gn 2:13), Cush seems to be located in Mesopotamia, the region of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers (v 14). Perhaps the term there should be equated with Kassite (Cossaean), the usual designation of the Babylonian rulers who held sway in Mesopotamia for about half a millennium down to the 12th century BC<\/span>. The Cush of Genesis 10:6-8, then, could be divided into two locales: Nubia (vv 6-7) and Mesopotamia (vv 9-12). Alternatively, the Cush of Genesis 2:13 and 10:8 could be Kish, the Mesopotamian city that was traditionally the seat of the first Sumerian dynasty after the Flood.<\/p>\nLess uncertainty exists over use of the term “Cushite.” With one possible exception (Nm 12:1), Cushite always refers to people from Nubia, the African Cush.<\/p>\nThe first messenger whom Joab, King David’s commander in chief, sent to announce Absalom’s defeat to David was a Cushite (2 Sm 18:21-32). That messenger’s foreign origin is reflected in the fact that he was unaware of a shortcut as well as in his insensitivity to the feelings of David when he gave him the message. The kjv<\/span> transliterates the Hebrew word as a proper name (Cushi), but that rendering is unlikely. Most English versions translate the other occurrences of Cush and Cushite as Ethiopia and Ethiopians.<\/p>\nMoses had a wife who was known as a Cushite (Nm 12:1). In that context it is possible to understand Cushite in several ways: as a person from Nubia—which would make her a second wife, different from Zipporah; as a person from Cushan—making her possibly a Midianite, perhaps identical with Zipporah; or as a reference to her darker skin and foreign origin—possibly but not necessarily a reference to Zipporah.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Cushan; Cushi #1; Ethiopia.<\/p>","summary_ro":"CUSH (Place) Egyptian, Akkadian, and Hebrew term broadly referring to the countries of the Upper Nile south of Egypt. In a narrower sense Cush consisted of the territory between the second and fourth cataracts of the Nile, roughly the present northern Sudan (equivalent to ancient Nubia). The OT generally uses the term in that sense. The Greeks called it Ethiopia, which eventually gave its name to modern Ethiopia (farther to the south and east). The meaning of “Cush” in the book of Genesis, ho...","summary_en":"CUSH (Place) Egyptian, Akkadian, and Hebrew term broadly referring to the countries of the Upper Nile south of Egypt. In a narrower sense Cush consisted of the territory between the second and fourth cataracts of the Nile, roughly the present northern Sudan (equivalent to ancient Nubia). The OT generally uses the term in that sense. The Greeks called it Ethiopia, which eventually gave its name to modern Ethiopia (farther to the south and east). The meaning of “Cush” in the book of Genesis, ho...","source":"Articles\/C.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":42850,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:13","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:13","content_ro":"2:13<\/strong> Gihon:<\/em> Though unknown, proposals have included the Nile (as in the Greek version of Jer 2:18; Josephus, Antiquities<\/em> 1.1.3), the Jordan, or, according to Jewish tradition, a river that formerly ran through the Kidron Valley (1 Kgs 1:33; 2 Chr 33:14). • Although Cush<\/em> is the name of ancient Ethiopia, Mesopotamian regions associated with Babylon seem to be the immediate setting (see 10:8); Cush is possibly the land of the Kassites, a dynasty ruling in Babylonia.<\/p>","content_en":"2:13<\/strong> Gihon:<\/em> Though unknown, proposals have included the Nile (as in the Greek version of Jer 2:18; Josephus, Antiquities<\/em> 1.1.3), the Jordan, or, according to Jewish tradition, a river that formerly ran through the Kidron Valley (1 Kgs 1:33; 2 Chr 33:14). • Although Cush<\/em> is the name of ancient Ethiopia, Mesopotamian regions associated with Babylon seem to be the immediate setting (see 10:8); Cush is possibly the land of the Kassites, a dynasty ruling in Babylonia.<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:13 Gihon: Though unknown, proposals have included the Nile (as in the Greek version of Jer 2:18; Josephus, Antiquities 1.1.3), the Jordan, or, according to Jewish tradition, a river that formerly ran through the Kidron Valley (1 Kgs 1:33; 2 Chr 33:14). • Although Cush is the name of ancient Ethiopia, Mesopotamian regions associated with Babylon seem to be the immediate setting (see 10:8); Cush is possibly the land of the Kassites, a dynasty ruling in Babylonia.","summary_en":"2:13 Gihon: Though unknown, proposals have included the Nile (as in the Greek version of Jer 2:18; Josephus, Antiquities 1.1.3), the Jordan, or, according to Jewish tradition, a river that formerly ran through the Kidron Valley (1 Kgs 1:33; 2 Chr 33:14). • Although Cush is the name of ancient Ethiopia, Mesopotamian regions associated with Babylon seem to be the immediate setting (see 10:8); Cush is possibly the land of the Kassites, a dynasty ruling in Babylonia.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":70476,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:13","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:13","content_ro":"2:13<\/strong> Gihon:<\/em> Though unknown, proposals have included the Nile (as in the Greek version of Jer 2:18; Josephus, Antiquities<\/em> 1.1.3), the Jordan, or, according to Jewish tradition, a river that formerly ran through the Kidron Valley (1 Kgs 1:33; 2 Chr 33:14). • Although Cush<\/em> is the name of ancient Ethiopia, Mesopotamian regions associated with Babylon seem to be the immediate setting (see 10:8); Cush is possibly the land of the Kassites, a dynasty ruling in Babylonia.<\/p>","content_en":"2:13<\/strong> Gihon:<\/em> Though unknown, proposals have included the Nile (as in the Greek version of Jer 2:18; Josephus, Antiquities<\/em> 1.1.3), the Jordan, or, according to Jewish tradition, a river that formerly ran through the Kidron Valley (1 Kgs 1:33; 2 Chr 33:14). • Although Cush<\/em> is the name of ancient Ethiopia, Mesopotamian regions associated with Babylon seem to be the immediate setting (see 10:8); Cush is possibly the land of the Kassites, a dynasty ruling in Babylonia.<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:13 Gihon: Though unknown, proposals have included the Nile (as in the Greek version of Jer 2:18; Josephus, Antiquities 1.1.3), the Jordan, or, according to Jewish tradition, a river that formerly ran through the Kidron Valley (1 Kgs 1:33; 2 Chr 33:14). • Although Cush is the name of ancient Ethiopia, Mesopotamian regions associated with Babylon seem to be the immediate setting (see 10:8); Cush is possibly the land of the Kassites, a dynasty ruling in Babylonia.","summary_en":"2:13 Gihon: Though unknown, proposals have included the Nile (as in the Greek version of Jer 2:18; Josephus, Antiquities 1.1.3), the Jordan, or, according to Jewish tradition, a river that formerly ran through the Kidron Valley (1 Kgs 1:33; 2 Chr 33:14). • Although Cush is the name of ancient Ethiopia, Mesopotamian regions associated with Babylon seem to be the immediate setting (see 10:8); Cush is possibly the land of the Kassites, a dynasty ruling in Babylonia.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":98102,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:13","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:13","content_ro":"2:13<\/strong> Gihon:<\/em> Though unknown, proposals have included the Nile (as in the Greek version of Jer 2:18; Josephus, Antiquities<\/em> 1.1.3), the Jordan, or, according to Jewish tradition, a river that formerly ran through the Kidron Valley (1 Kgs 1:33; 2 Chr 33:14). • Although Cush<\/em> is the name of ancient Ethiopia, Mesopotamian regions associated with Babylon seem to be the immediate setting (see 10:8); Cush is possibly the land of the Kassites, a dynasty ruling in Babylonia.<\/p>","content_en":"2:13<\/strong> Gihon:<\/em> Though unknown, proposals have included the Nile (as in the Greek version of Jer 2:18; Josephus, Antiquities<\/em> 1.1.3), the Jordan, or, according to Jewish tradition, a river that formerly ran through the Kidron Valley (1 Kgs 1:33; 2 Chr 33:14). • Although Cush<\/em> is the name of ancient Ethiopia, Mesopotamian regions associated with Babylon seem to be the immediate setting (see 10:8); Cush is possibly the land of the Kassites, a dynasty ruling in Babylonia.<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:13 Gihon: Though unknown, proposals have included the Nile (as in the Greek version of Jer 2:18; Josephus, Antiquities 1.1.3), the Jordan, or, according to Jewish tradition, a river that formerly ran through the Kidron Valley (1 Kgs 1:33; 2 Chr 33:14). • Although Cush is the name of ancient Ethiopia, Mesopotamian regions associated with Babylon seem to be the immediate setting (see 10:8); Cush is possibly the land of the Kassites, a dynasty ruling in Babylonia.","summary_en":"2:13 Gihon: Though unknown, proposals have included the Nile (as in the Greek version of Jer 2:18; Josephus, Antiquities 1.1.3), the Jordan, or, according to Jewish tradition, a river that formerly ran through the Kidron Valley (1 Kgs 1:33; 2 Chr 33:14). • Although Cush is the name of ancient Ethiopia, Mesopotamian regions associated with Babylon seem to be the immediate setting (see 10:8); Cush is possibly the land of the Kassites, a dynasty ruling in Babylonia.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":125728,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:13","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:13","content_ro":"2:13<\/strong> Gihon:<\/em> Though unknown, proposals have included the Nile (as in the Greek version of Jer 2:18; Josephus, Antiquities<\/em> 1.1.3), the Jordan, or, according to Jewish tradition, a river that formerly ran through the Kidron Valley (1 Kgs 1:33; 2 Chr 33:14). • Although Cush<\/em> is the name of ancient Ethiopia, Mesopotamian regions associated with Babylon seem to be the immediate setting (see 10:8); Cush is possibly the land of the Kassites, a dynasty ruling in Babylonia.<\/p>","content_en":"2:13<\/strong> Gihon:<\/em> Though unknown, proposals have included the Nile (as in the Greek version of Jer 2:18; Josephus, Antiquities<\/em> 1.1.3), the Jordan, or, according to Jewish tradition, a river that formerly ran through the Kidron Valley (1 Kgs 1:33; 2 Chr 33:14). • Although Cush<\/em> is the name of ancient Ethiopia, Mesopotamian regions associated with Babylon seem to be the immediate setting (see 10:8); Cush is possibly the land of the Kassites, a dynasty ruling in Babylonia.<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:13 Gihon: Though unknown, proposals have included the Nile (as in the Greek version of Jer 2:18; Josephus, Antiquities 1.1.3), the Jordan, or, according to Jewish tradition, a river that formerly ran through the Kidron Valley (1 Kgs 1:33; 2 Chr 33:14). • Although Cush is the name of ancient Ethiopia, Mesopotamian regions associated with Babylon seem to be the immediate setting (see 10:8); Cush is possibly the land of the Kassites, a dynasty ruling in Babylonia.","summary_en":"2:13 Gihon: Though unknown, proposals have included the Nile (as in the Greek version of Jer 2:18; Josephus, Antiquities 1.1.3), the Jordan, or, according to Jewish tradition, a river that formerly ran through the Kidron Valley (1 Kgs 1:33; 2 Chr 33:14). • Although Cush is the name of ancient Ethiopia, Mesopotamian regions associated with Babylon seem to be the immediate setting (see 10:8); Cush is possibly the land of the Kassites, a dynasty ruling in Babylonia.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"14":[{"id":3082,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Assyrians Assyria","title_en":"Assyrians Assyria","content_ro":"<h3>ASSYRIA, ASSYRIANS<\/h3>\nAncient empire considered the symbol of terror and tyranny in the Near East for more than three centuries. Assyria received its name from the tiny city-state Asshur, on the western bank of the Tigris River in northern Mesopotamia (modern Iraq). The city was the seat of worship of the sun god Asshur (also spelled Ashur). The Hebrew name occurs frequently in the Bible and is translated Assyria (Gn 2:14), Assur (Ezr 4:2; Ps 83:8), or left as Asshur (Gn 10:11, kjv<\/span>). The form of the name comes originally from the Akkadian language.<\/p>\nOriginally, Assyria was a small district in northern Mesopotamia, lying in a rough triangle between the Tigris River and the Upper Zab, a tributary of the Tigris. Eventually Assyria gained control of northern Syria, securing an outlet to the Mediterranean Sea, and took possession of the fertile Mesopotamian plain, extending Assyrian domain over all of Babylonia to the Persian Gulf.<\/p>\nHistory<\/p>\n<h5>Before the Eighth Century BC<\/span><\/h5>\nBy the end of the third millennium BC<\/span>, the Sumerians were trading with Assyria and influencing its people culturally. Periodically Sumerian kings would claim political control over Assyria. Sargon of Agade (c. 2350 BC<\/span>) brought Assyria within the sphere of his political and commercial activities, and when the Amorites overthrew the third dynasty of Ur and established their own states, one of them incorporated Assyria into its territory. During the period of Hammurabi, one of the last great kings of the first Babylonian dynasty (c. 2360–1600 BC<\/span>), the Assyrians supplied building materials and other goods for the Babylonian kingdom.<\/p>\nTrade between Asshur and the Assyrian colony of Kanish in Anatolia began at a very early time in Assyrian history. Goods were transported by caravans of up to 200 donkeys at a time. The wealth pouring in from such a trade put Assyria in a very strong position economically.<\/p>\nThe early phase of Assyrian commercial development was followed by a long period of decline, culminating in the 15th century BC<\/span>. At that time Assyria was reduced to a state of vassalage by a non-Semitic people, the Hurrians (biblical Horites) of the state of Mitanni. In the 14th century another non-Semitic people, the Hittites, overthrew the power of Mitanni. Assyria was gradually able to rise again and assume the role of a great power in the ancient Near East, largely through the policies of a shrewd prince, Asshur-uballit. His reign marked the beginning of a long process by which Assyria ultimately rose to supremacy.<\/p>\nEnlil-nirari (1329–1320 BC<\/span>), son and successor of Asshur-uballit, attacked Babylon and defeated Kurigalzu II, the Kassite king of Babylon (1345–1324 BC<\/span>). Adad-nirari I (1307–1275 BC<\/span>) extended Assyria’s influence by winning victories over the Kassites in Babylonia. He also added territory to the northwest.<\/p>\nThe period of consolidation and expansion in the first Assyrian Empire culminated in the capture of Babylon by Tukulti-ninurta I (1244–1208 BC<\/span>), which for the first time placed Babylon under Assyrian rule. After that climax, however, Assyrian power declined.<\/p>\nThe three centuries from about 1200 to 900 BC<\/span> were marked by movements of different peoples such as the Greeks, Philistines, Arameans, and Hebrews. Under pressure of people migrating from Europe, the Hittite Empire, which formerly had given political stability to Asia Minor and protected the trade routes, crumbled rapidly. By 1200 BC<\/span> it fell to attacks by the Sea Peoples from the Greek mainland.<\/p>\nDuring the tenth century BC<\/span>, Assyria began to make a slow recovery. In the reign of Adad-nirari II (911–891 BC<\/span>), Assyria again launched upon a period of conspicuous economic and military expansion. For the next 60 years Assyrian kings followed a consistent policy of consolidating the work of Adad-nirari II. Ashurnasirpal II (885–860 BC<\/span>) is considered the first great monarch of that new era in Assyrian history. He possessed all the qualities and defects of his successors to the extreme. He had the ambition, energy, courage, vanity, and magnificence of a ruthless, indefatigable empire builder. Ashurnasirpal’s first activities were directed to the mountain area to the east, where he extended Assyria’s control among the mountain people. In the west he subdued the Arameans with characteristic cruelty and did likewise in Asia Minor.<\/p>\nShalmaneser III is well known to historians of the biblical world for the battle of Qarqar (853 BC<\/span>), considered the most fully documented event from the ancient world. He launched an invasion of Syria that was met by a coalition led by Ben-hadad of Damascus and supported by King Ahab of Israel and several other states. Since Shalmaneser was unable to rout the 60,000 troops opposing him, it was many years before the Assyrians were able to conquer Damascus and Samaria. King Jehu of Israel (841–814 BC<\/span>), who later chose to pay tribute rather than fight, is represented, perhaps by an envoy, on the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III, excavated at Shalmaneser’s capital city, Calah (now called Nimrud). Jehu is depicted as kissing the ground at the Assyrian monarch’s feet and offering a tribute of silver, gold, and lead vessels.<\/p>\nToward the end of his reign Shalmaneser had to put down a rebellion by some of the principal Assyrian cities. He was succeeded by his heir, Shamshi-adad V (823–811 BC<\/span>). Shamshi-adad’s son Adad-nirari III (810–782 BC<\/span>) built a new palace at Calah and attacked King Hazael of Damascus (Syria) in 804 BC<\/span>. Assyrian pressure on the Syrians undoubtedly was a relief to Israel, which had been oppressed by Hazael (2 Kgs 13:22-25).<\/p>\n<h5>From the Eighth Century to the Battle of Carchemish (605 BC<\/span>)<\/h5>\nBeginning about 800 BC<\/span> the influence of Urartu (Ararat) began to expand, especially in north Syria, at the expense of Assyria. The next half century saw a drastic decline in Assyria’s fortunes. In 746 BC<\/span>, during a revolt in the city of Calah, the entire royal family was murdered.<\/p>\nThe final phase of Assyrian power was instituted by the usurper Tiglath-pileser III (745–727 BC<\/span>), known also by his adopted Babylonian throne-name Pul (2 Kgs 15:19; 1 Chr 5:26). His reign began the process by which Assyria recovered and consolidated control of all its territories and established itself firmly as the dominant military and economic power in the Near East. Tiglath-pileser first secured control of the mountain passes in the north in order to eliminate the threat of invasion from that direction. Next he subjected Syria and Palestine in the west and took control of the road to Egypt and the Mediterranean Sea. Finally, through diplomacy, he gained the throne of Babylonia also. Under the name of Pul he governed Babylonia, creating the remarkable situation of two crowns united in one ruler bearing two different names. His political prudence was not usually found in the ruthless Assyrian monarchs.<\/p>\nFrom the year 743 BC<\/span> Tiglath-pileser III waged a number of campaigns in Syria and Palestine. King Menahem of Israel (752–742 BC<\/span>) paid him tribute (2 Kgs 15:19-20), as did Tyre, Byblos, and Damascus. In 738 he subjugated the north central state of Hamath. Responding to an appeal from King Ahaz of Judah (735–715 BC<\/span>) to help resist the pressures of a proposed anti-Assyrian coalition, Tiglath-pileser conquered Damascus in 732 and Samaria, capital of the northern kingdom of Israel, a decade later. On both occasions deportations of people to Assyria took place. The fall of Samaria in 722 BC<\/span> marked the end of the kingdom of Israel.<\/p>\nSargon II (722–705 BC<\/span>) claimed to be the Assyrian ruler who captured Samaria, but the biblical record attributed the capture to Shalmaneser (2 Kgs 17:2-6). To the policy of deportation, Sargon and his successors added that of colonization. To replace the peoples carried into captivity, these Assyrian kings brought tribes from Babylonia, Elam, Syria, and Arabia and settled them in Samaria and surrounding territory. The new arrivals intermingled with the indigenous people remaining in the land after the deportation and became the Samaritans.<\/p>\nAfter 10 years of warfare against his enemies to the west in Syria and Asia Minor, and to the north in Urartu, Sargon concentrated his efforts on Babylonia. He chased Merodach-baladan II (721–710 BC<\/span>; cf. 2 Kgs 20:12-19; Is 39:1) to Elam and made himself king of Babylon in 709. He started building a new capital city for himself, Dur-Sharrukin (Khorsabad) near Nineveh but was killed in battle before it was finished.<\/p>\nSargon was succeeded by his son Sennacherib (705–681 BC<\/span>), who was occupied throughout his reign in a series of bitter wars. He is especially known in biblical studies for his campaign against Judah and siege of Jerusalem during the reign of King Hezekiah (715–686 BC<\/span>) and the ministry of the prophet Isaiah (2 Kgs 18:13–19:37; Is 36–37). It was during that crisis that the celebrated Siloam Tunnel was constructed to bring water into the beleaguered capital from the spring of Gihon, outside the city wall, to the pool of Siloam (2 Kgs 20:20).<\/p>\nSennacherib was murdered in 681 BC<\/span> and was succeeded by Esarhaddon, who tried unsuccessfully to establish Assyrian control over Egypt. Esarhaddon was succeeded by Ashurbanipal (669–626? BC<\/span>), who managed to capture No-amon (Thebes), thereby realizing the greatest victory in Assyrian history (cf. Na 3:3-10). Ashurbanipal established a great library in Nineveh, which was excavated in 1860. Many tablets made of the finest clay and ranging in size from 1 to 15 inches (2.5 to 38 centimeters) were found, containing a vast selection of Akkadian material. Some of the tablets contain historical records; others, astronomical reports, mathematical calculations, and private or public letters. A considerable part of the collection deals with astrology and medicine. Many of the tablets contain prayers, incantations, psalms, and religious texts in general. A copy of the Babylonian account of creation was also found. This library is now one of the principal treasures of the British Museum in London.<\/p>\nVery little is known about Ashurbanipal’s reign after 639 BC<\/span> since his annals do not extend beyond that year. However, some information on events of his last 13 years can be gleaned from allusions in state correspondence, commercial documents, and prayers addressed to the gods. Evidently the situation in Assyria was becoming increasingly serious, and when Ashurbanipal died in 626 his empire declined quickly.<\/p>\nThe Medes had entered the Assyrian annals during the reign of Esarhaddon, when they still consisted of a large number of associated but separate tribes. Later those tribes began to be welded into a single kingdom. Herodotus states that Phraortes, their king, attacked Assyria but lost his life on the battlefield and was succeeded by his son Cyaxeres.<\/p>\nThe year 626 BC<\/span> marked several important events in the ancient world. Nabopolassar, a Chaldean prince, became king of Babylon (626–605 BC<\/span>) toward the end of that year. An alliance between the Medes and Nabopolassar was concluded, and from that time on, the success of Nabopolassar against Assyria was almost inevitable. By the year 617 BC<\/span> he had cleared Babylonia of all Assyrian garrisons. He then marched up the Euphrates to the Aramean districts that had been part of the Assyrian Empire for two and a half centuries. The plan was for Nabopolassar to attack Nineveh from the west and the Medes to attack it at the same time from the east; however, the combined forces of the Assyrians and Egyptians, now allies, compelled Nabopolassar to withdraw to Babylon.<\/p>\nIn 614 BC<\/span> the Medes carried out a massive attack on Assyria. Although Nineveh was too strong to yield to the attack, the Medes captured some of the neighboring cities, including Asshur, the ancient capital. At that point Nabopolassar arrived with the Babylonian forces. He met Cyaxeres at Asshur, and they established mutual friendship and peace. Their alliance was later confirmed by the marriage of Nebuchadnezzar, Nabopolassar’s son, to Amytis, daughter of Cyaxeres. In 612 BC<\/span> their combined forces launched a final assault against Nineveh, and after three months of siege the mighty city fell (Na 1:8).<\/p>\nDespite the loss of their capital, a weakened Assyrian kingdom survived for three more years. The Assyrian troops who could escape from Nineveh fled westward to Haran, where an Assyrian prince, Asshur-uballit, was made king and sought Egypt’s help to restore the kingship of Assyria. Necho II (609–593 BC<\/span>), known in the Bible as Neco, responded and set off with his Egyptian troops to Haran to fight against the Babylonians, who by now had annihilated Assyria. King Josiah of Judah (640–609 BC<\/span>), who evidently considered himself a vassal of Assyria’s heir, Neo-Babylonia, marched to oppose the Egyptian advance and was mortally wounded by an arrow on the battlefield of Megiddo (2 Kgs 23:29-30; 2 Chr 35:20-24).<\/p>\nWhen Nabopolassar and his allies attacked Haran in 610 BC<\/span>, Asshur-uballit did not attempt to defend it but fled southwest to await Necho and his troops. The joint forces of the Egyptians and the Assyrians returned to mount an assault upon Haran with some initial success. But Nabopolassar’s army compelled the Assyrian-Egyptian forces to abandon the siege and withdraw to Carchemish (present-day Jarablus). There, under the leadership of Nebuchadnezzar, the Babylonians made a direct attack on the powerful army. The resultant carnage on both sides was graphically depicted by the prophet Jeremiah (46:1-12). Nebuchadnezzar emerged victorious in the battle of Carchemish (605 BC<\/span>). However, because of the death of his father, he did not pursue his victory but returned to Babylon to assume the throne.<\/p>\nThere is a tradition in the Assyrian Christian church that after the collapse of the Assyrian Empire under the onslaught of the Medes and Neo-Babylonians, a remnant of the Assyrian people—chiefly princes, noblemen, and warriors—took refuge in the mountains of Kurdistan. There they built a number of armed fortresses. Alexander the Great (336–323 BC<\/span>), his successors, and the Roman legions made no attempt to conquer these tribes. Trajan (AD<\/span> 98–117) marched at the head of the Roman armies through Armenia, touching the northern region of Kurdistan, on his way to Persia. It is asserted that the wise men, or magi, who visited the newly born king in Bethlehem, the baby Jesus, came from Edessa. According to this tradition, the magi, on returning from Bethlehem, proclaimed the amazing things they had heard and seen on their visit to the king. A Christian church was founded among the Assyrians that has survived throughout the centuries.<\/p>\nThe region that was Assyria, including all of Mesopotamia, is within present-day Iraq, an Arabic-speaking country predominantly Muslim in religion.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Israel, History of; Kings, Books of First and Second; Mesopotamia.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>ASSYRIA, ASSYRIANS<\/h3>\nAncient empire considered the symbol of terror and tyranny in the Near East for more than three centuries. Assyria received its name from the tiny city-state Asshur, on the western bank of the Tigris River in northern Mesopotamia (modern Iraq). The city was the seat of worship of the sun god Asshur (also spelled Ashur). The Hebrew name occurs frequently in the Bible and is translated Assyria (Gn 2:14), Assur (Ezr 4:2; Ps 83:8), or left as Asshur (Gn 10:11, kjv<\/span>). The form of the name comes originally from the Akkadian language.<\/p>\nOriginally, Assyria was a small district in northern Mesopotamia, lying in a rough triangle between the Tigris River and the Upper Zab, a tributary of the Tigris. Eventually Assyria gained control of northern Syria, securing an outlet to the Mediterranean Sea, and took possession of the fertile Mesopotamian plain, extending Assyrian domain over all of Babylonia to the Persian Gulf.<\/p>\nHistory<\/p>\n<h5>Before the Eighth Century BC<\/span><\/h5>\nBy the end of the third millennium BC<\/span>, the Sumerians were trading with Assyria and influencing its people culturally. Periodically Sumerian kings would claim political control over Assyria. Sargon of Agade (c. 2350 BC<\/span>) brought Assyria within the sphere of his political and commercial activities, and when the Amorites overthrew the third dynasty of Ur and established their own states, one of them incorporated Assyria into its territory. During the period of Hammurabi, one of the last great kings of the first Babylonian dynasty (c. 2360–1600 BC<\/span>), the Assyrians supplied building materials and other goods for the Babylonian kingdom.<\/p>\nTrade between Asshur and the Assyrian colony of Kanish in Anatolia began at a very early time in Assyrian history. Goods were transported by caravans of up to 200 donkeys at a time. The wealth pouring in from such a trade put Assyria in a very strong position economically.<\/p>\nThe early phase of Assyrian commercial development was followed by a long period of decline, culminating in the 15th century BC<\/span>. At that time Assyria was reduced to a state of vassalage by a non-Semitic people, the Hurrians (biblical Horites) of the state of Mitanni. In the 14th century another non-Semitic people, the Hittites, overthrew the power of Mitanni. Assyria was gradually able to rise again and assume the role of a great power in the ancient Near East, largely through the policies of a shrewd prince, Asshur-uballit. His reign marked the beginning of a long process by which Assyria ultimately rose to supremacy.<\/p>\nEnlil-nirari (1329–1320 BC<\/span>), son and successor of Asshur-uballit, attacked Babylon and defeated Kurigalzu II, the Kassite king of Babylon (1345–1324 BC<\/span>). Adad-nirari I (1307–1275 BC<\/span>) extended Assyria’s influence by winning victories over the Kassites in Babylonia. He also added territory to the northwest.<\/p>\nThe period of consolidation and expansion in the first Assyrian Empire culminated in the capture of Babylon by Tukulti-ninurta I (1244–1208 BC<\/span>), which for the first time placed Babylon under Assyrian rule. After that climax, however, Assyrian power declined.<\/p>\nThe three centuries from about 1200 to 900 BC<\/span> were marked by movements of different peoples such as the Greeks, Philistines, Arameans, and Hebrews. Under pressure of people migrating from Europe, the Hittite Empire, which formerly had given political stability to Asia Minor and protected the trade routes, crumbled rapidly. By 1200 BC<\/span> it fell to attacks by the Sea Peoples from the Greek mainland.<\/p>\nDuring the tenth century BC<\/span>, Assyria began to make a slow recovery. In the reign of Adad-nirari II (911–891 BC<\/span>), Assyria again launched upon a period of conspicuous economic and military expansion. For the next 60 years Assyrian kings followed a consistent policy of consolidating the work of Adad-nirari II. Ashurnasirpal II (885–860 BC<\/span>) is considered the first great monarch of that new era in Assyrian history. He possessed all the qualities and defects of his successors to the extreme. He had the ambition, energy, courage, vanity, and magnificence of a ruthless, indefatigable empire builder. Ashurnasirpal’s first activities were directed to the mountain area to the east, where he extended Assyria’s control among the mountain people. In the west he subdued the Arameans with characteristic cruelty and did likewise in Asia Minor.<\/p>\nShalmaneser III is well known to historians of the biblical world for the battle of Qarqar (853 BC<\/span>), considered the most fully documented event from the ancient world. He launched an invasion of Syria that was met by a coalition led by Ben-hadad of Damascus and supported by King Ahab of Israel and several other states. Since Shalmaneser was unable to rout the 60,000 troops opposing him, it was many years before the Assyrians were able to conquer Damascus and Samaria. King Jehu of Israel (841–814 BC<\/span>), who later chose to pay tribute rather than fight, is represented, perhaps by an envoy, on the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III, excavated at Shalmaneser’s capital city, Calah (now called Nimrud). Jehu is depicted as kissing the ground at the Assyrian monarch’s feet and offering a tribute of silver, gold, and lead vessels.<\/p>\nToward the end of his reign Shalmaneser had to put down a rebellion by some of the principal Assyrian cities. He was succeeded by his heir, Shamshi-adad V (823–811 BC<\/span>). Shamshi-adad’s son Adad-nirari III (810–782 BC<\/span>) built a new palace at Calah and attacked King Hazael of Damascus (Syria) in 804 BC<\/span>. Assyrian pressure on the Syrians undoubtedly was a relief to Israel, which had been oppressed by Hazael (2 Kgs 13:22-25).<\/p>\n<h5>From the Eighth Century to the Battle of Carchemish (605 BC<\/span>)<\/h5>\nBeginning about 800 BC<\/span> the influence of Urartu (Ararat) began to expand, especially in north Syria, at the expense of Assyria. The next half century saw a drastic decline in Assyria’s fortunes. In 746 BC<\/span>, during a revolt in the city of Calah, the entire royal family was murdered.<\/p>\nThe final phase of Assyrian power was instituted by the usurper Tiglath-pileser III (745–727 BC<\/span>), known also by his adopted Babylonian throne-name Pul (2 Kgs 15:19; 1 Chr 5:26). His reign began the process by which Assyria recovered and consolidated control of all its territories and established itself firmly as the dominant military and economic power in the Near East. Tiglath-pileser first secured control of the mountain passes in the north in order to eliminate the threat of invasion from that direction. Next he subjected Syria and Palestine in the west and took control of the road to Egypt and the Mediterranean Sea. Finally, through diplomacy, he gained the throne of Babylonia also. Under the name of Pul he governed Babylonia, creating the remarkable situation of two crowns united in one ruler bearing two different names. His political prudence was not usually found in the ruthless Assyrian monarchs.<\/p>\nFrom the year 743 BC<\/span> Tiglath-pileser III waged a number of campaigns in Syria and Palestine. King Menahem of Israel (752–742 BC<\/span>) paid him tribute (2 Kgs 15:19-20), as did Tyre, Byblos, and Damascus. In 738 he subjugated the north central state of Hamath. Responding to an appeal from King Ahaz of Judah (735–715 BC<\/span>) to help resist the pressures of a proposed anti-Assyrian coalition, Tiglath-pileser conquered Damascus in 732 and Samaria, capital of the northern kingdom of Israel, a decade later. On both occasions deportations of people to Assyria took place. The fall of Samaria in 722 BC<\/span> marked the end of the kingdom of Israel.<\/p>\nSargon II (722–705 BC<\/span>) claimed to be the Assyrian ruler who captured Samaria, but the biblical record attributed the capture to Shalmaneser (2 Kgs 17:2-6). To the policy of deportation, Sargon and his successors added that of colonization. To replace the peoples carried into captivity, these Assyrian kings brought tribes from Babylonia, Elam, Syria, and Arabia and settled them in Samaria and surrounding territory. The new arrivals intermingled with the indigenous people remaining in the land after the deportation and became the Samaritans.<\/p>\nAfter 10 years of warfare against his enemies to the west in Syria and Asia Minor, and to the north in Urartu, Sargon concentrated his efforts on Babylonia. He chased Merodach-baladan II (721–710 BC<\/span>; cf. 2 Kgs 20:12-19; Is 39:1) to Elam and made himself king of Babylon in 709. He started building a new capital city for himself, Dur-Sharrukin (Khorsabad) near Nineveh but was killed in battle before it was finished.<\/p>\nSargon was succeeded by his son Sennacherib (705–681 BC<\/span>), who was occupied throughout his reign in a series of bitter wars. He is especially known in biblical studies for his campaign against Judah and siege of Jerusalem during the reign of King Hezekiah (715–686 BC<\/span>) and the ministry of the prophet Isaiah (2 Kgs 18:13–19:37; Is 36–37). It was during that crisis that the celebrated Siloam Tunnel was constructed to bring water into the beleaguered capital from the spring of Gihon, outside the city wall, to the pool of Siloam (2 Kgs 20:20).<\/p>\nSennacherib was murdered in 681 BC<\/span> and was succeeded by Esarhaddon, who tried unsuccessfully to establish Assyrian control over Egypt. Esarhaddon was succeeded by Ashurbanipal (669–626? BC<\/span>), who managed to capture No-amon (Thebes), thereby realizing the greatest victory in Assyrian history (cf. Na 3:3-10). Ashurbanipal established a great library in Nineveh, which was excavated in 1860. Many tablets made of the finest clay and ranging in size from 1 to 15 inches (2.5 to 38 centimeters) were found, containing a vast selection of Akkadian material. Some of the tablets contain historical records; others, astronomical reports, mathematical calculations, and private or public letters. A considerable part of the collection deals with astrology and medicine. Many of the tablets contain prayers, incantations, psalms, and religious texts in general. A copy of the Babylonian account of creation was also found. This library is now one of the principal treasures of the British Museum in London.<\/p>\nVery little is known about Ashurbanipal’s reign after 639 BC<\/span> since his annals do not extend beyond that year. However, some information on events of his last 13 years can be gleaned from allusions in state correspondence, commercial documents, and prayers addressed to the gods. Evidently the situation in Assyria was becoming increasingly serious, and when Ashurbanipal died in 626 his empire declined quickly.<\/p>\nThe Medes had entered the Assyrian annals during the reign of Esarhaddon, when they still consisted of a large number of associated but separate tribes. Later those tribes began to be welded into a single kingdom. Herodotus states that Phraortes, their king, attacked Assyria but lost his life on the battlefield and was succeeded by his son Cyaxeres.<\/p>\nThe year 626 BC<\/span> marked several important events in the ancient world. Nabopolassar, a Chaldean prince, became king of Babylon (626–605 BC<\/span>) toward the end of that year. An alliance between the Medes and Nabopolassar was concluded, and from that time on, the success of Nabopolassar against Assyria was almost inevitable. By the year 617 BC<\/span> he had cleared Babylonia of all Assyrian garrisons. He then marched up the Euphrates to the Aramean districts that had been part of the Assyrian Empire for two and a half centuries. The plan was for Nabopolassar to attack Nineveh from the west and the Medes to attack it at the same time from the east; however, the combined forces of the Assyrians and Egyptians, now allies, compelled Nabopolassar to withdraw to Babylon.<\/p>\nIn 614 BC<\/span> the Medes carried out a massive attack on Assyria. Although Nineveh was too strong to yield to the attack, the Medes captured some of the neighboring cities, including Asshur, the ancient capital. At that point Nabopolassar arrived with the Babylonian forces. He met Cyaxeres at Asshur, and they established mutual friendship and peace. Their alliance was later confirmed by the marriage of Nebuchadnezzar, Nabopolassar’s son, to Amytis, daughter of Cyaxeres. In 612 BC<\/span> their combined forces launched a final assault against Nineveh, and after three months of siege the mighty city fell (Na 1:8).<\/p>\nDespite the loss of their capital, a weakened Assyrian kingdom survived for three more years. The Assyrian troops who could escape from Nineveh fled westward to Haran, where an Assyrian prince, Asshur-uballit, was made king and sought Egypt’s help to restore the kingship of Assyria. Necho II (609–593 BC<\/span>), known in the Bible as Neco, responded and set off with his Egyptian troops to Haran to fight against the Babylonians, who by now had annihilated Assyria. King Josiah of Judah (640–609 BC<\/span>), who evidently considered himself a vassal of Assyria’s heir, Neo-Babylonia, marched to oppose the Egyptian advance and was mortally wounded by an arrow on the battlefield of Megiddo (2 Kgs 23:29-30; 2 Chr 35:20-24).<\/p>\nWhen Nabopolassar and his allies attacked Haran in 610 BC<\/span>, Asshur-uballit did not attempt to defend it but fled southwest to await Necho and his troops. The joint forces of the Egyptians and the Assyrians returned to mount an assault upon Haran with some initial success. But Nabopolassar’s army compelled the Assyrian-Egyptian forces to abandon the siege and withdraw to Carchemish (present-day Jarablus). There, under the leadership of Nebuchadnezzar, the Babylonians made a direct attack on the powerful army. The resultant carnage on both sides was graphically depicted by the prophet Jeremiah (46:1-12). Nebuchadnezzar emerged victorious in the battle of Carchemish (605 BC<\/span>). However, because of the death of his father, he did not pursue his victory but returned to Babylon to assume the throne.<\/p>\nThere is a tradition in the Assyrian Christian church that after the collapse of the Assyrian Empire under the onslaught of the Medes and Neo-Babylonians, a remnant of the Assyrian people—chiefly princes, noblemen, and warriors—took refuge in the mountains of Kurdistan. There they built a number of armed fortresses. Alexander the Great (336–323 BC<\/span>), his successors, and the Roman legions made no attempt to conquer these tribes. Trajan (AD<\/span> 98–117) marched at the head of the Roman armies through Armenia, touching the northern region of Kurdistan, on his way to Persia. It is asserted that the wise men, or magi, who visited the newly born king in Bethlehem, the baby Jesus, came from Edessa. According to this tradition, the magi, on returning from Bethlehem, proclaimed the amazing things they had heard and seen on their visit to the king. A Christian church was founded among the Assyrians that has survived throughout the centuries.<\/p>\nThe region that was Assyria, including all of Mesopotamia, is within present-day Iraq, an Arabic-speaking country predominantly Muslim in religion.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Israel, History of; Kings, Books of First and Second; Mesopotamia.<\/p>","summary_ro":"ASSYRIA, ASSYRIANS Ancient empire considered the symbol of terror and tyranny in the Near East for more than three centuries. Assyria received its name from the tiny city-state Asshur, on the western bank of the Tigris River in northern Mesopotamia (modern Iraq). The city was the seat of worship of the sun god Asshur (also spelled Ashur). The Hebrew name occurs frequently in the Bible and is translated Assyria (Gn 2:14), Assur (Ezr 4:2; Ps 83:8), or left as Asshur (Gn 10:11, kjv). The form of...","summary_en":"ASSYRIA, ASSYRIANS Ancient empire considered the symbol of terror and tyranny in the Near East for more than three centuries. Assyria received its name from the tiny city-state Asshur, on the western bank of the Tigris River in northern Mesopotamia (modern Iraq). The city was the seat of worship of the sun god Asshur (also spelled Ashur). The Hebrew name occurs frequently in the Bible and is translated Assyria (Gn 2:14), Assur (Ezr 4:2; Ps 83:8), or left as Asshur (Gn 10:11, kjv). The form of...","source":"Articles\/A.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":8396,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Cush (Place)","title_en":"Cush (Place)","content_ro":"<h3>CUSH (Place<\/span>)<\/h3>\nEgyptian, Akkadian, and Hebrew term broadly referring to the countries of the Upper Nile south of Egypt. In a narrower sense Cush consisted of the territory between the second and fourth cataracts of the Nile, roughly the present northern Sudan (equivalent to ancient Nubia). The OT generally uses the term in that sense. The Greeks called it Ethiopia, which eventually gave its name to modern Ethiopia (farther to the south and east).<\/p>\nThe meaning of “Cush” in the book of Genesis, however, is problematic. In the Garden of Eden narrative (Gn 2:13), Cush seems to be located in Mesopotamia, the region of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers (v 14). Perhaps the term there should be equated with Kassite (Cossaean), the usual designation of the Babylonian rulers who held sway in Mesopotamia for about half a millennium down to the 12th century BC<\/span>. The Cush of Genesis 10:6-8, then, could be divided into two locales: Nubia (vv 6-7) and Mesopotamia (vv 9-12). Alternatively, the Cush of Genesis 2:13 and 10:8 could be Kish, the Mesopotamian city that was traditionally the seat of the first Sumerian dynasty after the Flood.<\/p>\nLess uncertainty exists over use of the term “Cushite.” With one possible exception (Nm 12:1), Cushite always refers to people from Nubia, the African Cush.<\/p>\nThe first messenger whom Joab, King David’s commander in chief, sent to announce Absalom’s defeat to David was a Cushite (2 Sm 18:21-32). That messenger’s foreign origin is reflected in the fact that he was unaware of a shortcut as well as in his insensitivity to the feelings of David when he gave him the message. The kjv<\/span> transliterates the Hebrew word as a proper name (Cushi), but that rendering is unlikely. Most English versions translate the other occurrences of Cush and Cushite as Ethiopia and Ethiopians.<\/p>\nMoses had a wife who was known as a Cushite (Nm 12:1). In that context it is possible to understand Cushite in several ways: as a person from Nubia—which would make her a second wife, different from Zipporah; as a person from Cushan—making her possibly a Midianite, perhaps identical with Zipporah; or as a reference to her darker skin and foreign origin—possibly but not necessarily a reference to Zipporah.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Cushan; Cushi #1; Ethiopia.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>CUSH (Place<\/span>)<\/h3>\nEgyptian, Akkadian, and Hebrew term broadly referring to the countries of the Upper Nile south of Egypt. In a narrower sense Cush consisted of the territory between the second and fourth cataracts of the Nile, roughly the present northern Sudan (equivalent to ancient Nubia). The OT generally uses the term in that sense. The Greeks called it Ethiopia, which eventually gave its name to modern Ethiopia (farther to the south and east).<\/p>\nThe meaning of “Cush” in the book of Genesis, however, is problematic. In the Garden of Eden narrative (Gn 2:13), Cush seems to be located in Mesopotamia, the region of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers (v 14). Perhaps the term there should be equated with Kassite (Cossaean), the usual designation of the Babylonian rulers who held sway in Mesopotamia for about half a millennium down to the 12th century BC<\/span>. The Cush of Genesis 10:6-8, then, could be divided into two locales: Nubia (vv 6-7) and Mesopotamia (vv 9-12). Alternatively, the Cush of Genesis 2:13 and 10:8 could be Kish, the Mesopotamian city that was traditionally the seat of the first Sumerian dynasty after the Flood.<\/p>\nLess uncertainty exists over use of the term “Cushite.” With one possible exception (Nm 12:1), Cushite always refers to people from Nubia, the African Cush.<\/p>\nThe first messenger whom Joab, King David’s commander in chief, sent to announce Absalom’s defeat to David was a Cushite (2 Sm 18:21-32). That messenger’s foreign origin is reflected in the fact that he was unaware of a shortcut as well as in his insensitivity to the feelings of David when he gave him the message. The kjv<\/span> transliterates the Hebrew word as a proper name (Cushi), but that rendering is unlikely. Most English versions translate the other occurrences of Cush and Cushite as Ethiopia and Ethiopians.<\/p>\nMoses had a wife who was known as a Cushite (Nm 12:1). In that context it is possible to understand Cushite in several ways: as a person from Nubia—which would make her a second wife, different from Zipporah; as a person from Cushan—making her possibly a Midianite, perhaps identical with Zipporah; or as a reference to her darker skin and foreign origin—possibly but not necessarily a reference to Zipporah.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Cushan; Cushi #1; Ethiopia.<\/p>","summary_ro":"CUSH (Place) Egyptian, Akkadian, and Hebrew term broadly referring to the countries of the Upper Nile south of Egypt. In a narrower sense Cush consisted of the territory between the second and fourth cataracts of the Nile, roughly the present northern Sudan (equivalent to ancient Nubia). The OT generally uses the term in that sense. The Greeks called it Ethiopia, which eventually gave its name to modern Ethiopia (farther to the south and east). The meaning of “Cush” in the book of Genesis, ho...","summary_en":"CUSH (Place) Egyptian, Akkadian, and Hebrew term broadly referring to the countries of the Upper Nile south of Egypt. In a narrower sense Cush consisted of the territory between the second and fourth cataracts of the Nile, roughly the present northern Sudan (equivalent to ancient Nubia). The OT generally uses the term in that sense. The Greeks called it Ethiopia, which eventually gave its name to modern Ethiopia (farther to the south and east). The meaning of “Cush” in the book of Genesis, ho...","source":"Articles\/C.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":11290,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Euphrates River","title_en":"Euphrates River","content_ro":"<h3>EUPHRATES RIVER<\/h3>\nLargest river in western Asia, formed by the union of two rivers in Asia Minor, the Kara-Su and the Murat-Suyu. Its source is in central Armenia. The river flows generally in a southeasterly direction for some 1,800 miles (2,896.2 kilometers) until it reaches the Persian Gulf. At Korna, about 100 miles (160.9 kilometers) from the gulf, it joins with the Tigris River. The Euphrates is shallow until it combines with the Tigris and can be navigated for about 1,200 miles (1,930.8 kilometers) by small boats only. After the union of the Tigris and Euphrates, ocean liners can proceed as far as Basra. Melting snows at the source cause the river to rise from about the middle of March until about June. Control and storage of water in flood canals during the overflow of the river made possible abundant harvests that sustained large populations in antiquity.<\/p>\nThe Euphrates was one of four branches issuing from the river that watered the Garden of Eden (Gn 2:14). In the promises made to Abraham, the northern boundary of the land of Israel was to be the upper division of the river (Gn 15:18; Dt 1:7; 11:24). These boundaries were approximately reached during the period of kings David and Solomon (2 Sm 8:3; 10:16; 1 Kgs 4:24). The Euphrates is called “the river” (Nm 22:5; Dt 11:24; Jos 24:3, 14) or “the great river” (Jos 1:4). People living east of the Euphrates referred to Israel and its surrounding territories to the west as “beyond the river” (Ezr 4:10; Neh 2:7-9). It was to this river that Jeremiah sent Seraiah with a book of prophecies relating to the destruction of Babylon. After reading them, Seraiah was told to throw the book into the Euphrates as a symbol of the way Babylon would sink to rise no more (Jer 51:63).<\/p>\nTwo NT references to the Euphrates appear in the book of Revelation (Rv 9:14; 16:12).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Babylon, Babylonia; Mesopotamia.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>EUPHRATES RIVER<\/h3>\nLargest river in western Asia, formed by the union of two rivers in Asia Minor, the Kara-Su and the Murat-Suyu. Its source is in central Armenia. The river flows generally in a southeasterly direction for some 1,800 miles (2,896.2 kilometers) until it reaches the Persian Gulf. At Korna, about 100 miles (160.9 kilometers) from the gulf, it joins with the Tigris River. The Euphrates is shallow until it combines with the Tigris and can be navigated for about 1,200 miles (1,930.8 kilometers) by small boats only. After the union of the Tigris and Euphrates, ocean liners can proceed as far as Basra. Melting snows at the source cause the river to rise from about the middle of March until about June. Control and storage of water in flood canals during the overflow of the river made possible abundant harvests that sustained large populations in antiquity.<\/p>\nThe Euphrates was one of four branches issuing from the river that watered the Garden of Eden (Gn 2:14). In the promises made to Abraham, the northern boundary of the land of Israel was to be the upper division of the river (Gn 15:18; Dt 1:7; 11:24). These boundaries were approximately reached during the period of kings David and Solomon (2 Sm 8:3; 10:16; 1 Kgs 4:24). The Euphrates is called “the river” (Nm 22:5; Dt 11:24; Jos 24:3, 14) or “the great river” (Jos 1:4). People living east of the Euphrates referred to Israel and its surrounding territories to the west as “beyond the river” (Ezr 4:10; Neh 2:7-9). It was to this river that Jeremiah sent Seraiah with a book of prophecies relating to the destruction of Babylon. After reading them, Seraiah was told to throw the book into the Euphrates as a symbol of the way Babylon would sink to rise no more (Jer 51:63).<\/p>\nTwo NT references to the Euphrates appear in the book of Revelation (Rv 9:14; 16:12).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Babylon, Babylonia; Mesopotamia.<\/p>","summary_ro":"EUPHRATES RIVER Largest river in western Asia, formed by the union of two rivers in Asia Minor, the Kara-Su and the Murat-Suyu. Its source is in central Armenia. The river flows generally in a southeasterly direction for some 1,800 miles (2,896.2 kilometers) until it reaches the Persian Gulf. At Korna, about 100 miles (160.9 kilometers) from the gulf, it joins with the Tigris River. The Euphrates is shallow until it combines with the Tigris and can be navigated for about 1,200 miles (1,930.8 ...","summary_en":"EUPHRATES RIVER Largest river in western Asia, formed by the union of two rivers in Asia Minor, the Kara-Su and the Murat-Suyu. Its source is in central Armenia. The river flows generally in a southeasterly direction for some 1,800 miles (2,896.2 kilometers) until it reaches the Persian Gulf. At Korna, about 100 miles (160.9 kilometers) from the gulf, it joins with the Tigris River. The Euphrates is shallow until it combines with the Tigris and can be navigated for about 1,200 miles (1,930.8 ...","source":"Articles\/E.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":16374,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Hiddekel*","title_en":"Hiddekel*","content_ro":"<h3>HIDDEKEL*<\/h3>\nHebrew name for the Tigris River (Gn 2:14; Dn 10:4, kjv<\/span>). See<\/em> Tigris River.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>HIDDEKEL*<\/h3>\nHebrew name for the Tigris River (Gn 2:14; Dn 10:4, kjv<\/span>). See<\/em> Tigris River.<\/p>","summary_ro":"HIDDEKEL* Hebrew name for the Tigris River (Gn 2:14; Dn 10:4, kjv). See Tigris River.","summary_en":"HIDDEKEL* Hebrew name for the Tigris River (Gn 2:14; Dn 10:4, kjv). See Tigris River.","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":37300,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Tigris River","title_en":"Tigris River","content_ro":"<h3>TIGRIS RIVER<\/h3>\nOne of the two major rivers that drains the Mesopotamian plain. Unlike the Euphrates, it is seldom mentioned in the Bible. In the description of the Garden of Eden, it is listed as the third of the four rivers that flowed out of the river that watered the Garden (Gn 2:14). Unfortunately, this reference provides little help concerning the location of Eden. The river is not mentioned again until Daniel 10:4, where Daniel referred to it as the “great river” (kjv<\/span>). Nahum was likely referring to the Tigris when he described the opening of the river gates of Nineveh during the Babylonian siege (Na 2:6).<\/p>\nWhen its two principal tributaries are included, the length of the Tigris is 1,146 miles (1,843.9 kilometers). Its primary source, a mountain lake called Golenjik, is only two or three miles (3.2–4.8 kilometers) from the channel of the Euphrates. As is the case with most of the rivers of the region, the flow of the Tigris varies considerably during the year. Flood season begins in early March, with its peak in early- to mid-May. Though the river is generally navigable, historical records suggest that the river never had great commercial significance. However, it did gain political significance during the period of Assyrian dominance. Nineveh, Asshur, and Calah were all located on the banks of the Tigris. Unfortunately for the Assyrians, the Tigris never proved to be a formidable natural barrier and thus failed to protect the empire from its enemies.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>TIGRIS RIVER<\/h3>\nOne of the two major rivers that drains the Mesopotamian plain. Unlike the Euphrates, it is seldom mentioned in the Bible. In the description of the Garden of Eden, it is listed as the third of the four rivers that flowed out of the river that watered the Garden (Gn 2:14). Unfortunately, this reference provides little help concerning the location of Eden. The river is not mentioned again until Daniel 10:4, where Daniel referred to it as the “great river” (kjv<\/span>). Nahum was likely referring to the Tigris when he described the opening of the river gates of Nineveh during the Babylonian siege (Na 2:6).<\/p>\nWhen its two principal tributaries are included, the length of the Tigris is 1,146 miles (1,843.9 kilometers). Its primary source, a mountain lake called Golenjik, is only two or three miles (3.2–4.8 kilometers) from the channel of the Euphrates. As is the case with most of the rivers of the region, the flow of the Tigris varies considerably during the year. Flood season begins in early March, with its peak in early- to mid-May. Though the river is generally navigable, historical records suggest that the river never had great commercial significance. However, it did gain political significance during the period of Assyrian dominance. Nineveh, Asshur, and Calah were all located on the banks of the Tigris. Unfortunately for the Assyrians, the Tigris never proved to be a formidable natural barrier and thus failed to protect the empire from its enemies.<\/p>","summary_ro":"TIGRIS RIVER One of the two major rivers that drains the Mesopotamian plain. Unlike the Euphrates, it is seldom mentioned in the Bible. In the description of the Garden of Eden, it is listed as the third of the four rivers that flowed out of the river that watered the Garden (Gn 2:14). Unfortunately, this reference provides little help concerning the location of Eden. The river is not mentioned again until Daniel 10:4, where Daniel referred to it as the “great river” (kjv). Nahum was likely r...","summary_en":"TIGRIS RIVER One of the two major rivers that drains the Mesopotamian plain. Unlike the Euphrates, it is seldom mentioned in the Bible. In the description of the Garden of Eden, it is listed as the third of the four rivers that flowed out of the river that watered the Garden (Gn 2:14). Unfortunately, this reference provides little help concerning the location of Eden. The river is not mentioned again until Daniel 10:4, where Daniel referred to it as the “great river” (kjv). Nahum was likely r...","source":"Articles\/T.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":42851,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:14","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:14","content_ro":"2:14<\/strong> Tigris . . . Euphrates:<\/em> These well-known rivers flow from the mountains of eastern Turkey.<\/p>","content_en":"2:14<\/strong> Tigris . . . Euphrates:<\/em> These well-known rivers flow from the mountains of eastern Turkey.<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:14 Tigris . . . Euphrates: These well-known rivers flow from the mountains of eastern Turkey.","summary_en":"2:14 Tigris . . . Euphrates: These well-known rivers flow from the mountains of eastern Turkey.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":70477,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:14","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:14","content_ro":"2:14<\/strong> Tigris . . . Euphrates:<\/em> These well-known rivers flow from the mountains of eastern Turkey.<\/p>","content_en":"2:14<\/strong> Tigris . . . Euphrates:<\/em> These well-known rivers flow from the mountains of eastern Turkey.<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:14 Tigris . . . Euphrates: These well-known rivers flow from the mountains of eastern Turkey.","summary_en":"2:14 Tigris . . . Euphrates: These well-known rivers flow from the mountains of eastern Turkey.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":98103,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:14","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:14","content_ro":"2:14<\/strong> Tigris . . . Euphrates:<\/em> These well-known rivers flow from the mountains of eastern Turkey.<\/p>","content_en":"2:14<\/strong> Tigris . . . Euphrates:<\/em> These well-known rivers flow from the mountains of eastern Turkey.<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:14 Tigris . . . Euphrates: These well-known rivers flow from the mountains of eastern Turkey.","summary_en":"2:14 Tigris . . . Euphrates: These well-known rivers flow from the mountains of eastern Turkey.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":125729,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:14","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:14","content_ro":"2:14<\/strong> Tigris . . . Euphrates:<\/em> These well-known rivers flow from the mountains of eastern Turkey.<\/p>","content_en":"2:14<\/strong> Tigris . . . Euphrates:<\/em> These well-known rivers flow from the mountains of eastern Turkey.<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:14 Tigris . . . Euphrates: These well-known rivers flow from the mountains of eastern Turkey.","summary_en":"2:14 Tigris . . . Euphrates: These well-known rivers flow from the mountains of eastern Turkey.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"15":[{"id":40450,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Adam and Eve","title_en":"Adam and Eve","content_ro":"<h3>Adam and Eve<\/h3>\nAdam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17).<\/p>\nGod created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity that God intended for man and woman in marriage (2:23-25). She is honored as “the mother of all who live” (3:20).<\/p>\nAfter the serpent deceived Eve into rejecting God’s rule, Adam also rebelled (3:1-6). Their willful disobedience disrupted their relationship (3:7) and separated them from God. God looked for Adam after his rebellion; he and Eve were hiding among the trees, already aware of the alienation (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam blamed Eve and, by implication, God (3:12). Their rebellion brought pain, strained relationships, hardship in governing the earth, and death—physical and spiritual (3:16-19, 22-24). Nonetheless, God provided animal skins to cover Adam and Eve (3:21), and promised that Eve’s offspring would defeat Satan (3:15; see Rom 16:20; Rev 12:1-9; 20:1-10).<\/p>\nAdam was a historical individual (Gen 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tim 2:13-14; Jude 1:14) who also represents humanity as a whole. God’s mandates (Gen 1:26-30) and curses (3:16-19) affected not only Adam and Eve, but the entire human race. Adam represents separation from God, which all humanity experiences.<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul contrasted those represented by Adam, the first man, with those who follow Christ, the “last Adam” (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:45-50; see also Rom 8:5-11, 20-22). Those represented by Adam live only after his example—they partake of his sin, his alienation from God and God’s creation, and his spiritual death. By contrast, those who follow Christ live by faith in him. They are recreated in Christ’s image and become “new people” who partake of a new creation (see Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The barriers Adam and Eve raised are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16); Christ restores what they lost.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:26-31; 2:4–3:24; 4:25–5:5; Hos 6:6-7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:22, 45-49; 1 Tim 2:13-14<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Adam and Eve<\/h3>\nAdam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17).<\/p>\nGod created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity that God intended for man and woman in marriage (2:23-25). She is honored as “the mother of all who live” (3:20).<\/p>\nAfter the serpent deceived Eve into rejecting God’s rule, Adam also rebelled (3:1-6). Their willful disobedience disrupted their relationship (3:7) and separated them from God. God looked for Adam after his rebellion; he and Eve were hiding among the trees, already aware of the alienation (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam blamed Eve and, by implication, God (3:12). Their rebellion brought pain, strained relationships, hardship in governing the earth, and death—physical and spiritual (3:16-19, 22-24). Nonetheless, God provided animal skins to cover Adam and Eve (3:21), and promised that Eve’s offspring would defeat Satan (3:15; see Rom 16:20; Rev 12:1-9; 20:1-10).<\/p>\nAdam was a historical individual (Gen 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tim 2:13-14; Jude 1:14) who also represents humanity as a whole. God’s mandates (Gen 1:26-30) and curses (3:16-19) affected not only Adam and Eve, but the entire human race. Adam represents separation from God, which all humanity experiences.<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul contrasted those represented by Adam, the first man, with those who follow Christ, the “last Adam” (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:45-50; see also Rom 8:5-11, 20-22). Those represented by Adam live only after his example—they partake of his sin, his alienation from God and God’s creation, and his spiritual death. By contrast, those who follow Christ live by faith in him. They are recreated in Christ’s image and become “new people” who partake of a new creation (see Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The barriers Adam and Eve raised are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16); Christ restores what they lost.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:26-31; 2:4–3:24; 4:25–5:5; Hos 6:6-7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:22, 45-49; 1 Tim 2:13-14<\/p>","summary_ro":"Adam and Eve Adam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17). God created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity...","summary_en":"Adam and Eve Adam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17). God created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":68076,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Adam and Eve","title_en":"Adam and Eve","content_ro":"<h3>Adam and Eve<\/h3>\nAdam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17).<\/p>\nGod created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity that God intended for man and woman in marriage (2:23-25). She is honored as “the mother of all who live” (3:20).<\/p>\nAfter the serpent deceived Eve into rejecting God’s rule, Adam also rebelled (3:1-6). Their willful disobedience disrupted their relationship (3:7) and separated them from God. God looked for Adam after his rebellion; he and Eve were hiding among the trees, already aware of the alienation (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam blamed Eve and, by implication, God (3:12). Their rebellion brought pain, strained relationships, hardship in governing the earth, and death—physical and spiritual (3:16-19, 22-24). Nonetheless, God provided animal skins to cover Adam and Eve (3:21), and promised that Eve’s offspring would defeat Satan (3:15; see Rom 16:20; Rev 12:1-9; 20:1-10).<\/p>\nAdam was a historical individual (Gen 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tim 2:13-14; Jude 1:14) who also represents humanity as a whole. God’s mandates (Gen 1:26-30) and curses (3:16-19) affected not only Adam and Eve, but the entire human race. Adam represents separation from God, which all humanity experiences.<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul contrasted those represented by Adam, the first man, with those who follow Christ, the “last Adam” (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:45-50; see also Rom 8:5-11, 20-22). Those represented by Adam live only after his example—they partake of his sin, his alienation from God and God’s creation, and his spiritual death. By contrast, those who follow Christ live by faith in him. They are recreated in Christ’s image and become “new people” who partake of a new creation (see Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The barriers Adam and Eve raised are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16); Christ restores what they lost.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:26-31; 2:4–3:24; 4:25–5:5; Hos 6:6-7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:22, 45-49; 1 Tim 2:13-14<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Adam and Eve<\/h3>\nAdam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17).<\/p>\nGod created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity that God intended for man and woman in marriage (2:23-25). She is honored as “the mother of all who live” (3:20).<\/p>\nAfter the serpent deceived Eve into rejecting God’s rule, Adam also rebelled (3:1-6). Their willful disobedience disrupted their relationship (3:7) and separated them from God. God looked for Adam after his rebellion; he and Eve were hiding among the trees, already aware of the alienation (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam blamed Eve and, by implication, God (3:12). Their rebellion brought pain, strained relationships, hardship in governing the earth, and death—physical and spiritual (3:16-19, 22-24). Nonetheless, God provided animal skins to cover Adam and Eve (3:21), and promised that Eve’s offspring would defeat Satan (3:15; see Rom 16:20; Rev 12:1-9; 20:1-10).<\/p>\nAdam was a historical individual (Gen 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tim 2:13-14; Jude 1:14) who also represents humanity as a whole. God’s mandates (Gen 1:26-30) and curses (3:16-19) affected not only Adam and Eve, but the entire human race. Adam represents separation from God, which all humanity experiences.<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul contrasted those represented by Adam, the first man, with those who follow Christ, the “last Adam” (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:45-50; see also Rom 8:5-11, 20-22). Those represented by Adam live only after his example—they partake of his sin, his alienation from God and God’s creation, and his spiritual death. By contrast, those who follow Christ live by faith in him. They are recreated in Christ’s image and become “new people” who partake of a new creation (see Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The barriers Adam and Eve raised are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16); Christ restores what they lost.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:26-31; 2:4–3:24; 4:25–5:5; Hos 6:6-7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:22, 45-49; 1 Tim 2:13-14<\/p>","summary_ro":"Adam and Eve Adam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17). God created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity...","summary_en":"Adam and Eve Adam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17). God created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":95702,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Adam and Eve","title_en":"Adam and Eve","content_ro":"<h3>Adam and Eve<\/h3>\nAdam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17).<\/p>\nGod created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity that God intended for man and woman in marriage (2:23-25). She is honored as “the mother of all who live” (3:20).<\/p>\nAfter the serpent deceived Eve into rejecting God’s rule, Adam also rebelled (3:1-6). Their willful disobedience disrupted their relationship (3:7) and separated them from God. God looked for Adam after his rebellion; he and Eve were hiding among the trees, already aware of the alienation (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam blamed Eve and, by implication, God (3:12). Their rebellion brought pain, strained relationships, hardship in governing the earth, and death—physical and spiritual (3:16-19, 22-24). Nonetheless, God provided animal skins to cover Adam and Eve (3:21), and promised that Eve’s offspring would defeat Satan (3:15; see Rom 16:20; Rev 12:1-9; 20:1-10).<\/p>\nAdam was a historical individual (Gen 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tim 2:13-14; Jude 1:14) who also represents humanity as a whole. God’s mandates (Gen 1:26-30) and curses (3:16-19) affected not only Adam and Eve, but the entire human race. Adam represents separation from God, which all humanity experiences.<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul contrasted those represented by Adam, the first man, with those who follow Christ, the “last Adam” (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:45-50; see also Rom 8:5-11, 20-22). Those represented by Adam live only after his example—they partake of his sin, his alienation from God and God’s creation, and his spiritual death. By contrast, those who follow Christ live by faith in him. They are recreated in Christ’s image and become “new people” who partake of a new creation (see Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The barriers Adam and Eve raised are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16); Christ restores what they lost.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:26-31; 2:4–3:24; 4:25–5:5; Hos 6:6-7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:22, 45-49; 1 Tim 2:13-14<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Adam and Eve<\/h3>\nAdam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17).<\/p>\nGod created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity that God intended for man and woman in marriage (2:23-25). She is honored as “the mother of all who live” (3:20).<\/p>\nAfter the serpent deceived Eve into rejecting God’s rule, Adam also rebelled (3:1-6). Their willful disobedience disrupted their relationship (3:7) and separated them from God. God looked for Adam after his rebellion; he and Eve were hiding among the trees, already aware of the alienation (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam blamed Eve and, by implication, God (3:12). Their rebellion brought pain, strained relationships, hardship in governing the earth, and death—physical and spiritual (3:16-19, 22-24). Nonetheless, God provided animal skins to cover Adam and Eve (3:21), and promised that Eve’s offspring would defeat Satan (3:15; see Rom 16:20; Rev 12:1-9; 20:1-10).<\/p>\nAdam was a historical individual (Gen 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tim 2:13-14; Jude 1:14) who also represents humanity as a whole. God’s mandates (Gen 1:26-30) and curses (3:16-19) affected not only Adam and Eve, but the entire human race. Adam represents separation from God, which all humanity experiences.<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul contrasted those represented by Adam, the first man, with those who follow Christ, the “last Adam” (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:45-50; see also Rom 8:5-11, 20-22). Those represented by Adam live only after his example—they partake of his sin, his alienation from God and God’s creation, and his spiritual death. By contrast, those who follow Christ live by faith in him. They are recreated in Christ’s image and become “new people” who partake of a new creation (see Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The barriers Adam and Eve raised are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16); Christ restores what they lost.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:26-31; 2:4–3:24; 4:25–5:5; Hos 6:6-7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:22, 45-49; 1 Tim 2:13-14<\/p>","summary_ro":"Adam and Eve Adam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17). God created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity...","summary_en":"Adam and Eve Adam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17). God created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":123328,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Adam and Eve","title_en":"Adam and Eve","content_ro":"<h3>Adam and Eve<\/h3>\nAdam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17).<\/p>\nGod created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity that God intended for man and woman in marriage (2:23-25). She is honored as “the mother of all who live” (3:20).<\/p>\nAfter the serpent deceived Eve into rejecting God’s rule, Adam also rebelled (3:1-6). Their willful disobedience disrupted their relationship (3:7) and separated them from God. God looked for Adam after his rebellion; he and Eve were hiding among the trees, already aware of the alienation (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam blamed Eve and, by implication, God (3:12). Their rebellion brought pain, strained relationships, hardship in governing the earth, and death—physical and spiritual (3:16-19, 22-24). Nonetheless, God provided animal skins to cover Adam and Eve (3:21), and promised that Eve’s offspring would defeat Satan (3:15; see Rom 16:20; Rev 12:1-9; 20:1-10).<\/p>\nAdam was a historical individual (Gen 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tim 2:13-14; Jude 1:14) who also represents humanity as a whole. God’s mandates (Gen 1:26-30) and curses (3:16-19) affected not only Adam and Eve, but the entire human race. Adam represents separation from God, which all humanity experiences.<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul contrasted those represented by Adam, the first man, with those who follow Christ, the “last Adam” (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:45-50; see also Rom 8:5-11, 20-22). Those represented by Adam live only after his example—they partake of his sin, his alienation from God and God’s creation, and his spiritual death. By contrast, those who follow Christ live by faith in him. They are recreated in Christ’s image and become “new people” who partake of a new creation (see Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The barriers Adam and Eve raised are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16); Christ restores what they lost.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:26-31; 2:4–3:24; 4:25–5:5; Hos 6:6-7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:22, 45-49; 1 Tim 2:13-14<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Adam and Eve<\/h3>\nAdam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17).<\/p>\nGod created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity that God intended for man and woman in marriage (2:23-25). She is honored as “the mother of all who live” (3:20).<\/p>\nAfter the serpent deceived Eve into rejecting God’s rule, Adam also rebelled (3:1-6). Their willful disobedience disrupted their relationship (3:7) and separated them from God. God looked for Adam after his rebellion; he and Eve were hiding among the trees, already aware of the alienation (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam blamed Eve and, by implication, God (3:12). Their rebellion brought pain, strained relationships, hardship in governing the earth, and death—physical and spiritual (3:16-19, 22-24). Nonetheless, God provided animal skins to cover Adam and Eve (3:21), and promised that Eve’s offspring would defeat Satan (3:15; see Rom 16:20; Rev 12:1-9; 20:1-10).<\/p>\nAdam was a historical individual (Gen 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tim 2:13-14; Jude 1:14) who also represents humanity as a whole. God’s mandates (Gen 1:26-30) and curses (3:16-19) affected not only Adam and Eve, but the entire human race. Adam represents separation from God, which all humanity experiences.<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul contrasted those represented by Adam, the first man, with those who follow Christ, the “last Adam” (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:45-50; see also Rom 8:5-11, 20-22). Those represented by Adam live only after his example—they partake of his sin, his alienation from God and God’s creation, and his spiritual death. By contrast, those who follow Christ live by faith in him. They are recreated in Christ’s image and become “new people” who partake of a new creation (see Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The barriers Adam and Eve raised are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16); Christ restores what they lost.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:26-31; 2:4–3:24; 4:25–5:5; Hos 6:6-7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:22, 45-49; 1 Tim 2:13-14<\/p>","summary_ro":"Adam and Eve Adam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17). God created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity...","summary_en":"Adam and Eve Adam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17). God created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":8022,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Creation","title_en":"Creation","content_ro":"<h3>CREATION<\/h3>\nThe divine act of making something out of nothing; the divine act of bringing the world into ordered existence. Human beings unaided by divine revelation cannot arrive at the biblical doctrine of Creation by theological, philosophical, or scientific speculation. According to the Bible, knowledge of Creation must come by God’s revelation (cf. Heb 11:3).<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Understanding Creation<\/p>\n• Creation and Theology<\/p>\n• Creation and Science<\/p>\n• The Issues Surrounding Evolution<\/p>\nCreation, Science, and Morality<\/p>\nUnderstanding Creation<\/p>\nTo start a discussion about Creation with a comparison of the Genesis record and modern science is to begin at the wrong place. One should first ask what the Creation account would have meant to a Hebrew person in Bible times; then one should ask what use the prophets of Israel made of the doctrine of Creation. The following are some points to be noted.<\/p>\n1. Creation was a conquering of chaos. Most creation accounts from the ancient world began with a primeval chaos. The God who could conquer chaos was understood as the true and living God. Genesis 1 is a magnificent account of how the God of Israel brought the chaos of Genesis 1:2 into an ordered cosmos.<\/p>\n<li>2. Creation was prompted by God’s good will. It was the free act of God. It is good (Gn 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31). On the basis of that fact, Christians assert that life is a gift of God. The Christian affirmation stands against all the nihilisms and pessimisms found in religious and philosophical history.<\/li>\n<li>3. Creation is under the shadow of sin (Rom 8:18-25). Scripture teaches that creation today is not seen in its original pristine purity but rather is seen as a world with a large measure of ambiguity.<\/li>\n<li>4. Creation is dependent upon God. The relationship of God to his creation is set out in Ephesians 4:6. God is above all; that is, he is transcendent. God is through all; that is, he works in all things. God is in all; that is, he is divinely present or immanent in the entire creation (Ps 90:1-4; cf. Jn 1:3; 1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:16-17).<\/li>\n<li>5. Creation is by the word of God (Gn 1; Heb 11:3). Students of literature have said that the creation of the world by the “word of God” is one of the most sublime of all human thoughts. Among other things it means creation by a Person. The vast expanse of the universe and the enormous number of stars and galaxies can numb a thoughtful person into a sense of meaninglessness. But when one knows that it was all created by the word of God, one knows that a Person is behind the frigid mask of the stellar spaces (Pss 8; 19; Rom 1:20).<\/li>\n<li>6. Creation as depicted in the Bible stands up to critical examination. Scholars have studied parallel accounts of other peoples of biblical times, and none of them has the majesty and theological purity of the Genesis account.<\/li>\nCreation and Theology<\/p>\nThe doctrine of Creation is built on the sum of all the biblical teachings on Creation. Examination of that material leads to a number of conclusions.<\/p>\n1. The doctrine of Creation gives us our fundamental understanding of humanity. Men and women are in the image of God (Gn 1:26-27). That means, at least, that a human being is more than an animal, even though both were created from the dust of the earth and have much in common. Many conjectures have been made about the positive meaning of the expression “image of God.” If there is a common denominator, it is that human beings find their meaning, their destiny, and their worth in their special relationship to God.<\/p>\n<li>2. Parallel to the statement of humanity’s relationship to God is the affirmation that humanity is to be lord of God’s creation. Again, human beings are separated from the animal world, and their responsibility before God is specified (Gn 1:28; 2:15; Ps 8).<\/li>\n<li>3. Both male and female are in the image of God. That means that the divine image is borne equally by both sexes. It also means that sexuality in human beings has many more dimensions than sexuality among animals. The sexual life of human beings is therefore vastly richer than that of animals and subject to deeper corruption (Mk 10:2-9; 1 Cor 7:1-5; Eph 5:25-31; cf. Heb 13:4).<\/li>\n<li>4. The doctrine of prayer as “asking and receiving” is grounded in the providence of God, which in turn is grounded in Creation. There is meaning in petitionary prayer only if there is a sovereign Creator who can answer the petitions of his own creatures (Mt 6:5-13; Col 4:2; 1 Pt 5:6-7; Rv 8:3).<\/li>\n<li>5. The history of humanity and of Israel begins with Genesis 1. Creation begins history; it is not merely the premise of history. The God of Creation is the God of Abraham, of Moses, of the prophets, and of Jesus Christ.<\/li>\n<li>6. Creation is a witness to the existence and nature of God (Ps 19; Rom 1:18-19). In theology the expression used is “general revelation.” “General” means that it is a revelation witnessed by all people.<\/li>\n<li>7. Creation is a total creation. The Genesis account mentions certain bodies in the skies, certain creatures in the seas, certain plant and animal life on the earth. The number of species runs into the millions. Genesis does not attempt to list them but merely suggests such a list. God has made all that there is (cf. Jn 1:1-2). Therefore, there is never a threat to the believer in the Lord from any part of the universe. There is only one Lord, not many gods and lords, to whom all are called in obedience. The personal meaning is found in Romans 8:38-39, where the apostle Paul searches the entire universe and can find nothing in it, anywhere or at any time, that can separate a believer from the love of God in Christ.<\/li>\n<li>8. The chief theological use of the doctrine of Creation in the OT is to label idolatry for the sin that it is. Idolatry is the primeval lie and it leads to immorality, making a lie of one’s life.<\/li>\n<li>9. One of the remarkable doctrines of the NT is the “cosmic Christ”—which means he is the Creator and Sustainer of the universe (Jn 1:1-2; Col 1:16-17; Heb 1:3). The purpose of linking Christ with Creation is to show that he is more than a first-century Jew from Palestine.<\/li>\nCreation and Science<\/p>\nDoes science prove Creation? Some scientists have thought that the innumerable conditions necessary for life, which do as a matter of fact exist on the earth, is such a proof. That argument has been called “cosmic theology.”<\/p>\nAnother so-called proof of Creation from science is the “big bang” theory of the origin of the universe. Although that view has forged ahead of its competitors, it is a theory of “first states” and not of the absolute origin of all things. The Christian doctrine of creation from nothing (Latin, ex nihilo<\/em>) means more than that: it means that the absolute origin, sustaining, and meaning of all things is in the living Lord of Israel and of the church.<\/p>\nAnother argument comes from the second law of thermodynamics and the concept of entropy. (Entropy refers to the leveling off of energy or temperature to a state in which no energy is available.) Heat systems cool off. The universe is not infinitely old or it would now be cool. Since there are still stars and suns, the universe must have been created a finite time ago. A related argument is that it was necessary to create a universe that would run down. In so running down, it supplies heat to the earth so that the drama of God and man could unfold.<\/p>\nThe Issues Surrounding Evolution<\/p>\nWhen Charles Darwin proposed biological evolution in the middle of the 19th century, many evangelical Christians took exception to it. They objected even more strenuously when books were written about human evolution. Two famous debates resulted from that controversy. In England the issue was debated in 1860 before the British Association at Oxford. That debate pitted Bishop Samuel Wilberforce (against the theory) against T. H. Huxley (for the theory). Although there was no formal decision, sentiment was with Huxley. The second debate was the famous Scopes trial in Dayton, Tennessee, in 1925. William Jennings Bryan defended the law that said that John T. Scopes should be found guilty of teaching evolution in the classroom. Clarence Darrow defended Scopes. Again, the sentiment was with the proponent of evolution, Darrow (although Bryan gave a sturdier defense of his beliefs than is generally acknowledged).<\/p>\nBoth orthodox Roman Catholics and evangelical Protestants have taken various views of the controversy, of which only a few can be mentioned.<\/p>\n1. Some argue that evolution is contrary to the teachings of Scripture and is—in the name of science—actually the supreme defiance of Scripture’s authority. Thus, no quarter must ever be given in the battle against evolution.<\/p>\n<li>2. Others find a satisfactory resolution in “theistic evolution”—that is, God began the evolutionary process.<\/li>\n<li>3. Many see the parallels between the order of fossil-bearing strata in the so-called “geological column” and the six days of Creation as too close to be accidental. For them there is essential harmony between “Genesis and geology.”<\/li>\n<li>4. Many regard evolution as a theory like all other theories, which will be made or broken in the laboratory or in fieldwork. They see the doctrine of Creation as neither for nor against evolution. It is on a different level of explanation: “Science tells how; Scripture tells why.”<\/li>\n<li>5. Jesuit paleontologist Teilhard de Chardin attempted to save Christianity from evolution by “christifying” the whole evolutionary process.<\/li>\n<li>6. British author C. S. Lewis, among others, distinguished evolution from what might be called “evolutionism.” Lewis said that the validity of evolution as a narrow scientific thesis is for scientists to decide. But the notion of a total, all-encompassing evolutionary myth, as a human pseudodoctrine of Creation, is clearly not scientific.<\/li>\nCreation, Science, and Morality<\/p>\nThe growth of world population and the spread of industrialization have produced the problem of local and worldwide pollution. The ecological crisis has been said by some scholars to be the fault of Christian faith, which inspired man—as the “lord of creation”—to exploit creation. But that is hardly the meaning of Genesis 1:28, which is an injunction to responsibility. A number of OT texts show clearly that the concern of Scripture is for human responsibility in God’s world; hence, Scripture parallels modern ecological concerns.<\/p>\nScience stretches theological understanding by continually revising our knowledge of the universe, but the biblical doctrine of Creation does not retreat as science advances. For the Christian, the world studied by scientists and pondered by philosophers remains God’s created world.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Creation Myths; God, Being and Attributes of.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>CREATION<\/h3>\nThe divine act of making something out of nothing; the divine act of bringing the world into ordered existence. Human beings unaided by divine revelation cannot arrive at the biblical doctrine of Creation by theological, philosophical, or scientific speculation. According to the Bible, knowledge of Creation must come by God’s revelation (cf. Heb 11:3).<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Understanding Creation<\/p>\n• Creation and Theology<\/p>\n• Creation and Science<\/p>\n• The Issues Surrounding Evolution<\/p>\nCreation, Science, and Morality<\/p>\nUnderstanding Creation<\/p>\nTo start a discussion about Creation with a comparison of the Genesis record and modern science is to begin at the wrong place. One should first ask what the Creation account would have meant to a Hebrew person in Bible times; then one should ask what use the prophets of Israel made of the doctrine of Creation. The following are some points to be noted.<\/p>\n1. Creation was a conquering of chaos. Most creation accounts from the ancient world began with a primeval chaos. The God who could conquer chaos was understood as the true and living God. Genesis 1 is a magnificent account of how the God of Israel brought the chaos of Genesis 1:2 into an ordered cosmos.<\/p>\n<li>2. Creation was prompted by God’s good will. It was the free act of God. It is good (Gn 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31). On the basis of that fact, Christians assert that life is a gift of God. The Christian affirmation stands against all the nihilisms and pessimisms found in religious and philosophical history.<\/li>\n<li>3. Creation is under the shadow of sin (Rom 8:18-25). Scripture teaches that creation today is not seen in its original pristine purity but rather is seen as a world with a large measure of ambiguity.<\/li>\n<li>4. Creation is dependent upon God. The relationship of God to his creation is set out in Ephesians 4:6. God is above all; that is, he is transcendent. God is through all; that is, he works in all things. God is in all; that is, he is divinely present or immanent in the entire creation (Ps 90:1-4; cf. Jn 1:3; 1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:16-17).<\/li>\n<li>5. Creation is by the word of God (Gn 1; Heb 11:3). Students of literature have said that the creation of the world by the “word of God” is one of the most sublime of all human thoughts. Among other things it means creation by a Person. The vast expanse of the universe and the enormous number of stars and galaxies can numb a thoughtful person into a sense of meaninglessness. But when one knows that it was all created by the word of God, one knows that a Person is behind the frigid mask of the stellar spaces (Pss 8; 19; Rom 1:20).<\/li>\n<li>6. Creation as depicted in the Bible stands up to critical examination. Scholars have studied parallel accounts of other peoples of biblical times, and none of them has the majesty and theological purity of the Genesis account.<\/li>\nCreation and Theology<\/p>\nThe doctrine of Creation is built on the sum of all the biblical teachings on Creation. Examination of that material leads to a number of conclusions.<\/p>\n1. The doctrine of Creation gives us our fundamental understanding of humanity. Men and women are in the image of God (Gn 1:26-27). That means, at least, that a human being is more than an animal, even though both were created from the dust of the earth and have much in common. Many conjectures have been made about the positive meaning of the expression “image of God.” If there is a common denominator, it is that human beings find their meaning, their destiny, and their worth in their special relationship to God.<\/p>\n<li>2. Parallel to the statement of humanity’s relationship to God is the affirmation that humanity is to be lord of God’s creation. Again, human beings are separated from the animal world, and their responsibility before God is specified (Gn 1:28; 2:15; Ps 8).<\/li>\n<li>3. Both male and female are in the image of God. That means that the divine image is borne equally by both sexes. It also means that sexuality in human beings has many more dimensions than sexuality among animals. The sexual life of human beings is therefore vastly richer than that of animals and subject to deeper corruption (Mk 10:2-9; 1 Cor 7:1-5; Eph 5:25-31; cf. Heb 13:4).<\/li>\n<li>4. The doctrine of prayer as “asking and receiving” is grounded in the providence of God, which in turn is grounded in Creation. There is meaning in petitionary prayer only if there is a sovereign Creator who can answer the petitions of his own creatures (Mt 6:5-13; Col 4:2; 1 Pt 5:6-7; Rv 8:3).<\/li>\n<li>5. The history of humanity and of Israel begins with Genesis 1. Creation begins history; it is not merely the premise of history. The God of Creation is the God of Abraham, of Moses, of the prophets, and of Jesus Christ.<\/li>\n<li>6. Creation is a witness to the existence and nature of God (Ps 19; Rom 1:18-19). In theology the expression used is “general revelation.” “General” means that it is a revelation witnessed by all people.<\/li>\n<li>7. Creation is a total creation. The Genesis account mentions certain bodies in the skies, certain creatures in the seas, certain plant and animal life on the earth. The number of species runs into the millions. Genesis does not attempt to list them but merely suggests such a list. God has made all that there is (cf. Jn 1:1-2). Therefore, there is never a threat to the believer in the Lord from any part of the universe. There is only one Lord, not many gods and lords, to whom all are called in obedience. The personal meaning is found in Romans 8:38-39, where the apostle Paul searches the entire universe and can find nothing in it, anywhere or at any time, that can separate a believer from the love of God in Christ.<\/li>\n<li>8. The chief theological use of the doctrine of Creation in the OT is to label idolatry for the sin that it is. Idolatry is the primeval lie and it leads to immorality, making a lie of one’s life.<\/li>\n<li>9. One of the remarkable doctrines of the NT is the “cosmic Christ”—which means he is the Creator and Sustainer of the universe (Jn 1:1-2; Col 1:16-17; Heb 1:3). The purpose of linking Christ with Creation is to show that he is more than a first-century Jew from Palestine.<\/li>\nCreation and Science<\/p>\nDoes science prove Creation? Some scientists have thought that the innumerable conditions necessary for life, which do as a matter of fact exist on the earth, is such a proof. That argument has been called “cosmic theology.”<\/p>\nAnother so-called proof of Creation from science is the “big bang” theory of the origin of the universe. Although that view has forged ahead of its competitors, it is a theory of “first states” and not of the absolute origin of all things. The Christian doctrine of creation from nothing (Latin, ex nihilo<\/em>) means more than that: it means that the absolute origin, sustaining, and meaning of all things is in the living Lord of Israel and of the church.<\/p>\nAnother argument comes from the second law of thermodynamics and the concept of entropy. (Entropy refers to the leveling off of energy or temperature to a state in which no energy is available.) Heat systems cool off. The universe is not infinitely old or it would now be cool. Since there are still stars and suns, the universe must have been created a finite time ago. A related argument is that it was necessary to create a universe that would run down. In so running down, it supplies heat to the earth so that the drama of God and man could unfold.<\/p>\nThe Issues Surrounding Evolution<\/p>\nWhen Charles Darwin proposed biological evolution in the middle of the 19th century, many evangelical Christians took exception to it. They objected even more strenuously when books were written about human evolution. Two famous debates resulted from that controversy. In England the issue was debated in 1860 before the British Association at Oxford. That debate pitted Bishop Samuel Wilberforce (against the theory) against T. H. Huxley (for the theory). Although there was no formal decision, sentiment was with Huxley. The second debate was the famous Scopes trial in Dayton, Tennessee, in 1925. William Jennings Bryan defended the law that said that John T. Scopes should be found guilty of teaching evolution in the classroom. Clarence Darrow defended Scopes. Again, the sentiment was with the proponent of evolution, Darrow (although Bryan gave a sturdier defense of his beliefs than is generally acknowledged).<\/p>\nBoth orthodox Roman Catholics and evangelical Protestants have taken various views of the controversy, of which only a few can be mentioned.<\/p>\n1. Some argue that evolution is contrary to the teachings of Scripture and is—in the name of science—actually the supreme defiance of Scripture’s authority. Thus, no quarter must ever be given in the battle against evolution.<\/p>\n<li>2. Others find a satisfactory resolution in “theistic evolution”—that is, God began the evolutionary process.<\/li>\n<li>3. Many see the parallels between the order of fossil-bearing strata in the so-called “geological column” and the six days of Creation as too close to be accidental. For them there is essential harmony between “Genesis and geology.”<\/li>\n<li>4. Many regard evolution as a theory like all other theories, which will be made or broken in the laboratory or in fieldwork. They see the doctrine of Creation as neither for nor against evolution. It is on a different level of explanation: “Science tells how; Scripture tells why.”<\/li>\n<li>5. Jesuit paleontologist Teilhard de Chardin attempted to save Christianity from evolution by “christifying” the whole evolutionary process.<\/li>\n<li>6. British author C. S. Lewis, among others, distinguished evolution from what might be called “evolutionism.” Lewis said that the validity of evolution as a narrow scientific thesis is for scientists to decide. But the notion of a total, all-encompassing evolutionary myth, as a human pseudodoctrine of Creation, is clearly not scientific.<\/li>\nCreation, Science, and Morality<\/p>\nThe growth of world population and the spread of industrialization have produced the problem of local and worldwide pollution. The ecological crisis has been said by some scholars to be the fault of Christian faith, which inspired man—as the “lord of creation”—to exploit creation. But that is hardly the meaning of Genesis 1:28, which is an injunction to responsibility. A number of OT texts show clearly that the concern of Scripture is for human responsibility in God’s world; hence, Scripture parallels modern ecological concerns.<\/p>\nScience stretches theological understanding by continually revising our knowledge of the universe, but the biblical doctrine of Creation does not retreat as science advances. For the Christian, the world studied by scientists and pondered by philosophers remains God’s created world.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Creation Myths; God, Being and Attributes of.<\/p>","summary_ro":"CREATION The divine act of making something out of nothing; the divine act of bringing the world into ordered existence. Human beings unaided by divine revelation cannot arrive at the biblical doctrine of Creation by theological, philosophical, or scientific speculation. According to the Bible, knowledge of Creation must come by God’s revelation (cf. Heb 11:3). Preview • Understanding Creation • Creation and Theology • Creation and Science • The Issues Surrounding Evolution Creation, Science,...","summary_en":"CREATION The divine act of making something out of nothing; the divine act of bringing the world into ordered existence. Human beings unaided by divine revelation cannot arrive at the biblical doctrine of Creation by theological, philosophical, or scientific speculation. According to the Bible, knowledge of Creation must come by God’s revelation (cf. Heb 11:3). Preview • Understanding Creation • Creation and Theology • Creation and Science • The Issues Surrounding Evolution Creation, Science,...","source":"Articles\/C.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":24182,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Old and New Man","title_en":"Old and New Man","content_ro":"<h3>MAN, Old and New<\/h3>\nBiblical terms used to describe the state of man in relation to Christ. Human beings are created in the image of God and are made to have fellowship with him (Gn 1:26-27). God made known to Adam and Eve his will in a specific situation (2:15-17), yet they used the freedom of their will to disobey God’s command (3:1-7). So the human race is dead in sin (Rom 5:12-21; Eph 2:1-3). The sin of Adam and Eve has been passed on to all humanity (original sin). Born with the tendency toward sin (Ps 51:5), as soon as the age of moral responsibility is reached, individuals begin to commit their own sins. Paul uses the term “old man” to refer to this condition. The old man can keep certain parts of the law and do various good things. But no old man can ever do enough good things to earn his own salvation. The old man must be made into a new man or he will suffer the consequences of his sin. Only God can bring about that radical change. Human beings can only accept by faith God’s gracious gift.<\/p>\nDavid, in Psalm 51, cries out for God to take away the guilt of his sins. In verse 10 he pleads, “Create in me a clean heart, O God, and put a new and right spirit within me” (rsv<\/span>). God promises in Ezekiel 11:19, 18:31, and 36:26 to give repentant sinners a new heart and a new spirit. In Romans 6:5-11 Paul shows how the old nature has been crucified with Christ, so he can conclude, “So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus” (6:11). In Ephesians 4:22-24 and Colossians 3:9-10 he shows the believer that he has put off the old man and put on the new man. Jesus speaks of this radical transformation as being born anew—not a second physical birth, as Nicodemus thought, but a spiritual birth (Jn 3:6). Only the grace of God can change the old man into the new man. The old man accepts God’s gracious gift by faith, but even that faith is a gift of God (Eph 2:8). The new man becomes a child of God. He does not immediately become perfect. He must fight against sin throughout this life as he strives to come closer and closer to the ideal of perfect holiness. He will attain that perfection only in the resurrection to come (1 Cor 15:42-45), when all things are made new (Rv 21:5).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Adam (Person); Man; Man, Natural; Regeneration.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MAN, Old and New<\/h3>\nBiblical terms used to describe the state of man in relation to Christ. Human beings are created in the image of God and are made to have fellowship with him (Gn 1:26-27). God made known to Adam and Eve his will in a specific situation (2:15-17), yet they used the freedom of their will to disobey God’s command (3:1-7). So the human race is dead in sin (Rom 5:12-21; Eph 2:1-3). The sin of Adam and Eve has been passed on to all humanity (original sin). Born with the tendency toward sin (Ps 51:5), as soon as the age of moral responsibility is reached, individuals begin to commit their own sins. Paul uses the term “old man” to refer to this condition. The old man can keep certain parts of the law and do various good things. But no old man can ever do enough good things to earn his own salvation. The old man must be made into a new man or he will suffer the consequences of his sin. Only God can bring about that radical change. Human beings can only accept by faith God’s gracious gift.<\/p>\nDavid, in Psalm 51, cries out for God to take away the guilt of his sins. In verse 10 he pleads, “Create in me a clean heart, O God, and put a new and right spirit within me” (rsv<\/span>). God promises in Ezekiel 11:19, 18:31, and 36:26 to give repentant sinners a new heart and a new spirit. In Romans 6:5-11 Paul shows how the old nature has been crucified with Christ, so he can conclude, “So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus” (6:11). In Ephesians 4:22-24 and Colossians 3:9-10 he shows the believer that he has put off the old man and put on the new man. Jesus speaks of this radical transformation as being born anew—not a second physical birth, as Nicodemus thought, but a spiritual birth (Jn 3:6). Only the grace of God can change the old man into the new man. The old man accepts God’s gracious gift by faith, but even that faith is a gift of God (Eph 2:8). The new man becomes a child of God. He does not immediately become perfect. He must fight against sin throughout this life as he strives to come closer and closer to the ideal of perfect holiness. He will attain that perfection only in the resurrection to come (1 Cor 15:42-45), when all things are made new (Rv 21:5).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Adam (Person); Man; Man, Natural; Regeneration.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MAN, Old and New Biblical terms used to describe the state of man in relation to Christ. Human beings are created in the image of God and are made to have fellowship with him (Gn 1:26-27). God made known to Adam and Eve his will in a specific situation (2:15-17), yet they used the freedom of their will to disobey God’s command (3:1-7). So the human race is dead in sin (Rom 5:12-21; Eph 2:1-3). The sin of Adam and Eve has been passed on to all humanity (original sin). Born with the tendency to...","summary_en":"MAN, Old and New Biblical terms used to describe the state of man in relation to Christ. Human beings are created in the image of God and are made to have fellowship with him (Gn 1:26-27). God made known to Adam and Eve his will in a specific situation (2:15-17), yet they used the freedom of their will to disobey God’s command (3:1-7). So the human race is dead in sin (Rom 5:12-21; Eph 2:1-3). The sin of Adam and Eve has been passed on to all humanity (original sin). Born with the tendency to...","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":38638,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Work","title_en":"Work","content_ro":"<h3>WORK<\/h3>\nA term referring either to God’s activity or to people’s regular occupation or employment.<\/p>\nThe Value of Work<\/p>\nThe Bible’s positive outlook on work is rooted in its teaching about God. Unlike other ancient religious writings, which regarded creation as something beneath the dignity of the Supreme Being, Scripture unashamedly describes God as a worker. Like a manual laborer, he made the universe as “the work of his fingers” (Ps 8:3). He worked with his raw material just as a potter works with the clay (Is 45:9). The intricate development of the unborn child in the womb and the vast, magnificent spread of the sky both display his supreme craftsmanship (Pss 139:13-16; 19:1). In fact, all creation bears witness to his wisdom and skill (104:24). The almighty Creator even had his rest day (Gn 2:2-3) and enjoyed job satisfaction when surveying his achievements at the end of the week (1:31).<\/p>\nThis vivid biblical description of a working God reaches its climax with the incarnation of Jesus. The “work” that Jesus was given to do (Jn 4:34) was, of course, the unique task of redemption. But he was also a worker in the ordinary sense. His contemporaries knew him as “a carpenter” (Mk 6:3). In NT times carpentry and joinery were muscle-building trades. So the Jesus who stormed through the temple, overturning tables and driving out the men and animals (Jn 2:14-16), was no pale weakling but a workingman whose hands had been hardened by years of toil with the ax, saw, and hammer. Hard, physical labor was not beneath the dignity of the Son of God.<\/p>\nIf the Bible’s teaching about God enhances work’s dignity, its account of mankind’s creation gives all human labor the mark of normality. God “took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to till it and keep it” (Gn 2:15). And God’s first command, to “fill the earth and subdue it” (1:28), implied a great deal of work for both man and woman. In an important sense, people today are obeying that command of their Creator when they do their daily work, whether they acknowledge him or not. Work did not, therefore, arrive in the world as a direct result of the fall into sin (though sin did spoil working conditions, 3:17-19). Work was planned by God from the dawn of history for mankind’s good—as natural to men and women as sunset is to day (Ps 104:19-23).<\/p>\nWith this firm emphasis on the dignity and normality of labor, it is no surprise to find that Scripture strongly condemns idleness. “Go to the ant, O sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise” (Prv 6:6, rsv<\/span>). Paul is equally blunt: “If any one will not work, let him not eat” (2 Thes 3:10, rsv<\/span>). He set a good example (Acts 20:33-35; 1 Thes 2:9). Those who refuse to work, he insists, even for spiritual reasons, earn no respect from non-Christian onlookers by depending on others to pay their bills (1 Thes 4:11-12). Wage earners, on the other hand, have the material resources of Christian service (Eph 4:28).<\/p>\nVocations<\/p>\nIn biblical times the Greeks and Romans catalogued jobs according to importance or desirability. Routine manual labor, for example, was considered inferior to work involving mental activity.<\/p>\nJewish teaching contrasts strongly with this attitude. “Hate not laborious work,” taught the rabbis (Ecclus 7:15). Even the scholar had to spend some time in manual work. A few trades, like that of the tanner, were regarded as undesirable (a taboo broken very quickly by the early church—see Acts 9:43), but there is no indication in the Bible that some jobs are more worthwhile than others in God’s sight. The Lord calls craftsmen into his service (Ex 31:1-11), just as much as prophets (Is 6:8-9). So Amos was summoned from his fruit-picking to prophesy (Am 7:14-15), but with no suggestion that he was being promoted to a superior role. The important thing was not the nature of the occupation but the readiness to obey God’s call and to witness faithfully to him, whatever the job.<\/p>\nThe Bible has some poignant things to say about the relationship between employer and employee. The OT prophets voice the strongest criticism. God is especially concerned to see that the weak get justice (Is 1:17; Mi 6:8). So, naturally, his spokesmen declare his anger when employers exploit their laborers and cheat them of their wages (Jer 22:13; Mal 3:5; cf. Jas 5:4). A person who wants to please God must “stop oppressing those who work for [him] and treat them fairly and give them what they earn” (Is 58:6, tlb<\/span>).<\/p>\nIn Bible times, the scales were weighted heavily in favor of the employer. But Scripture is not blind to the existence of selfish, greedy employees. Every worker deserves a just wage (Lk 10:7), but those with special power must not try to increase their pay by threats and violence (3:14).<\/p>\nWorking for Christ<\/p>\nGod is a working God who is pleased when his people work hard and conscientiously. That conviction lies at the heart of the Bible’s teaching about Christian attitudes toward secular employment. And quite naturally, the NT extends the same positive emphasis to cover all Christian service, paid or unpaid. The world is God’s harvest field, said Jesus, waiting for Christian reapers to move in and evangelize (Mt 9:37-38). Paul used the same agricultural illustration and added another from the building trade to describe the Lord’s work of evangelism and teaching (1 Cor 3:6-15). Church leaders must work especially hard, he said (1 Thes 5:12), to stimulate all<\/em> God’s people to be involved in the Lord’s work (1 Cor 15:58). All Christians should see themselves as “God’s coworkers” (3:9).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>WORK<\/h3>\nA term referring either to God’s activity or to people’s regular occupation or employment.<\/p>\nThe Value of Work<\/p>\nThe Bible’s positive outlook on work is rooted in its teaching about God. Unlike other ancient religious writings, which regarded creation as something beneath the dignity of the Supreme Being, Scripture unashamedly describes God as a worker. Like a manual laborer, he made the universe as “the work of his fingers” (Ps 8:3). He worked with his raw material just as a potter works with the clay (Is 45:9). The intricate development of the unborn child in the womb and the vast, magnificent spread of the sky both display his supreme craftsmanship (Pss 139:13-16; 19:1). In fact, all creation bears witness to his wisdom and skill (104:24). The almighty Creator even had his rest day (Gn 2:2-3) and enjoyed job satisfaction when surveying his achievements at the end of the week (1:31).<\/p>\nThis vivid biblical description of a working God reaches its climax with the incarnation of Jesus. The “work” that Jesus was given to do (Jn 4:34) was, of course, the unique task of redemption. But he was also a worker in the ordinary sense. His contemporaries knew him as “a carpenter” (Mk 6:3). In NT times carpentry and joinery were muscle-building trades. So the Jesus who stormed through the temple, overturning tables and driving out the men and animals (Jn 2:14-16), was no pale weakling but a workingman whose hands had been hardened by years of toil with the ax, saw, and hammer. Hard, physical labor was not beneath the dignity of the Son of God.<\/p>\nIf the Bible’s teaching about God enhances work’s dignity, its account of mankind’s creation gives all human labor the mark of normality. God “took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to till it and keep it” (Gn 2:15). And God’s first command, to “fill the earth and subdue it” (1:28), implied a great deal of work for both man and woman. In an important sense, people today are obeying that command of their Creator when they do their daily work, whether they acknowledge him or not. Work did not, therefore, arrive in the world as a direct result of the fall into sin (though sin did spoil working conditions, 3:17-19). Work was planned by God from the dawn of history for mankind’s good—as natural to men and women as sunset is to day (Ps 104:19-23).<\/p>\nWith this firm emphasis on the dignity and normality of labor, it is no surprise to find that Scripture strongly condemns idleness. “Go to the ant, O sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise” (Prv 6:6, rsv<\/span>). Paul is equally blunt: “If any one will not work, let him not eat” (2 Thes 3:10, rsv<\/span>). He set a good example (Acts 20:33-35; 1 Thes 2:9). Those who refuse to work, he insists, even for spiritual reasons, earn no respect from non-Christian onlookers by depending on others to pay their bills (1 Thes 4:11-12). Wage earners, on the other hand, have the material resources of Christian service (Eph 4:28).<\/p>\nVocations<\/p>\nIn biblical times the Greeks and Romans catalogued jobs according to importance or desirability. Routine manual labor, for example, was considered inferior to work involving mental activity.<\/p>\nJewish teaching contrasts strongly with this attitude. “Hate not laborious work,” taught the rabbis (Ecclus 7:15). Even the scholar had to spend some time in manual work. A few trades, like that of the tanner, were regarded as undesirable (a taboo broken very quickly by the early church—see Acts 9:43), but there is no indication in the Bible that some jobs are more worthwhile than others in God’s sight. The Lord calls craftsmen into his service (Ex 31:1-11), just as much as prophets (Is 6:8-9). So Amos was summoned from his fruit-picking to prophesy (Am 7:14-15), but with no suggestion that he was being promoted to a superior role. The important thing was not the nature of the occupation but the readiness to obey God’s call and to witness faithfully to him, whatever the job.<\/p>\nThe Bible has some poignant things to say about the relationship between employer and employee. The OT prophets voice the strongest criticism. God is especially concerned to see that the weak get justice (Is 1:17; Mi 6:8). So, naturally, his spokesmen declare his anger when employers exploit their laborers and cheat them of their wages (Jer 22:13; Mal 3:5; cf. Jas 5:4). A person who wants to please God must “stop oppressing those who work for [him] and treat them fairly and give them what they earn” (Is 58:6, tlb<\/span>).<\/p>\nIn Bible times, the scales were weighted heavily in favor of the employer. But Scripture is not blind to the existence of selfish, greedy employees. Every worker deserves a just wage (Lk 10:7), but those with special power must not try to increase their pay by threats and violence (3:14).<\/p>\nWorking for Christ<\/p>\nGod is a working God who is pleased when his people work hard and conscientiously. That conviction lies at the heart of the Bible’s teaching about Christian attitudes toward secular employment. And quite naturally, the NT extends the same positive emphasis to cover all Christian service, paid or unpaid. The world is God’s harvest field, said Jesus, waiting for Christian reapers to move in and evangelize (Mt 9:37-38). Paul used the same agricultural illustration and added another from the building trade to describe the Lord’s work of evangelism and teaching (1 Cor 3:6-15). Church leaders must work especially hard, he said (1 Thes 5:12), to stimulate all<\/em> God’s people to be involved in the Lord’s work (1 Cor 15:58). All Christians should see themselves as “God’s coworkers” (3:9).<\/p>","summary_ro":"WORK A term referring either to God’s activity or to people’s regular occupation or employment. The Value of Work The Bible’s positive outlook on work is rooted in its teaching about God. Unlike other ancient religious writings, which regarded creation as something beneath the dignity of the Supreme Being, Scripture unashamedly describes God as a worker. Like a manual laborer, he made the universe as “the work of his fingers” (Ps 8:3). He worked with his raw material just as a potter works wi...","summary_en":"WORK A term referring either to God’s activity or to people’s regular occupation or employment. The Value of Work The Bible’s positive outlook on work is rooted in its teaching about God. Unlike other ancient religious writings, which regarded creation as something beneath the dignity of the Supreme Being, Scripture unashamedly describes God as a worker. Like a manual laborer, he made the universe as “the work of his fingers” (Ps 8:3). He worked with his raw material just as a potter works wi...","source":"Articles\/W.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":42852,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:15","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:15","content_ro":"2:15<\/strong> to tend and watch over:<\/em> The garden required maintenance and oversight. Tending the Garden<\/em> was humanity’s dignifying work. These roles in God’s garden-sanctuary were later applied to God’s Tabernacle (see Lev 8:35; Num 3:5-10; 4:46-49).<\/p>","content_en":"2:15<\/strong> to tend and watch over:<\/em> The garden required maintenance and oversight. Tending the Garden<\/em> was humanity’s dignifying work. These roles in God’s garden-sanctuary were later applied to God’s Tabernacle (see Lev 8:35; Num 3:5-10; 4:46-49).<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:15 to tend and watch over: The garden required maintenance and oversight. Tending the Garden was humanity’s dignifying work. These roles in God’s garden-sanctuary were later applied to God’s Tabernacle (see Lev 8:35; Num 3:5-10; 4:46-49).","summary_en":"2:15 to tend and watch over: The garden required maintenance and oversight. Tending the Garden was humanity’s dignifying work. These roles in God’s garden-sanctuary were later applied to God’s Tabernacle (see Lev 8:35; Num 3:5-10; 4:46-49).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":70478,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:15","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:15","content_ro":"2:15<\/strong> to tend and watch over:<\/em> The garden required maintenance and oversight. Tending the Garden<\/em> was humanity’s dignifying work. These roles in God’s garden-sanctuary were later applied to God’s Tabernacle (see Lev 8:35; Num 3:5-10; 4:46-49).<\/p>","content_en":"2:15<\/strong> to tend and watch over:<\/em> The garden required maintenance and oversight. Tending the Garden<\/em> was humanity’s dignifying work. These roles in God’s garden-sanctuary were later applied to God’s Tabernacle (see Lev 8:35; Num 3:5-10; 4:46-49).<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:15 to tend and watch over: The garden required maintenance and oversight. Tending the Garden was humanity’s dignifying work. These roles in God’s garden-sanctuary were later applied to God’s Tabernacle (see Lev 8:35; Num 3:5-10; 4:46-49).","summary_en":"2:15 to tend and watch over: The garden required maintenance and oversight. Tending the Garden was humanity’s dignifying work. These roles in God’s garden-sanctuary were later applied to God’s Tabernacle (see Lev 8:35; Num 3:5-10; 4:46-49).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":98104,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:15","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:15","content_ro":"2:15<\/strong> to tend and watch over:<\/em> The garden required maintenance and oversight. Tending the Garden<\/em> was humanity’s dignifying work. These roles in God’s garden-sanctuary were later applied to God’s Tabernacle (see Lev 8:35; Num 3:5-10; 4:46-49).<\/p>","content_en":"2:15<\/strong> to tend and watch over:<\/em> The garden required maintenance and oversight. Tending the Garden<\/em> was humanity’s dignifying work. These roles in God’s garden-sanctuary were later applied to God’s Tabernacle (see Lev 8:35; Num 3:5-10; 4:46-49).<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:15 to tend and watch over: The garden required maintenance and oversight. Tending the Garden was humanity’s dignifying work. These roles in God’s garden-sanctuary were later applied to God’s Tabernacle (see Lev 8:35; Num 3:5-10; 4:46-49).","summary_en":"2:15 to tend and watch over: The garden required maintenance and oversight. Tending the Garden was humanity’s dignifying work. These roles in God’s garden-sanctuary were later applied to God’s Tabernacle (see Lev 8:35; Num 3:5-10; 4:46-49).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":125730,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:15","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:15","content_ro":"2:15<\/strong> to tend and watch over:<\/em> The garden required maintenance and oversight. Tending the Garden<\/em> was humanity’s dignifying work. These roles in God’s garden-sanctuary were later applied to God’s Tabernacle (see Lev 8:35; Num 3:5-10; 4:46-49).<\/p>","content_en":"2:15<\/strong> to tend and watch over:<\/em> The garden required maintenance and oversight. Tending the Garden<\/em> was humanity’s dignifying work. These roles in God’s garden-sanctuary were later applied to God’s Tabernacle (see Lev 8:35; Num 3:5-10; 4:46-49).<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:15 to tend and watch over: The garden required maintenance and oversight. Tending the Garden was humanity’s dignifying work. These roles in God’s garden-sanctuary were later applied to God’s Tabernacle (see Lev 8:35; Num 3:5-10; 4:46-49).","summary_en":"2:15 to tend and watch over: The garden required maintenance and oversight. Tending the Garden was humanity’s dignifying work. These roles in God’s garden-sanctuary were later applied to God’s Tabernacle (see Lev 8:35; Num 3:5-10; 4:46-49).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":60082,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Death","title_en":"Death","content_ro":"<h3>Death<\/h3>\nHumans are mortal, and death is the natural end of earthly life (Ps 90:1-6). Human identity began with the earth’s dust being animated by the breath of God (Gen 2:7). This passive state returns at death as God withdraws his breath and the human body collapses again into dust (3:19; Job 4:19-21; Isa 40:6-8). Human life depends entirely and continuously on the Creator of life—his breath is a gift that sustains us in life for as long as he grants it (Ps 104:29).<\/p>\nDeath entered the human race by sin and brought ruin to it; death comes suddenly, bringing mourning and an apparent end to hopes and dreams. Death is the severest penalty in human justice. In the Old Testament, the death penalty was a punishment for murder (Gen 9:6; Exod 21:12) or blasphemy (Lev 24:16; John 10:30-33)—violations that threatened the living community.<\/p>\nIn the Old Testament, the opposite of “the land of the living” (Ps 27:13) was Sheol,<\/em> the realm of the dead that was shrouded in darkness and silence (Job 10:21-22; Ps 94:17; Jon 2:6). Yet even in death, God’s people cannot be separated from his presence (see Prov 14:32). God is sovereign and rules over death (Deut 32:39).<\/p>\nWhile the Old Testament often speaks of death simply in terms of joining one’s ancestors—without specific reference to resurrection (see, e.g., Gen 49:29-33)—there are some allusions to resurrection (see Job 19:25-27; Isa 25:6-9; 26:19; Dan 12:2). Jewish belief in resurrection seems to have become more widespread during the intertestamental period, and resurrection is a prominent theme in the New Testament. Through Christ, God’s redeemed people will triumph over death (1 Cor 15:54-57), the last enemy to be destroyed (1 Cor 15:26). Death results from sin (Rom 5:12), and those who live in sin and refuse to turn to God will be punished in the lake of fire in what is called the second death (Rev 21:8). But Christ’s death defeated death, and his resurrection serves as the paradigm for all believers (Col 1:18). He is the Lord of the living and of the dead (Rom 14:9). The time of death—when the natural inclination is to mourn—should also be the time of the greatest demonstration of faith, for the recipient of God’s promises has a hope beyond the grave.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:15-17; 3:19; 6:17; 9:5-6; 49:29-33; Exod 21:12-17, 28-29; 23:7; 31:14-15; Lev 24:16; Deut 32:39; Job 10:18-22; 19:25-27; Pss 90:1-12; 94:17; Prov 14:32; Eccl 12:1-7; Isa 25:6-9; 26:19; 40:6-8; Dan 12:2-3; Mark 12:26-27; Rom 5:12-17; 1 Cor 15:20-26, 51-58; Rev 20:4-6, 11-15; 21:3-8<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Death<\/h3>\nHumans are mortal, and death is the natural end of earthly life (Ps 90:1-6). Human identity began with the earth’s dust being animated by the breath of God (Gen 2:7). This passive state returns at death as God withdraws his breath and the human body collapses again into dust (3:19; Job 4:19-21; Isa 40:6-8). Human life depends entirely and continuously on the Creator of life—his breath is a gift that sustains us in life for as long as he grants it (Ps 104:29).<\/p>\nDeath entered the human race by sin and brought ruin to it; death comes suddenly, bringing mourning and an apparent end to hopes and dreams. Death is the severest penalty in human justice. In the Old Testament, the death penalty was a punishment for murder (Gen 9:6; Exod 21:12) or blasphemy (Lev 24:16; John 10:30-33)—violations that threatened the living community.<\/p>\nIn the Old Testament, the opposite of “the land of the living” (Ps 27:13) was Sheol,<\/em> the realm of the dead that was shrouded in darkness and silence (Job 10:21-22; Ps 94:17; Jon 2:6). Yet even in death, God’s people cannot be separated from his presence (see Prov 14:32). God is sovereign and rules over death (Deut 32:39).<\/p>\nWhile the Old Testament often speaks of death simply in terms of joining one’s ancestors—without specific reference to resurrection (see, e.g., Gen 49:29-33)—there are some allusions to resurrection (see Job 19:25-27; Isa 25:6-9; 26:19; Dan 12:2). Jewish belief in resurrection seems to have become more widespread during the intertestamental period, and resurrection is a prominent theme in the New Testament. Through Christ, God’s redeemed people will triumph over death (1 Cor 15:54-57), the last enemy to be destroyed (1 Cor 15:26). Death results from sin (Rom 5:12), and those who live in sin and refuse to turn to God will be punished in the lake of fire in what is called the second death (Rev 21:8). But Christ’s death defeated death, and his resurrection serves as the paradigm for all believers (Col 1:18). He is the Lord of the living and of the dead (Rom 14:9). The time of death—when the natural inclination is to mourn—should also be the time of the greatest demonstration of faith, for the recipient of God’s promises has a hope beyond the grave.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:15-17; 3:19; 6:17; 9:5-6; 49:29-33; Exod 21:12-17, 28-29; 23:7; 31:14-15; Lev 24:16; Deut 32:39; Job 10:18-22; 19:25-27; Pss 90:1-12; 94:17; Prov 14:32; Eccl 12:1-7; Isa 25:6-9; 26:19; 40:6-8; Dan 12:2-3; Mark 12:26-27; Rom 5:12-17; 1 Cor 15:20-26, 51-58; Rev 20:4-6, 11-15; 21:3-8<\/p>","summary_ro":"Death Humans are mortal, and death is the natural end of earthly life (Ps 90:1-6). Human identity began with the earth’s dust being animated by the breath of God (Gen 2:7). This passive state returns at death as God withdraws his breath and the human body collapses again into dust (3:19; Job 4:19-21; Isa 40:6-8). Human life depends entirely and continuously on the Creator of life—his breath is a gift that sustains us in life for as long as he grants it (Ps 104:29). Death entered the human rac...","summary_en":"Death Humans are mortal, and death is the natural end of earthly life (Ps 90:1-6). Human identity began with the earth’s dust being animated by the breath of God (Gen 2:7). This passive state returns at death as God withdraws his breath and the human body collapses again into dust (3:19; Job 4:19-21; Isa 40:6-8). Human life depends entirely and continuously on the Creator of life—his breath is a gift that sustains us in life for as long as he grants it (Ps 104:29). Death entered the human rac...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":62034,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Violation of the Sacred","title_en":"Violation of the Sacred","content_ro":"<h3>Violation of the Sacred<\/h3>\nEver since Eden, humans have attempted to take God’s sacred space as their own (Gen 2:15-17; 3:1-6). Scripture shows us God’s anger and swift punishment when people treat his holy commands with contempt or casual disdain. Nadab and Abihu were supposed to lead Israel in proper worship, so when they ignored God’s specific instructions about priestly duties, they lost their lives for their sin (Lev 10:1-20). Jesus himself expressed the righteous anger of God when he entered the Temple with a whip and drove out the merchants and money changers who were defiling the holy space for their own profit (John 2:13-16).<\/p>\nThere can be no violations with respect to God’s holy presence, and that certainly included the Temple in Jerusalem. The Temple represented God’s presence in creation, so all of its rituals needed to reflect its status as sacred and set apart for God alone. This meant that no one could enter it to make offerings except those anointed for the task.<\/p>\nOne particularly egregious sin was when King Uzziah entered the Temple to burn incense (2 Chr 26:16). The kings of Israel (unlike kings of other ancient Near Eastern cultures) were excluded from the sacred space because they were anointed only for the secular function of government. The king of Israel was not a priest. He was not God’s representative in sacred matters nor (as in other cultures) a god himself. He was a servant of God taken from among his brothers to administer the covenant in the community (Deut 17:18-20). So when King Uzziah tried to claim a priestly function that was not rightfully his, he violated the sanctuary that God had set apart for his own presence. In terms of the function of the Temple, this violation was no trivial matter.<\/p>\nDavid provides a counterpoint to Uzziah’s arrogance (1 Sam 21:1-9). When his men were hungry, he knew they could find bread at the Tabernacle, but instead of claiming it for himself, he made his request to the priest, who gave them the holy bread with his blessing. By contrast, when Uzziah entered the Temple and violated this sacred space, his response was typical of arrogant human hearts (26:16). He assumed that, as king, he had the right to enter God’s sacred Temple. But he did not have that right, and he was judged with affliction by a skin disease and separation from daily life. The punishment was appropriate to the arrogance of his sin.<\/p>\nUzziah-like sacrilege remains an ever-present temptation. Any conduct that fails to glorify God is a violation of his sacred space. All of human history consists of the story of God restoring the entire heavens and earth to be the place of his dwelling. In the new covenant through Jesus Christ, God’s sacred space is not limited to a Temple in Jerusalem or any other building; he sets apart for himself the lives of people who trust in him (1 Cor 6:19-20). In his grace, God has made the people of the new covenant to be his temple on earth (1 Pet 2:4-5), to be the space where his holiness enters creation. History will be complete when all of heaven and earth becomes the temple of God (Isa 65:17-18; Rev 21:1-2).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:15-17; 3:1-6; Exod 19:12-13; 31:14-15; Lev 10:1-20; 24:16-17; Num 1:51; 15:32-36; 2 Chr 26:16-21; 1 Cor 6:19-20<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Violation of the Sacred<\/h3>\nEver since Eden, humans have attempted to take God’s sacred space as their own (Gen 2:15-17; 3:1-6). Scripture shows us God’s anger and swift punishment when people treat his holy commands with contempt or casual disdain. Nadab and Abihu were supposed to lead Israel in proper worship, so when they ignored God’s specific instructions about priestly duties, they lost their lives for their sin (Lev 10:1-20). Jesus himself expressed the righteous anger of God when he entered the Temple with a whip and drove out the merchants and money changers who were defiling the holy space for their own profit (John 2:13-16).<\/p>\nThere can be no violations with respect to God’s holy presence, and that certainly included the Temple in Jerusalem. The Temple represented God’s presence in creation, so all of its rituals needed to reflect its status as sacred and set apart for God alone. This meant that no one could enter it to make offerings except those anointed for the task.<\/p>\nOne particularly egregious sin was when King Uzziah entered the Temple to burn incense (2 Chr 26:16). The kings of Israel (unlike kings of other ancient Near Eastern cultures) were excluded from the sacred space because they were anointed only for the secular function of government. The king of Israel was not a priest. He was not God’s representative in sacred matters nor (as in other cultures) a god himself. He was a servant of God taken from among his brothers to administer the covenant in the community (Deut 17:18-20). So when King Uzziah tried to claim a priestly function that was not rightfully his, he violated the sanctuary that God had set apart for his own presence. In terms of the function of the Temple, this violation was no trivial matter.<\/p>\nDavid provides a counterpoint to Uzziah’s arrogance (1 Sam 21:1-9). When his men were hungry, he knew they could find bread at the Tabernacle, but instead of claiming it for himself, he made his request to the priest, who gave them the holy bread with his blessing. By contrast, when Uzziah entered the Temple and violated this sacred space, his response was typical of arrogant human hearts (26:16). He assumed that, as king, he had the right to enter God’s sacred Temple. But he did not have that right, and he was judged with affliction by a skin disease and separation from daily life. The punishment was appropriate to the arrogance of his sin.<\/p>\nUzziah-like sacrilege remains an ever-present temptation. Any conduct that fails to glorify God is a violation of his sacred space. All of human history consists of the story of God restoring the entire heavens and earth to be the place of his dwelling. In the new covenant through Jesus Christ, God’s sacred space is not limited to a Temple in Jerusalem or any other building; he sets apart for himself the lives of people who trust in him (1 Cor 6:19-20). In his grace, God has made the people of the new covenant to be his temple on earth (1 Pet 2:4-5), to be the space where his holiness enters creation. History will be complete when all of heaven and earth becomes the temple of God (Isa 65:17-18; Rev 21:1-2).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:15-17; 3:1-6; Exod 19:12-13; 31:14-15; Lev 10:1-20; 24:16-17; Num 1:51; 15:32-36; 2 Chr 26:16-21; 1 Cor 6:19-20<\/p>","summary_ro":"Violation of the Sacred Ever since Eden, humans have attempted to take God’s sacred space as their own (Gen 2:15-17; 3:1-6). Scripture shows us God’s anger and swift punishment when people treat his holy commands with contempt or casual disdain. Nadab and Abihu were supposed to lead Israel in proper worship, so when they ignored God’s specific instructions about priestly duties, they lost their lives for their sin (Lev 10:1-20). Jesus himself expressed the righteous anger of God when he enter...","summary_en":"Violation of the Sacred Ever since Eden, humans have attempted to take God’s sacred space as their own (Gen 2:15-17; 3:1-6). Scripture shows us God’s anger and swift punishment when people treat his holy commands with contempt or casual disdain. Nadab and Abihu were supposed to lead Israel in proper worship, so when they ignored God’s specific instructions about priestly duties, they lost their lives for their sin (Lev 10:1-20). Jesus himself expressed the righteous anger of God when he enter...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":63617,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Laziness and Hard Work","title_en":"Laziness and Hard Work","content_ro":"<h3>Laziness and Hard Work<\/h3>\nGod created Adam and Eve and put them in the Garden to tend it, not just to sit back and enjoy it (Gen 2:15). Work is not a result of the Fall but rather is a dignified and important part of creation.<\/p>\nThe book of Proverbs frequently condemns laziness. The lazy are sarcastically compared to a door that swings back and forth (26:14), and they are lampooned for their empty excuses (e.g., 22:13). Proverbs equates lazy people with the foolish; their lack of productivity leads to poverty and death (6:6-10; 10:26; 15:19; 18:9; 19:15, 24; 20:4; 21:25; 22:13; 24:30-34; 26:13-16). By contrast, diligent people are seen as wise; their activities lead to wealth and life (10:4-6; 12:11; 13:4; 20:13; 31:10-27).<\/p>\nWhile it is true that ultimate meaning and fulfillment do not come from hard work (Eccl 2:17-26), and that our hard work must not cause us to forget God’s ability to provide (see Ps 127:2), we still have no excuse to be lazy. God designed us to use the gifts and abilities he has given us to be productive and to provide, as we are able, for ourselves and others (see Eph 4:28; 1 Thes 4:11-12; 2 Thes 3:6-13).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nExod 23:12; Prov 6:6-11; 10:4-6, 26; 12:11, 24, 27; 13:4, 11; 14:4, 23; 15:19; 18:9; 19:15; 21:5, 25; 24:30-34; 26:13-16; 28:19; 31:10-31; Eccl 2:18-26; 4:5-6; 5:12; 9:10; 11:4-6; Rom 12:11; Eph 4:28; 1 Thes 4:11-12; 2 Thes 3:10-15<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Laziness and Hard Work<\/h3>\nGod created Adam and Eve and put them in the Garden to tend it, not just to sit back and enjoy it (Gen 2:15). Work is not a result of the Fall but rather is a dignified and important part of creation.<\/p>\nThe book of Proverbs frequently condemns laziness. The lazy are sarcastically compared to a door that swings back and forth (26:14), and they are lampooned for their empty excuses (e.g., 22:13). Proverbs equates lazy people with the foolish; their lack of productivity leads to poverty and death (6:6-10; 10:26; 15:19; 18:9; 19:15, 24; 20:4; 21:25; 22:13; 24:30-34; 26:13-16). By contrast, diligent people are seen as wise; their activities lead to wealth and life (10:4-6; 12:11; 13:4; 20:13; 31:10-27).<\/p>\nWhile it is true that ultimate meaning and fulfillment do not come from hard work (Eccl 2:17-26), and that our hard work must not cause us to forget God’s ability to provide (see Ps 127:2), we still have no excuse to be lazy. God designed us to use the gifts and abilities he has given us to be productive and to provide, as we are able, for ourselves and others (see Eph 4:28; 1 Thes 4:11-12; 2 Thes 3:6-13).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nExod 23:12; Prov 6:6-11; 10:4-6, 26; 12:11, 24, 27; 13:4, 11; 14:4, 23; 15:19; 18:9; 19:15; 21:5, 25; 24:30-34; 26:13-16; 28:19; 31:10-31; Eccl 2:18-26; 4:5-6; 5:12; 9:10; 11:4-6; Rom 12:11; Eph 4:28; 1 Thes 4:11-12; 2 Thes 3:10-15<\/p>","summary_ro":"Laziness and Hard Work God created Adam and Eve and put them in the Garden to tend it, not just to sit back and enjoy it (Gen 2:15). Work is not a result of the Fall but rather is a dignified and important part of creation. The book of Proverbs frequently condemns laziness. The lazy are sarcastically compared to a door that swings back and forth (26:14), and they are lampooned for their empty excuses (e.g., 22:13). Proverbs equates lazy people with the foolish; their lack of productivity lead...","summary_en":"Laziness and Hard Work God created Adam and Eve and put them in the Garden to tend it, not just to sit back and enjoy it (Gen 2:15). Work is not a result of the Fall but rather is a dignified and important part of creation. The book of Proverbs frequently condemns laziness. The lazy are sarcastically compared to a door that swings back and forth (26:14), and they are lampooned for their empty excuses (e.g., 22:13). Proverbs equates lazy people with the foolish; their lack of productivity lead...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":87708,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Death","title_en":"Death","content_ro":"<h3>Death<\/h3>\nHumans are mortal, and death is the natural end of earthly life (Ps 90:1-6). Human identity began with the earth’s dust being animated by the breath of God (Gen 2:7). This passive state returns at death as God withdraws his breath and the human body collapses again into dust (3:19; Job 4:19-21; Isa 40:6-8). Human life depends entirely and continuously on the Creator of life—his breath is a gift that sustains us in life for as long as he grants it (Ps 104:29).<\/p>\nDeath entered the human race by sin and brought ruin to it; death comes suddenly, bringing mourning and an apparent end to hopes and dreams. Death is the severest penalty in human justice. In the Old Testament, the death penalty was a punishment for murder (Gen 9:6; Exod 21:12) or blasphemy (Lev 24:16; John 10:30-33)—violations that threatened the living community.<\/p>\nIn the Old Testament, the opposite of “the land of the living” (Ps 27:13) was Sheol,<\/em> the realm of the dead that was shrouded in darkness and silence (Job 10:21-22; Ps 94:17; Jon 2:6). Yet even in death, God’s people cannot be separated from his presence (see Prov 14:32). God is sovereign and rules over death (Deut 32:39).<\/p>\nWhile the Old Testament often speaks of death simply in terms of joining one’s ancestors—without specific reference to resurrection (see, e.g., Gen 49:29-33)—there are some allusions to resurrection (see Job 19:25-27; Isa 25:6-9; 26:19; Dan 12:2). Jewish belief in resurrection seems to have become more widespread during the intertestamental period, and resurrection is a prominent theme in the New Testament. Through Christ, God’s redeemed people will triumph over death (1 Cor 15:54-57), the last enemy to be destroyed (1 Cor 15:26). Death results from sin (Rom 5:12), and those who live in sin and refuse to turn to God will be punished in the lake of fire in what is called the second death (Rev 21:8). But Christ’s death defeated death, and his resurrection serves as the paradigm for all believers (Col 1:18). He is the Lord of the living and of the dead (Rom 14:9). The time of death—when the natural inclination is to mourn—should also be the time of the greatest demonstration of faith, for the recipient of God’s promises has a hope beyond the grave.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:15-17; 3:19; 6:17; 9:5-6; 49:29-33; Exod 21:12-17, 28-29; 23:7; 31:14-15; Lev 24:16; Deut 32:39; Job 10:18-22; 19:25-27; Pss 90:1-12; 94:17; Prov 14:32; Eccl 12:1-7; Isa 25:6-9; 26:19; 40:6-8; Dan 12:2-3; Mark 12:26-27; Rom 5:12-17; 1 Cor 15:20-26, 51-58; Rev 20:4-6, 11-15; 21:3-8<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Death<\/h3>\nHumans are mortal, and death is the natural end of earthly life (Ps 90:1-6). Human identity began with the earth’s dust being animated by the breath of God (Gen 2:7). This passive state returns at death as God withdraws his breath and the human body collapses again into dust (3:19; Job 4:19-21; Isa 40:6-8). Human life depends entirely and continuously on the Creator of life—his breath is a gift that sustains us in life for as long as he grants it (Ps 104:29).<\/p>\nDeath entered the human race by sin and brought ruin to it; death comes suddenly, bringing mourning and an apparent end to hopes and dreams. Death is the severest penalty in human justice. In the Old Testament, the death penalty was a punishment for murder (Gen 9:6; Exod 21:12) or blasphemy (Lev 24:16; John 10:30-33)—violations that threatened the living community.<\/p>\nIn the Old Testament, the opposite of “the land of the living” (Ps 27:13) was Sheol,<\/em> the realm of the dead that was shrouded in darkness and silence (Job 10:21-22; Ps 94:17; Jon 2:6). Yet even in death, God’s people cannot be separated from his presence (see Prov 14:32). God is sovereign and rules over death (Deut 32:39).<\/p>\nWhile the Old Testament often speaks of death simply in terms of joining one’s ancestors—without specific reference to resurrection (see, e.g., Gen 49:29-33)—there are some allusions to resurrection (see Job 19:25-27; Isa 25:6-9; 26:19; Dan 12:2). Jewish belief in resurrection seems to have become more widespread during the intertestamental period, and resurrection is a prominent theme in the New Testament. Through Christ, God’s redeemed people will triumph over death (1 Cor 15:54-57), the last enemy to be destroyed (1 Cor 15:26). Death results from sin (Rom 5:12), and those who live in sin and refuse to turn to God will be punished in the lake of fire in what is called the second death (Rev 21:8). But Christ’s death defeated death, and his resurrection serves as the paradigm for all believers (Col 1:18). He is the Lord of the living and of the dead (Rom 14:9). The time of death—when the natural inclination is to mourn—should also be the time of the greatest demonstration of faith, for the recipient of God’s promises has a hope beyond the grave.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:15-17; 3:19; 6:17; 9:5-6; 49:29-33; Exod 21:12-17, 28-29; 23:7; 31:14-15; Lev 24:16; Deut 32:39; Job 10:18-22; 19:25-27; Pss 90:1-12; 94:17; Prov 14:32; Eccl 12:1-7; Isa 25:6-9; 26:19; 40:6-8; Dan 12:2-3; Mark 12:26-27; Rom 5:12-17; 1 Cor 15:20-26, 51-58; Rev 20:4-6, 11-15; 21:3-8<\/p>","summary_ro":"Death Humans are mortal, and death is the natural end of earthly life (Ps 90:1-6). Human identity began with the earth’s dust being animated by the breath of God (Gen 2:7). This passive state returns at death as God withdraws his breath and the human body collapses again into dust (3:19; Job 4:19-21; Isa 40:6-8). Human life depends entirely and continuously on the Creator of life—his breath is a gift that sustains us in life for as long as he grants it (Ps 104:29). Death entered the human rac...","summary_en":"Death Humans are mortal, and death is the natural end of earthly life (Ps 90:1-6). Human identity began with the earth’s dust being animated by the breath of God (Gen 2:7). This passive state returns at death as God withdraws his breath and the human body collapses again into dust (3:19; Job 4:19-21; Isa 40:6-8). Human life depends entirely and continuously on the Creator of life—his breath is a gift that sustains us in life for as long as he grants it (Ps 104:29). Death entered the human rac...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":89660,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Violation of the Sacred","title_en":"Violation of the Sacred","content_ro":"<h3>Violation of the Sacred<\/h3>\nEver since Eden, humans have attempted to take God’s sacred space as their own (Gen 2:15-17; 3:1-6). Scripture shows us God’s anger and swift punishment when people treat his holy commands with contempt or casual disdain. Nadab and Abihu were supposed to lead Israel in proper worship, so when they ignored God’s specific instructions about priestly duties, they lost their lives for their sin (Lev 10:1-20). Jesus himself expressed the righteous anger of God when he entered the Temple with a whip and drove out the merchants and money changers who were defiling the holy space for their own profit (John 2:13-16).<\/p>\nThere can be no violations with respect to God’s holy presence, and that certainly included the Temple in Jerusalem. The Temple represented God’s presence in creation, so all of its rituals needed to reflect its status as sacred and set apart for God alone. This meant that no one could enter it to make offerings except those anointed for the task.<\/p>\nOne particularly egregious sin was when King Uzziah entered the Temple to burn incense (2 Chr 26:16). The kings of Israel (unlike kings of other ancient Near Eastern cultures) were excluded from the sacred space because they were anointed only for the secular function of government. The king of Israel was not a priest. He was not God’s representative in sacred matters nor (as in other cultures) a god himself. He was a servant of God taken from among his brothers to administer the covenant in the community (Deut 17:18-20). So when King Uzziah tried to claim a priestly function that was not rightfully his, he violated the sanctuary that God had set apart for his own presence. In terms of the function of the Temple, this violation was no trivial matter.<\/p>\nDavid provides a counterpoint to Uzziah’s arrogance (1 Sam 21:1-9). When his men were hungry, he knew they could find bread at the Tabernacle, but instead of claiming it for himself, he made his request to the priest, who gave them the holy bread with his blessing. By contrast, when Uzziah entered the Temple and violated this sacred space, his response was typical of arrogant human hearts (26:16). He assumed that, as king, he had the right to enter God’s sacred Temple. But he did not have that right, and he was judged with affliction by a skin disease and separation from daily life. The punishment was appropriate to the arrogance of his sin.<\/p>\nUzziah-like sacrilege remains an ever-present temptation. Any conduct that fails to glorify God is a violation of his sacred space. All of human history consists of the story of God restoring the entire heavens and earth to be the place of his dwelling. In the new covenant through Jesus Christ, God’s sacred space is not limited to a Temple in Jerusalem or any other building; he sets apart for himself the lives of people who trust in him (1 Cor 6:19-20). In his grace, God has made the people of the new covenant to be his temple on earth (1 Pet 2:4-5), to be the space where his holiness enters creation. History will be complete when all of heaven and earth becomes the temple of God (Isa 65:17-18; Rev 21:1-2).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:15-17; 3:1-6; Exod 19:12-13; 31:14-15; Lev 10:1-20; 24:16-17; Num 1:51; 15:32-36; 2 Chr 26:16-21; 1 Cor 6:19-20<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Violation of the Sacred<\/h3>\nEver since Eden, humans have attempted to take God’s sacred space as their own (Gen 2:15-17; 3:1-6). Scripture shows us God’s anger and swift punishment when people treat his holy commands with contempt or casual disdain. Nadab and Abihu were supposed to lead Israel in proper worship, so when they ignored God’s specific instructions about priestly duties, they lost their lives for their sin (Lev 10:1-20). Jesus himself expressed the righteous anger of God when he entered the Temple with a whip and drove out the merchants and money changers who were defiling the holy space for their own profit (John 2:13-16).<\/p>\nThere can be no violations with respect to God’s holy presence, and that certainly included the Temple in Jerusalem. The Temple represented God’s presence in creation, so all of its rituals needed to reflect its status as sacred and set apart for God alone. This meant that no one could enter it to make offerings except those anointed for the task.<\/p>\nOne particularly egregious sin was when King Uzziah entered the Temple to burn incense (2 Chr 26:16). The kings of Israel (unlike kings of other ancient Near Eastern cultures) were excluded from the sacred space because they were anointed only for the secular function of government. The king of Israel was not a priest. He was not God’s representative in sacred matters nor (as in other cultures) a god himself. He was a servant of God taken from among his brothers to administer the covenant in the community (Deut 17:18-20). So when King Uzziah tried to claim a priestly function that was not rightfully his, he violated the sanctuary that God had set apart for his own presence. In terms of the function of the Temple, this violation was no trivial matter.<\/p>\nDavid provides a counterpoint to Uzziah’s arrogance (1 Sam 21:1-9). When his men were hungry, he knew they could find bread at the Tabernacle, but instead of claiming it for himself, he made his request to the priest, who gave them the holy bread with his blessing. By contrast, when Uzziah entered the Temple and violated this sacred space, his response was typical of arrogant human hearts (26:16). He assumed that, as king, he had the right to enter God’s sacred Temple. But he did not have that right, and he was judged with affliction by a skin disease and separation from daily life. The punishment was appropriate to the arrogance of his sin.<\/p>\nUzziah-like sacrilege remains an ever-present temptation. Any conduct that fails to glorify God is a violation of his sacred space. All of human history consists of the story of God restoring the entire heavens and earth to be the place of his dwelling. In the new covenant through Jesus Christ, God’s sacred space is not limited to a Temple in Jerusalem or any other building; he sets apart for himself the lives of people who trust in him (1 Cor 6:19-20). In his grace, God has made the people of the new covenant to be his temple on earth (1 Pet 2:4-5), to be the space where his holiness enters creation. History will be complete when all of heaven and earth becomes the temple of God (Isa 65:17-18; Rev 21:1-2).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:15-17; 3:1-6; Exod 19:12-13; 31:14-15; Lev 10:1-20; 24:16-17; Num 1:51; 15:32-36; 2 Chr 26:16-21; 1 Cor 6:19-20<\/p>","summary_ro":"Violation of the Sacred Ever since Eden, humans have attempted to take God’s sacred space as their own (Gen 2:15-17; 3:1-6). Scripture shows us God’s anger and swift punishment when people treat his holy commands with contempt or casual disdain. Nadab and Abihu were supposed to lead Israel in proper worship, so when they ignored God’s specific instructions about priestly duties, they lost their lives for their sin (Lev 10:1-20). Jesus himself expressed the righteous anger of God when he enter...","summary_en":"Violation of the Sacred Ever since Eden, humans have attempted to take God’s sacred space as their own (Gen 2:15-17; 3:1-6). Scripture shows us God’s anger and swift punishment when people treat his holy commands with contempt or casual disdain. Nadab and Abihu were supposed to lead Israel in proper worship, so when they ignored God’s specific instructions about priestly duties, they lost their lives for their sin (Lev 10:1-20). Jesus himself expressed the righteous anger of God when he enter...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":91243,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Laziness and Hard Work","title_en":"Laziness and Hard Work","content_ro":"<h3>Laziness and Hard Work<\/h3>\nGod created Adam and Eve and put them in the Garden to tend it, not just to sit back and enjoy it (Gen 2:15). Work is not a result of the Fall but rather is a dignified and important part of creation.<\/p>\nThe book of Proverbs frequently condemns laziness. The lazy are sarcastically compared to a door that swings back and forth (26:14), and they are lampooned for their empty excuses (e.g., 22:13). Proverbs equates lazy people with the foolish; their lack of productivity leads to poverty and death (6:6-10; 10:26; 15:19; 18:9; 19:15, 24; 20:4; 21:25; 22:13; 24:30-34; 26:13-16). By contrast, diligent people are seen as wise; their activities lead to wealth and life (10:4-6; 12:11; 13:4; 20:13; 31:10-27).<\/p>\nWhile it is true that ultimate meaning and fulfillment do not come from hard work (Eccl 2:17-26), and that our hard work must not cause us to forget God’s ability to provide (see Ps 127:2), we still have no excuse to be lazy. God designed us to use the gifts and abilities he has given us to be productive and to provide, as we are able, for ourselves and others (see Eph 4:28; 1 Thes 4:11-12; 2 Thes 3:6-13).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nExod 23:12; Prov 6:6-11; 10:4-6, 26; 12:11, 24, 27; 13:4, 11; 14:4, 23; 15:19; 18:9; 19:15; 21:5, 25; 24:30-34; 26:13-16; 28:19; 31:10-31; Eccl 2:18-26; 4:5-6; 5:12; 9:10; 11:4-6; Rom 12:11; Eph 4:28; 1 Thes 4:11-12; 2 Thes 3:10-15<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Laziness and Hard Work<\/h3>\nGod created Adam and Eve and put them in the Garden to tend it, not just to sit back and enjoy it (Gen 2:15). Work is not a result of the Fall but rather is a dignified and important part of creation.<\/p>\nThe book of Proverbs frequently condemns laziness. The lazy are sarcastically compared to a door that swings back and forth (26:14), and they are lampooned for their empty excuses (e.g., 22:13). Proverbs equates lazy people with the foolish; their lack of productivity leads to poverty and death (6:6-10; 10:26; 15:19; 18:9; 19:15, 24; 20:4; 21:25; 22:13; 24:30-34; 26:13-16). By contrast, diligent people are seen as wise; their activities lead to wealth and life (10:4-6; 12:11; 13:4; 20:13; 31:10-27).<\/p>\nWhile it is true that ultimate meaning and fulfillment do not come from hard work (Eccl 2:17-26), and that our hard work must not cause us to forget God’s ability to provide (see Ps 127:2), we still have no excuse to be lazy. God designed us to use the gifts and abilities he has given us to be productive and to provide, as we are able, for ourselves and others (see Eph 4:28; 1 Thes 4:11-12; 2 Thes 3:6-13).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nExod 23:12; Prov 6:6-11; 10:4-6, 26; 12:11, 24, 27; 13:4, 11; 14:4, 23; 15:19; 18:9; 19:15; 21:5, 25; 24:30-34; 26:13-16; 28:19; 31:10-31; Eccl 2:18-26; 4:5-6; 5:12; 9:10; 11:4-6; Rom 12:11; Eph 4:28; 1 Thes 4:11-12; 2 Thes 3:10-15<\/p>","summary_ro":"Laziness and Hard Work God created Adam and Eve and put them in the Garden to tend it, not just to sit back and enjoy it (Gen 2:15). Work is not a result of the Fall but rather is a dignified and important part of creation. The book of Proverbs frequently condemns laziness. The lazy are sarcastically compared to a door that swings back and forth (26:14), and they are lampooned for their empty excuses (e.g., 22:13). Proverbs equates lazy people with the foolish; their lack of productivity lead...","summary_en":"Laziness and Hard Work God created Adam and Eve and put them in the Garden to tend it, not just to sit back and enjoy it (Gen 2:15). Work is not a result of the Fall but rather is a dignified and important part of creation. The book of Proverbs frequently condemns laziness. The lazy are sarcastically compared to a door that swings back and forth (26:14), and they are lampooned for their empty excuses (e.g., 22:13). Proverbs equates lazy people with the foolish; their lack of productivity lead...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":115334,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Death","title_en":"Death","content_ro":"<h3>Death<\/h3>\nHumans are mortal, and death is the natural end of earthly life (Ps 90:1-6). Human identity began with the earth’s dust being animated by the breath of God (Gen 2:7). This passive state returns at death as God withdraws his breath and the human body collapses again into dust (3:19; Job 4:19-21; Isa 40:6-8). Human life depends entirely and continuously on the Creator of life—his breath is a gift that sustains us in life for as long as he grants it (Ps 104:29).<\/p>\nDeath entered the human race by sin and brought ruin to it; death comes suddenly, bringing mourning and an apparent end to hopes and dreams. Death is the severest penalty in human justice. In the Old Testament, the death penalty was a punishment for murder (Gen 9:6; Exod 21:12) or blasphemy (Lev 24:16; John 10:30-33)—violations that threatened the living community.<\/p>\nIn the Old Testament, the opposite of “the land of the living” (Ps 27:13) was Sheol,<\/em> the realm of the dead that was shrouded in darkness and silence (Job 10:21-22; Ps 94:17; Jon 2:6). Yet even in death, God’s people cannot be separated from his presence (see Prov 14:32). God is sovereign and rules over death (Deut 32:39).<\/p>\nWhile the Old Testament often speaks of death simply in terms of joining one’s ancestors—without specific reference to resurrection (see, e.g., Gen 49:29-33)—there are some allusions to resurrection (see Job 19:25-27; Isa 25:6-9; 26:19; Dan 12:2). Jewish belief in resurrection seems to have become more widespread during the intertestamental period, and resurrection is a prominent theme in the New Testament. Through Christ, God’s redeemed people will triumph over death (1 Cor 15:54-57), the last enemy to be destroyed (1 Cor 15:26). Death results from sin (Rom 5:12), and those who live in sin and refuse to turn to God will be punished in the lake of fire in what is called the second death (Rev 21:8). But Christ’s death defeated death, and his resurrection serves as the paradigm for all believers (Col 1:18). He is the Lord of the living and of the dead (Rom 14:9). The time of death—when the natural inclination is to mourn—should also be the time of the greatest demonstration of faith, for the recipient of God’s promises has a hope beyond the grave.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:15-17; 3:19; 6:17; 9:5-6; 49:29-33; Exod 21:12-17, 28-29; 23:7; 31:14-15; Lev 24:16; Deut 32:39; Job 10:18-22; 19:25-27; Pss 90:1-12; 94:17; Prov 14:32; Eccl 12:1-7; Isa 25:6-9; 26:19; 40:6-8; Dan 12:2-3; Mark 12:26-27; Rom 5:12-17; 1 Cor 15:20-26, 51-58; Rev 20:4-6, 11-15; 21:3-8<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Death<\/h3>\nHumans are mortal, and death is the natural end of earthly life (Ps 90:1-6). Human identity began with the earth’s dust being animated by the breath of God (Gen 2:7). This passive state returns at death as God withdraws his breath and the human body collapses again into dust (3:19; Job 4:19-21; Isa 40:6-8). Human life depends entirely and continuously on the Creator of life—his breath is a gift that sustains us in life for as long as he grants it (Ps 104:29).<\/p>\nDeath entered the human race by sin and brought ruin to it; death comes suddenly, bringing mourning and an apparent end to hopes and dreams. Death is the severest penalty in human justice. In the Old Testament, the death penalty was a punishment for murder (Gen 9:6; Exod 21:12) or blasphemy (Lev 24:16; John 10:30-33)—violations that threatened the living community.<\/p>\nIn the Old Testament, the opposite of “the land of the living” (Ps 27:13) was Sheol,<\/em> the realm of the dead that was shrouded in darkness and silence (Job 10:21-22; Ps 94:17; Jon 2:6). Yet even in death, God’s people cannot be separated from his presence (see Prov 14:32). God is sovereign and rules over death (Deut 32:39).<\/p>\nWhile the Old Testament often speaks of death simply in terms of joining one’s ancestors—without specific reference to resurrection (see, e.g., Gen 49:29-33)—there are some allusions to resurrection (see Job 19:25-27; Isa 25:6-9; 26:19; Dan 12:2). Jewish belief in resurrection seems to have become more widespread during the intertestamental period, and resurrection is a prominent theme in the New Testament. Through Christ, God’s redeemed people will triumph over death (1 Cor 15:54-57), the last enemy to be destroyed (1 Cor 15:26). Death results from sin (Rom 5:12), and those who live in sin and refuse to turn to God will be punished in the lake of fire in what is called the second death (Rev 21:8). But Christ’s death defeated death, and his resurrection serves as the paradigm for all believers (Col 1:18). He is the Lord of the living and of the dead (Rom 14:9). The time of death—when the natural inclination is to mourn—should also be the time of the greatest demonstration of faith, for the recipient of God’s promises has a hope beyond the grave.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:15-17; 3:19; 6:17; 9:5-6; 49:29-33; Exod 21:12-17, 28-29; 23:7; 31:14-15; Lev 24:16; Deut 32:39; Job 10:18-22; 19:25-27; Pss 90:1-12; 94:17; Prov 14:32; Eccl 12:1-7; Isa 25:6-9; 26:19; 40:6-8; Dan 12:2-3; Mark 12:26-27; Rom 5:12-17; 1 Cor 15:20-26, 51-58; Rev 20:4-6, 11-15; 21:3-8<\/p>","summary_ro":"Death Humans are mortal, and death is the natural end of earthly life (Ps 90:1-6). Human identity began with the earth’s dust being animated by the breath of God (Gen 2:7). This passive state returns at death as God withdraws his breath and the human body collapses again into dust (3:19; Job 4:19-21; Isa 40:6-8). Human life depends entirely and continuously on the Creator of life—his breath is a gift that sustains us in life for as long as he grants it (Ps 104:29). Death entered the human rac...","summary_en":"Death Humans are mortal, and death is the natural end of earthly life (Ps 90:1-6). Human identity began with the earth’s dust being animated by the breath of God (Gen 2:7). This passive state returns at death as God withdraws his breath and the human body collapses again into dust (3:19; Job 4:19-21; Isa 40:6-8). Human life depends entirely and continuously on the Creator of life—his breath is a gift that sustains us in life for as long as he grants it (Ps 104:29). Death entered the human rac...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":117286,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Violation of the Sacred","title_en":"Violation of the Sacred","content_ro":"<h3>Violation of the Sacred<\/h3>\nEver since Eden, humans have attempted to take God’s sacred space as their own (Gen 2:15-17; 3:1-6). Scripture shows us God’s anger and swift punishment when people treat his holy commands with contempt or casual disdain. Nadab and Abihu were supposed to lead Israel in proper worship, so when they ignored God’s specific instructions about priestly duties, they lost their lives for their sin (Lev 10:1-20). Jesus himself expressed the righteous anger of God when he entered the Temple with a whip and drove out the merchants and money changers who were defiling the holy space for their own profit (John 2:13-16).<\/p>\nThere can be no violations with respect to God’s holy presence, and that certainly included the Temple in Jerusalem. The Temple represented God’s presence in creation, so all of its rituals needed to reflect its status as sacred and set apart for God alone. This meant that no one could enter it to make offerings except those anointed for the task.<\/p>\nOne particularly egregious sin was when King Uzziah entered the Temple to burn incense (2 Chr 26:16). The kings of Israel (unlike kings of other ancient Near Eastern cultures) were excluded from the sacred space because they were anointed only for the secular function of government. The king of Israel was not a priest. He was not God’s representative in sacred matters nor (as in other cultures) a god himself. He was a servant of God taken from among his brothers to administer the covenant in the community (Deut 17:18-20). So when King Uzziah tried to claim a priestly function that was not rightfully his, he violated the sanctuary that God had set apart for his own presence. In terms of the function of the Temple, this violation was no trivial matter.<\/p>\nDavid provides a counterpoint to Uzziah’s arrogance (1 Sam 21:1-9). When his men were hungry, he knew they could find bread at the Tabernacle, but instead of claiming it for himself, he made his request to the priest, who gave them the holy bread with his blessing. By contrast, when Uzziah entered the Temple and violated this sacred space, his response was typical of arrogant human hearts (26:16). He assumed that, as king, he had the right to enter God’s sacred Temple. But he did not have that right, and he was judged with affliction by a skin disease and separation from daily life. The punishment was appropriate to the arrogance of his sin.<\/p>\nUzziah-like sacrilege remains an ever-present temptation. Any conduct that fails to glorify God is a violation of his sacred space. All of human history consists of the story of God restoring the entire heavens and earth to be the place of his dwelling. In the new covenant through Jesus Christ, God’s sacred space is not limited to a Temple in Jerusalem or any other building; he sets apart for himself the lives of people who trust in him (1 Cor 6:19-20). In his grace, God has made the people of the new covenant to be his temple on earth (1 Pet 2:4-5), to be the space where his holiness enters creation. History will be complete when all of heaven and earth becomes the temple of God (Isa 65:17-18; Rev 21:1-2).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:15-17; 3:1-6; Exod 19:12-13; 31:14-15; Lev 10:1-20; 24:16-17; Num 1:51; 15:32-36; 2 Chr 26:16-21; 1 Cor 6:19-20<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Violation of the Sacred<\/h3>\nEver since Eden, humans have attempted to take God’s sacred space as their own (Gen 2:15-17; 3:1-6). Scripture shows us God’s anger and swift punishment when people treat his holy commands with contempt or casual disdain. Nadab and Abihu were supposed to lead Israel in proper worship, so when they ignored God’s specific instructions about priestly duties, they lost their lives for their sin (Lev 10:1-20). Jesus himself expressed the righteous anger of God when he entered the Temple with a whip and drove out the merchants and money changers who were defiling the holy space for their own profit (John 2:13-16).<\/p>\nThere can be no violations with respect to God’s holy presence, and that certainly included the Temple in Jerusalem. The Temple represented God’s presence in creation, so all of its rituals needed to reflect its status as sacred and set apart for God alone. This meant that no one could enter it to make offerings except those anointed for the task.<\/p>\nOne particularly egregious sin was when King Uzziah entered the Temple to burn incense (2 Chr 26:16). The kings of Israel (unlike kings of other ancient Near Eastern cultures) were excluded from the sacred space because they were anointed only for the secular function of government. The king of Israel was not a priest. He was not God’s representative in sacred matters nor (as in other cultures) a god himself. He was a servant of God taken from among his brothers to administer the covenant in the community (Deut 17:18-20). So when King Uzziah tried to claim a priestly function that was not rightfully his, he violated the sanctuary that God had set apart for his own presence. In terms of the function of the Temple, this violation was no trivial matter.<\/p>\nDavid provides a counterpoint to Uzziah’s arrogance (1 Sam 21:1-9). When his men were hungry, he knew they could find bread at the Tabernacle, but instead of claiming it for himself, he made his request to the priest, who gave them the holy bread with his blessing. By contrast, when Uzziah entered the Temple and violated this sacred space, his response was typical of arrogant human hearts (26:16). He assumed that, as king, he had the right to enter God’s sacred Temple. But he did not have that right, and he was judged with affliction by a skin disease and separation from daily life. The punishment was appropriate to the arrogance of his sin.<\/p>\nUzziah-like sacrilege remains an ever-present temptation. Any conduct that fails to glorify God is a violation of his sacred space. All of human history consists of the story of God restoring the entire heavens and earth to be the place of his dwelling. In the new covenant through Jesus Christ, God’s sacred space is not limited to a Temple in Jerusalem or any other building; he sets apart for himself the lives of people who trust in him (1 Cor 6:19-20). In his grace, God has made the people of the new covenant to be his temple on earth (1 Pet 2:4-5), to be the space where his holiness enters creation. History will be complete when all of heaven and earth becomes the temple of God (Isa 65:17-18; Rev 21:1-2).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:15-17; 3:1-6; Exod 19:12-13; 31:14-15; Lev 10:1-20; 24:16-17; Num 1:51; 15:32-36; 2 Chr 26:16-21; 1 Cor 6:19-20<\/p>","summary_ro":"Violation of the Sacred Ever since Eden, humans have attempted to take God’s sacred space as their own (Gen 2:15-17; 3:1-6). Scripture shows us God’s anger and swift punishment when people treat his holy commands with contempt or casual disdain. Nadab and Abihu were supposed to lead Israel in proper worship, so when they ignored God’s specific instructions about priestly duties, they lost their lives for their sin (Lev 10:1-20). Jesus himself expressed the righteous anger of God when he enter...","summary_en":"Violation of the Sacred Ever since Eden, humans have attempted to take God’s sacred space as their own (Gen 2:15-17; 3:1-6). Scripture shows us God’s anger and swift punishment when people treat his holy commands with contempt or casual disdain. Nadab and Abihu were supposed to lead Israel in proper worship, so when they ignored God’s specific instructions about priestly duties, they lost their lives for their sin (Lev 10:1-20). Jesus himself expressed the righteous anger of God when he enter...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":118869,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Laziness and Hard Work","title_en":"Laziness and Hard Work","content_ro":"<h3>Laziness and Hard Work<\/h3>\nGod created Adam and Eve and put them in the Garden to tend it, not just to sit back and enjoy it (Gen 2:15). Work is not a result of the Fall but rather is a dignified and important part of creation.<\/p>\nThe book of Proverbs frequently condemns laziness. The lazy are sarcastically compared to a door that swings back and forth (26:14), and they are lampooned for their empty excuses (e.g., 22:13). Proverbs equates lazy people with the foolish; their lack of productivity leads to poverty and death (6:6-10; 10:26; 15:19; 18:9; 19:15, 24; 20:4; 21:25; 22:13; 24:30-34; 26:13-16). By contrast, diligent people are seen as wise; their activities lead to wealth and life (10:4-6; 12:11; 13:4; 20:13; 31:10-27).<\/p>\nWhile it is true that ultimate meaning and fulfillment do not come from hard work (Eccl 2:17-26), and that our hard work must not cause us to forget God’s ability to provide (see Ps 127:2), we still have no excuse to be lazy. God designed us to use the gifts and abilities he has given us to be productive and to provide, as we are able, for ourselves and others (see Eph 4:28; 1 Thes 4:11-12; 2 Thes 3:6-13).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nExod 23:12; Prov 6:6-11; 10:4-6, 26; 12:11, 24, 27; 13:4, 11; 14:4, 23; 15:19; 18:9; 19:15; 21:5, 25; 24:30-34; 26:13-16; 28:19; 31:10-31; Eccl 2:18-26; 4:5-6; 5:12; 9:10; 11:4-6; Rom 12:11; Eph 4:28; 1 Thes 4:11-12; 2 Thes 3:10-15<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Laziness and Hard Work<\/h3>\nGod created Adam and Eve and put them in the Garden to tend it, not just to sit back and enjoy it (Gen 2:15). Work is not a result of the Fall but rather is a dignified and important part of creation.<\/p>\nThe book of Proverbs frequently condemns laziness. The lazy are sarcastically compared to a door that swings back and forth (26:14), and they are lampooned for their empty excuses (e.g., 22:13). Proverbs equates lazy people with the foolish; their lack of productivity leads to poverty and death (6:6-10; 10:26; 15:19; 18:9; 19:15, 24; 20:4; 21:25; 22:13; 24:30-34; 26:13-16). By contrast, diligent people are seen as wise; their activities lead to wealth and life (10:4-6; 12:11; 13:4; 20:13; 31:10-27).<\/p>\nWhile it is true that ultimate meaning and fulfillment do not come from hard work (Eccl 2:17-26), and that our hard work must not cause us to forget God’s ability to provide (see Ps 127:2), we still have no excuse to be lazy. God designed us to use the gifts and abilities he has given us to be productive and to provide, as we are able, for ourselves and others (see Eph 4:28; 1 Thes 4:11-12; 2 Thes 3:6-13).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nExod 23:12; Prov 6:6-11; 10:4-6, 26; 12:11, 24, 27; 13:4, 11; 14:4, 23; 15:19; 18:9; 19:15; 21:5, 25; 24:30-34; 26:13-16; 28:19; 31:10-31; Eccl 2:18-26; 4:5-6; 5:12; 9:10; 11:4-6; Rom 12:11; Eph 4:28; 1 Thes 4:11-12; 2 Thes 3:10-15<\/p>","summary_ro":"Laziness and Hard Work God created Adam and Eve and put them in the Garden to tend it, not just to sit back and enjoy it (Gen 2:15). Work is not a result of the Fall but rather is a dignified and important part of creation. The book of Proverbs frequently condemns laziness. The lazy are sarcastically compared to a door that swings back and forth (26:14), and they are lampooned for their empty excuses (e.g., 22:13). Proverbs equates lazy people with the foolish; their lack of productivity lead...","summary_en":"Laziness and Hard Work God created Adam and Eve and put them in the Garden to tend it, not just to sit back and enjoy it (Gen 2:15). Work is not a result of the Fall but rather is a dignified and important part of creation. The book of Proverbs frequently condemns laziness. The lazy are sarcastically compared to a door that swings back and forth (26:14), and they are lampooned for their empty excuses (e.g., 22:13). Proverbs equates lazy people with the foolish; their lack of productivity lead...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":142960,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Death","title_en":"Death","content_ro":"<h3>Death<\/h3>\nHumans are mortal, and death is the natural end of earthly life (Ps 90:1-6). Human identity began with the earth’s dust being animated by the breath of God (Gen 2:7). This passive state returns at death as God withdraws his breath and the human body collapses again into dust (3:19; Job 4:19-21; Isa 40:6-8). Human life depends entirely and continuously on the Creator of life—his breath is a gift that sustains us in life for as long as he grants it (Ps 104:29).<\/p>\nDeath entered the human race by sin and brought ruin to it; death comes suddenly, bringing mourning and an apparent end to hopes and dreams. Death is the severest penalty in human justice. In the Old Testament, the death penalty was a punishment for murder (Gen 9:6; Exod 21:12) or blasphemy (Lev 24:16; John 10:30-33)—violations that threatened the living community.<\/p>\nIn the Old Testament, the opposite of “the land of the living” (Ps 27:13) was Sheol,<\/em> the realm of the dead that was shrouded in darkness and silence (Job 10:21-22; Ps 94:17; Jon 2:6). Yet even in death, God’s people cannot be separated from his presence (see Prov 14:32). God is sovereign and rules over death (Deut 32:39).<\/p>\nWhile the Old Testament often speaks of death simply in terms of joining one’s ancestors—without specific reference to resurrection (see, e.g., Gen 49:29-33)—there are some allusions to resurrection (see Job 19:25-27; Isa 25:6-9; 26:19; Dan 12:2). Jewish belief in resurrection seems to have become more widespread during the intertestamental period, and resurrection is a prominent theme in the New Testament. Through Christ, God’s redeemed people will triumph over death (1 Cor 15:54-57), the last enemy to be destroyed (1 Cor 15:26). Death results from sin (Rom 5:12), and those who live in sin and refuse to turn to God will be punished in the lake of fire in what is called the second death (Rev 21:8). But Christ’s death defeated death, and his resurrection serves as the paradigm for all believers (Col 1:18). He is the Lord of the living and of the dead (Rom 14:9). The time of death—when the natural inclination is to mourn—should also be the time of the greatest demonstration of faith, for the recipient of God’s promises has a hope beyond the grave.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:15-17; 3:19; 6:17; 9:5-6; 49:29-33; Exod 21:12-17, 28-29; 23:7; 31:14-15; Lev 24:16; Deut 32:39; Job 10:18-22; 19:25-27; Pss 90:1-12; 94:17; Prov 14:32; Eccl 12:1-7; Isa 25:6-9; 26:19; 40:6-8; Dan 12:2-3; Mark 12:26-27; Rom 5:12-17; 1 Cor 15:20-26, 51-58; Rev 20:4-6, 11-15; 21:3-8<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Death<\/h3>\nHumans are mortal, and death is the natural end of earthly life (Ps 90:1-6). Human identity began with the earth’s dust being animated by the breath of God (Gen 2:7). This passive state returns at death as God withdraws his breath and the human body collapses again into dust (3:19; Job 4:19-21; Isa 40:6-8). Human life depends entirely and continuously on the Creator of life—his breath is a gift that sustains us in life for as long as he grants it (Ps 104:29).<\/p>\nDeath entered the human race by sin and brought ruin to it; death comes suddenly, bringing mourning and an apparent end to hopes and dreams. Death is the severest penalty in human justice. In the Old Testament, the death penalty was a punishment for murder (Gen 9:6; Exod 21:12) or blasphemy (Lev 24:16; John 10:30-33)—violations that threatened the living community.<\/p>\nIn the Old Testament, the opposite of “the land of the living” (Ps 27:13) was Sheol,<\/em> the realm of the dead that was shrouded in darkness and silence (Job 10:21-22; Ps 94:17; Jon 2:6). Yet even in death, God’s people cannot be separated from his presence (see Prov 14:32). God is sovereign and rules over death (Deut 32:39).<\/p>\nWhile the Old Testament often speaks of death simply in terms of joining one’s ancestors—without specific reference to resurrection (see, e.g., Gen 49:29-33)—there are some allusions to resurrection (see Job 19:25-27; Isa 25:6-9; 26:19; Dan 12:2). Jewish belief in resurrection seems to have become more widespread during the intertestamental period, and resurrection is a prominent theme in the New Testament. Through Christ, God’s redeemed people will triumph over death (1 Cor 15:54-57), the last enemy to be destroyed (1 Cor 15:26). Death results from sin (Rom 5:12), and those who live in sin and refuse to turn to God will be punished in the lake of fire in what is called the second death (Rev 21:8). But Christ’s death defeated death, and his resurrection serves as the paradigm for all believers (Col 1:18). He is the Lord of the living and of the dead (Rom 14:9). The time of death—when the natural inclination is to mourn—should also be the time of the greatest demonstration of faith, for the recipient of God’s promises has a hope beyond the grave.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:15-17; 3:19; 6:17; 9:5-6; 49:29-33; Exod 21:12-17, 28-29; 23:7; 31:14-15; Lev 24:16; Deut 32:39; Job 10:18-22; 19:25-27; Pss 90:1-12; 94:17; Prov 14:32; Eccl 12:1-7; Isa 25:6-9; 26:19; 40:6-8; Dan 12:2-3; Mark 12:26-27; Rom 5:12-17; 1 Cor 15:20-26, 51-58; Rev 20:4-6, 11-15; 21:3-8<\/p>","summary_ro":"Death Humans are mortal, and death is the natural end of earthly life (Ps 90:1-6). Human identity began with the earth’s dust being animated by the breath of God (Gen 2:7). This passive state returns at death as God withdraws his breath and the human body collapses again into dust (3:19; Job 4:19-21; Isa 40:6-8). Human life depends entirely and continuously on the Creator of life—his breath is a gift that sustains us in life for as long as he grants it (Ps 104:29). Death entered the human rac...","summary_en":"Death Humans are mortal, and death is the natural end of earthly life (Ps 90:1-6). Human identity began with the earth’s dust being animated by the breath of God (Gen 2:7). This passive state returns at death as God withdraws his breath and the human body collapses again into dust (3:19; Job 4:19-21; Isa 40:6-8). Human life depends entirely and continuously on the Creator of life—his breath is a gift that sustains us in life for as long as he grants it (Ps 104:29). Death entered the human rac...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":144912,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Violation of the Sacred","title_en":"Violation of the Sacred","content_ro":"<h3>Violation of the Sacred<\/h3>\nEver since Eden, humans have attempted to take God’s sacred space as their own (Gen 2:15-17; 3:1-6). Scripture shows us God’s anger and swift punishment when people treat his holy commands with contempt or casual disdain. Nadab and Abihu were supposed to lead Israel in proper worship, so when they ignored God’s specific instructions about priestly duties, they lost their lives for their sin (Lev 10:1-20). Jesus himself expressed the righteous anger of God when he entered the Temple with a whip and drove out the merchants and money changers who were defiling the holy space for their own profit (John 2:13-16).<\/p>\nThere can be no violations with respect to God’s holy presence, and that certainly included the Temple in Jerusalem. The Temple represented God’s presence in creation, so all of its rituals needed to reflect its status as sacred and set apart for God alone. This meant that no one could enter it to make offerings except those anointed for the task.<\/p>\nOne particularly egregious sin was when King Uzziah entered the Temple to burn incense (2 Chr 26:16). The kings of Israel (unlike kings of other ancient Near Eastern cultures) were excluded from the sacred space because they were anointed only for the secular function of government. The king of Israel was not a priest. He was not God’s representative in sacred matters nor (as in other cultures) a god himself. He was a servant of God taken from among his brothers to administer the covenant in the community (Deut 17:18-20). So when King Uzziah tried to claim a priestly function that was not rightfully his, he violated the sanctuary that God had set apart for his own presence. In terms of the function of the Temple, this violation was no trivial matter.<\/p>\nDavid provides a counterpoint to Uzziah’s arrogance (1 Sam 21:1-9). When his men were hungry, he knew they could find bread at the Tabernacle, but instead of claiming it for himself, he made his request to the priest, who gave them the holy bread with his blessing. By contrast, when Uzziah entered the Temple and violated this sacred space, his response was typical of arrogant human hearts (26:16). He assumed that, as king, he had the right to enter God’s sacred Temple. But he did not have that right, and he was judged with affliction by a skin disease and separation from daily life. The punishment was appropriate to the arrogance of his sin.<\/p>\nUzziah-like sacrilege remains an ever-present temptation. Any conduct that fails to glorify God is a violation of his sacred space. All of human history consists of the story of God restoring the entire heavens and earth to be the place of his dwelling. In the new covenant through Jesus Christ, God’s sacred space is not limited to a Temple in Jerusalem or any other building; he sets apart for himself the lives of people who trust in him (1 Cor 6:19-20). In his grace, God has made the people of the new covenant to be his temple on earth (1 Pet 2:4-5), to be the space where his holiness enters creation. History will be complete when all of heaven and earth becomes the temple of God (Isa 65:17-18; Rev 21:1-2).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:15-17; 3:1-6; Exod 19:12-13; 31:14-15; Lev 10:1-20; 24:16-17; Num 1:51; 15:32-36; 2 Chr 26:16-21; 1 Cor 6:19-20<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Violation of the Sacred<\/h3>\nEver since Eden, humans have attempted to take God’s sacred space as their own (Gen 2:15-17; 3:1-6). Scripture shows us God’s anger and swift punishment when people treat his holy commands with contempt or casual disdain. Nadab and Abihu were supposed to lead Israel in proper worship, so when they ignored God’s specific instructions about priestly duties, they lost their lives for their sin (Lev 10:1-20). Jesus himself expressed the righteous anger of God when he entered the Temple with a whip and drove out the merchants and money changers who were defiling the holy space for their own profit (John 2:13-16).<\/p>\nThere can be no violations with respect to God’s holy presence, and that certainly included the Temple in Jerusalem. The Temple represented God’s presence in creation, so all of its rituals needed to reflect its status as sacred and set apart for God alone. This meant that no one could enter it to make offerings except those anointed for the task.<\/p>\nOne particularly egregious sin was when King Uzziah entered the Temple to burn incense (2 Chr 26:16). The kings of Israel (unlike kings of other ancient Near Eastern cultures) were excluded from the sacred space because they were anointed only for the secular function of government. The king of Israel was not a priest. He was not God’s representative in sacred matters nor (as in other cultures) a god himself. He was a servant of God taken from among his brothers to administer the covenant in the community (Deut 17:18-20). So when King Uzziah tried to claim a priestly function that was not rightfully his, he violated the sanctuary that God had set apart for his own presence. In terms of the function of the Temple, this violation was no trivial matter.<\/p>\nDavid provides a counterpoint to Uzziah’s arrogance (1 Sam 21:1-9). When his men were hungry, he knew they could find bread at the Tabernacle, but instead of claiming it for himself, he made his request to the priest, who gave them the holy bread with his blessing. By contrast, when Uzziah entered the Temple and violated this sacred space, his response was typical of arrogant human hearts (26:16). He assumed that, as king, he had the right to enter God’s sacred Temple. But he did not have that right, and he was judged with affliction by a skin disease and separation from daily life. The punishment was appropriate to the arrogance of his sin.<\/p>\nUzziah-like sacrilege remains an ever-present temptation. Any conduct that fails to glorify God is a violation of his sacred space. All of human history consists of the story of God restoring the entire heavens and earth to be the place of his dwelling. In the new covenant through Jesus Christ, God’s sacred space is not limited to a Temple in Jerusalem or any other building; he sets apart for himself the lives of people who trust in him (1 Cor 6:19-20). In his grace, God has made the people of the new covenant to be his temple on earth (1 Pet 2:4-5), to be the space where his holiness enters creation. History will be complete when all of heaven and earth becomes the temple of God (Isa 65:17-18; Rev 21:1-2).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:15-17; 3:1-6; Exod 19:12-13; 31:14-15; Lev 10:1-20; 24:16-17; Num 1:51; 15:32-36; 2 Chr 26:16-21; 1 Cor 6:19-20<\/p>","summary_ro":"Violation of the Sacred Ever since Eden, humans have attempted to take God’s sacred space as their own (Gen 2:15-17; 3:1-6). Scripture shows us God’s anger and swift punishment when people treat his holy commands with contempt or casual disdain. Nadab and Abihu were supposed to lead Israel in proper worship, so when they ignored God’s specific instructions about priestly duties, they lost their lives for their sin (Lev 10:1-20). Jesus himself expressed the righteous anger of God when he enter...","summary_en":"Violation of the Sacred Ever since Eden, humans have attempted to take God’s sacred space as their own (Gen 2:15-17; 3:1-6). Scripture shows us God’s anger and swift punishment when people treat his holy commands with contempt or casual disdain. Nadab and Abihu were supposed to lead Israel in proper worship, so when they ignored God’s specific instructions about priestly duties, they lost their lives for their sin (Lev 10:1-20). Jesus himself expressed the righteous anger of God when he enter...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":146495,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Laziness and Hard Work","title_en":"Laziness and Hard Work","content_ro":"<h3>Laziness and Hard Work<\/h3>\nGod created Adam and Eve and put them in the Garden to tend it, not just to sit back and enjoy it (Gen 2:15). Work is not a result of the Fall but rather is a dignified and important part of creation.<\/p>\nThe book of Proverbs frequently condemns laziness. The lazy are sarcastically compared to a door that swings back and forth (26:14), and they are lampooned for their empty excuses (e.g., 22:13). Proverbs equates lazy people with the foolish; their lack of productivity leads to poverty and death (6:6-10; 10:26; 15:19; 18:9; 19:15, 24; 20:4; 21:25; 22:13; 24:30-34; 26:13-16). By contrast, diligent people are seen as wise; their activities lead to wealth and life (10:4-6; 12:11; 13:4; 20:13; 31:10-27).<\/p>\nWhile it is true that ultimate meaning and fulfillment do not come from hard work (Eccl 2:17-26), and that our hard work must not cause us to forget God’s ability to provide (see Ps 127:2), we still have no excuse to be lazy. God designed us to use the gifts and abilities he has given us to be productive and to provide, as we are able, for ourselves and others (see Eph 4:28; 1 Thes 4:11-12; 2 Thes 3:6-13).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nExod 23:12; Prov 6:6-11; 10:4-6, 26; 12:11, 24, 27; 13:4, 11; 14:4, 23; 15:19; 18:9; 19:15; 21:5, 25; 24:30-34; 26:13-16; 28:19; 31:10-31; Eccl 2:18-26; 4:5-6; 5:12; 9:10; 11:4-6; Rom 12:11; Eph 4:28; 1 Thes 4:11-12; 2 Thes 3:10-15<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Laziness and Hard Work<\/h3>\nGod created Adam and Eve and put them in the Garden to tend it, not just to sit back and enjoy it (Gen 2:15). Work is not a result of the Fall but rather is a dignified and important part of creation.<\/p>\nThe book of Proverbs frequently condemns laziness. The lazy are sarcastically compared to a door that swings back and forth (26:14), and they are lampooned for their empty excuses (e.g., 22:13). Proverbs equates lazy people with the foolish; their lack of productivity leads to poverty and death (6:6-10; 10:26; 15:19; 18:9; 19:15, 24; 20:4; 21:25; 22:13; 24:30-34; 26:13-16). By contrast, diligent people are seen as wise; their activities lead to wealth and life (10:4-6; 12:11; 13:4; 20:13; 31:10-27).<\/p>\nWhile it is true that ultimate meaning and fulfillment do not come from hard work (Eccl 2:17-26), and that our hard work must not cause us to forget God’s ability to provide (see Ps 127:2), we still have no excuse to be lazy. God designed us to use the gifts and abilities he has given us to be productive and to provide, as we are able, for ourselves and others (see Eph 4:28; 1 Thes 4:11-12; 2 Thes 3:6-13).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nExod 23:12; Prov 6:6-11; 10:4-6, 26; 12:11, 24, 27; 13:4, 11; 14:4, 23; 15:19; 18:9; 19:15; 21:5, 25; 24:30-34; 26:13-16; 28:19; 31:10-31; Eccl 2:18-26; 4:5-6; 5:12; 9:10; 11:4-6; Rom 12:11; Eph 4:28; 1 Thes 4:11-12; 2 Thes 3:10-15<\/p>","summary_ro":"Laziness and Hard Work God created Adam and Eve and put them in the Garden to tend it, not just to sit back and enjoy it (Gen 2:15). Work is not a result of the Fall but rather is a dignified and important part of creation. The book of Proverbs frequently condemns laziness. The lazy are sarcastically compared to a door that swings back and forth (26:14), and they are lampooned for their empty excuses (e.g., 22:13). Proverbs equates lazy people with the foolish; their lack of productivity lead...","summary_en":"Laziness and Hard Work God created Adam and Eve and put them in the Garden to tend it, not just to sit back and enjoy it (Gen 2:15). Work is not a result of the Fall but rather is a dignified and important part of creation. The book of Proverbs frequently condemns laziness. The lazy are sarcastically compared to a door that swings back and forth (26:14), and they are lampooned for their empty excuses (e.g., 22:13). Proverbs equates lazy people with the foolish; their lack of productivity lead...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"16":[{"id":40453,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Adam and Eve","title_en":"Adam and Eve","content_ro":"<h3>Adam and Eve<\/h3>\nAdam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17).<\/p>\nGod created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity that God intended for man and woman in marriage (2:23-25). She is honored as “the mother of all who live” (3:20).<\/p>\nAfter the serpent deceived Eve into rejecting God’s rule, Adam also rebelled (3:1-6). Their willful disobedience disrupted their relationship (3:7) and separated them from God. God looked for Adam after his rebellion; he and Eve were hiding among the trees, already aware of the alienation (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam blamed Eve and, by implication, God (3:12). Their rebellion brought pain, strained relationships, hardship in governing the earth, and death—physical and spiritual (3:16-19, 22-24). Nonetheless, God provided animal skins to cover Adam and Eve (3:21), and promised that Eve’s offspring would defeat Satan (3:15; see Rom 16:20; Rev 12:1-9; 20:1-10).<\/p>\nAdam was a historical individual (Gen 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tim 2:13-14; Jude 1:14) who also represents humanity as a whole. God’s mandates (Gen 1:26-30) and curses (3:16-19) affected not only Adam and Eve, but the entire human race. Adam represents separation from God, which all humanity experiences.<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul contrasted those represented by Adam, the first man, with those who follow Christ, the “last Adam” (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:45-50; see also Rom 8:5-11, 20-22). Those represented by Adam live only after his example—they partake of his sin, his alienation from God and God’s creation, and his spiritual death. By contrast, those who follow Christ live by faith in him. They are recreated in Christ’s image and become “new people” who partake of a new creation (see Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The barriers Adam and Eve raised are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16); Christ restores what they lost.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:26-31; 2:4–3:24; 4:25–5:5; Hos 6:6-7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:22, 45-49; 1 Tim 2:13-14<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Adam and Eve<\/h3>\nAdam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17).<\/p>\nGod created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity that God intended for man and woman in marriage (2:23-25). She is honored as “the mother of all who live” (3:20).<\/p>\nAfter the serpent deceived Eve into rejecting God’s rule, Adam also rebelled (3:1-6). Their willful disobedience disrupted their relationship (3:7) and separated them from God. God looked for Adam after his rebellion; he and Eve were hiding among the trees, already aware of the alienation (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam blamed Eve and, by implication, God (3:12). Their rebellion brought pain, strained relationships, hardship in governing the earth, and death—physical and spiritual (3:16-19, 22-24). Nonetheless, God provided animal skins to cover Adam and Eve (3:21), and promised that Eve’s offspring would defeat Satan (3:15; see Rom 16:20; Rev 12:1-9; 20:1-10).<\/p>\nAdam was a historical individual (Gen 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tim 2:13-14; Jude 1:14) who also represents humanity as a whole. God’s mandates (Gen 1:26-30) and curses (3:16-19) affected not only Adam and Eve, but the entire human race. Adam represents separation from God, which all humanity experiences.<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul contrasted those represented by Adam, the first man, with those who follow Christ, the “last Adam” (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:45-50; see also Rom 8:5-11, 20-22). Those represented by Adam live only after his example—they partake of his sin, his alienation from God and God’s creation, and his spiritual death. By contrast, those who follow Christ live by faith in him. They are recreated in Christ’s image and become “new people” who partake of a new creation (see Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The barriers Adam and Eve raised are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16); Christ restores what they lost.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:26-31; 2:4–3:24; 4:25–5:5; Hos 6:6-7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:22, 45-49; 1 Tim 2:13-14<\/p>","summary_ro":"Adam and Eve Adam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17). God created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity...","summary_en":"Adam and Eve Adam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17). God created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":68079,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Adam and Eve","title_en":"Adam and Eve","content_ro":"<h3>Adam and Eve<\/h3>\nAdam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17).<\/p>\nGod created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity that God intended for man and woman in marriage (2:23-25). She is honored as “the mother of all who live” (3:20).<\/p>\nAfter the serpent deceived Eve into rejecting God’s rule, Adam also rebelled (3:1-6). Their willful disobedience disrupted their relationship (3:7) and separated them from God. God looked for Adam after his rebellion; he and Eve were hiding among the trees, already aware of the alienation (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam blamed Eve and, by implication, God (3:12). Their rebellion brought pain, strained relationships, hardship in governing the earth, and death—physical and spiritual (3:16-19, 22-24). Nonetheless, God provided animal skins to cover Adam and Eve (3:21), and promised that Eve’s offspring would defeat Satan (3:15; see Rom 16:20; Rev 12:1-9; 20:1-10).<\/p>\nAdam was a historical individual (Gen 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tim 2:13-14; Jude 1:14) who also represents humanity as a whole. God’s mandates (Gen 1:26-30) and curses (3:16-19) affected not only Adam and Eve, but the entire human race. Adam represents separation from God, which all humanity experiences.<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul contrasted those represented by Adam, the first man, with those who follow Christ, the “last Adam” (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:45-50; see also Rom 8:5-11, 20-22). Those represented by Adam live only after his example—they partake of his sin, his alienation from God and God’s creation, and his spiritual death. By contrast, those who follow Christ live by faith in him. They are recreated in Christ’s image and become “new people” who partake of a new creation (see Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The barriers Adam and Eve raised are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16); Christ restores what they lost.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:26-31; 2:4–3:24; 4:25–5:5; Hos 6:6-7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:22, 45-49; 1 Tim 2:13-14<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Adam and Eve<\/h3>\nAdam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17).<\/p>\nGod created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity that God intended for man and woman in marriage (2:23-25). She is honored as “the mother of all who live” (3:20).<\/p>\nAfter the serpent deceived Eve into rejecting God’s rule, Adam also rebelled (3:1-6). Their willful disobedience disrupted their relationship (3:7) and separated them from God. God looked for Adam after his rebellion; he and Eve were hiding among the trees, already aware of the alienation (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam blamed Eve and, by implication, God (3:12). Their rebellion brought pain, strained relationships, hardship in governing the earth, and death—physical and spiritual (3:16-19, 22-24). Nonetheless, God provided animal skins to cover Adam and Eve (3:21), and promised that Eve’s offspring would defeat Satan (3:15; see Rom 16:20; Rev 12:1-9; 20:1-10).<\/p>\nAdam was a historical individual (Gen 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tim 2:13-14; Jude 1:14) who also represents humanity as a whole. God’s mandates (Gen 1:26-30) and curses (3:16-19) affected not only Adam and Eve, but the entire human race. Adam represents separation from God, which all humanity experiences.<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul contrasted those represented by Adam, the first man, with those who follow Christ, the “last Adam” (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:45-50; see also Rom 8:5-11, 20-22). Those represented by Adam live only after his example—they partake of his sin, his alienation from God and God’s creation, and his spiritual death. By contrast, those who follow Christ live by faith in him. They are recreated in Christ’s image and become “new people” who partake of a new creation (see Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The barriers Adam and Eve raised are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16); Christ restores what they lost.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:26-31; 2:4–3:24; 4:25–5:5; Hos 6:6-7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:22, 45-49; 1 Tim 2:13-14<\/p>","summary_ro":"Adam and Eve Adam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17). God created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity...","summary_en":"Adam and Eve Adam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17). God created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":95705,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Adam and Eve","title_en":"Adam and Eve","content_ro":"<h3>Adam and Eve<\/h3>\nAdam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17).<\/p>\nGod created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity that God intended for man and woman in marriage (2:23-25). She is honored as “the mother of all who live” (3:20).<\/p>\nAfter the serpent deceived Eve into rejecting God’s rule, Adam also rebelled (3:1-6). Their willful disobedience disrupted their relationship (3:7) and separated them from God. God looked for Adam after his rebellion; he and Eve were hiding among the trees, already aware of the alienation (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam blamed Eve and, by implication, God (3:12). Their rebellion brought pain, strained relationships, hardship in governing the earth, and death—physical and spiritual (3:16-19, 22-24). Nonetheless, God provided animal skins to cover Adam and Eve (3:21), and promised that Eve’s offspring would defeat Satan (3:15; see Rom 16:20; Rev 12:1-9; 20:1-10).<\/p>\nAdam was a historical individual (Gen 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tim 2:13-14; Jude 1:14) who also represents humanity as a whole. God’s mandates (Gen 1:26-30) and curses (3:16-19) affected not only Adam and Eve, but the entire human race. Adam represents separation from God, which all humanity experiences.<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul contrasted those represented by Adam, the first man, with those who follow Christ, the “last Adam” (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:45-50; see also Rom 8:5-11, 20-22). Those represented by Adam live only after his example—they partake of his sin, his alienation from God and God’s creation, and his spiritual death. By contrast, those who follow Christ live by faith in him. They are recreated in Christ’s image and become “new people” who partake of a new creation (see Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The barriers Adam and Eve raised are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16); Christ restores what they lost.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:26-31; 2:4–3:24; 4:25–5:5; Hos 6:6-7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:22, 45-49; 1 Tim 2:13-14<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Adam and Eve<\/h3>\nAdam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17).<\/p>\nGod created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity that God intended for man and woman in marriage (2:23-25). She is honored as “the mother of all who live” (3:20).<\/p>\nAfter the serpent deceived Eve into rejecting God’s rule, Adam also rebelled (3:1-6). Their willful disobedience disrupted their relationship (3:7) and separated them from God. God looked for Adam after his rebellion; he and Eve were hiding among the trees, already aware of the alienation (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam blamed Eve and, by implication, God (3:12). Their rebellion brought pain, strained relationships, hardship in governing the earth, and death—physical and spiritual (3:16-19, 22-24). Nonetheless, God provided animal skins to cover Adam and Eve (3:21), and promised that Eve’s offspring would defeat Satan (3:15; see Rom 16:20; Rev 12:1-9; 20:1-10).<\/p>\nAdam was a historical individual (Gen 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tim 2:13-14; Jude 1:14) who also represents humanity as a whole. God’s mandates (Gen 1:26-30) and curses (3:16-19) affected not only Adam and Eve, but the entire human race. Adam represents separation from God, which all humanity experiences.<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul contrasted those represented by Adam, the first man, with those who follow Christ, the “last Adam” (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:45-50; see also Rom 8:5-11, 20-22). Those represented by Adam live only after his example—they partake of his sin, his alienation from God and God’s creation, and his spiritual death. By contrast, those who follow Christ live by faith in him. They are recreated in Christ’s image and become “new people” who partake of a new creation (see Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The barriers Adam and Eve raised are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16); Christ restores what they lost.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:26-31; 2:4–3:24; 4:25–5:5; Hos 6:6-7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:22, 45-49; 1 Tim 2:13-14<\/p>","summary_ro":"Adam and Eve Adam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17). God created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity...","summary_en":"Adam and Eve Adam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17). God created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":123331,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Adam and Eve","title_en":"Adam and Eve","content_ro":"<h3>Adam and Eve<\/h3>\nAdam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17).<\/p>\nGod created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity that God intended for man and woman in marriage (2:23-25). She is honored as “the mother of all who live” (3:20).<\/p>\nAfter the serpent deceived Eve into rejecting God’s rule, Adam also rebelled (3:1-6). Their willful disobedience disrupted their relationship (3:7) and separated them from God. God looked for Adam after his rebellion; he and Eve were hiding among the trees, already aware of the alienation (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam blamed Eve and, by implication, God (3:12). Their rebellion brought pain, strained relationships, hardship in governing the earth, and death—physical and spiritual (3:16-19, 22-24). Nonetheless, God provided animal skins to cover Adam and Eve (3:21), and promised that Eve’s offspring would defeat Satan (3:15; see Rom 16:20; Rev 12:1-9; 20:1-10).<\/p>\nAdam was a historical individual (Gen 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tim 2:13-14; Jude 1:14) who also represents humanity as a whole. God’s mandates (Gen 1:26-30) and curses (3:16-19) affected not only Adam and Eve, but the entire human race. Adam represents separation from God, which all humanity experiences.<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul contrasted those represented by Adam, the first man, with those who follow Christ, the “last Adam” (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:45-50; see also Rom 8:5-11, 20-22). Those represented by Adam live only after his example—they partake of his sin, his alienation from God and God’s creation, and his spiritual death. By contrast, those who follow Christ live by faith in him. They are recreated in Christ’s image and become “new people” who partake of a new creation (see Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The barriers Adam and Eve raised are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16); Christ restores what they lost.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:26-31; 2:4–3:24; 4:25–5:5; Hos 6:6-7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:22, 45-49; 1 Tim 2:13-14<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Adam and Eve<\/h3>\nAdam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17).<\/p>\nGod created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity that God intended for man and woman in marriage (2:23-25). She is honored as “the mother of all who live” (3:20).<\/p>\nAfter the serpent deceived Eve into rejecting God’s rule, Adam also rebelled (3:1-6). Their willful disobedience disrupted their relationship (3:7) and separated them from God. God looked for Adam after his rebellion; he and Eve were hiding among the trees, already aware of the alienation (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam blamed Eve and, by implication, God (3:12). Their rebellion brought pain, strained relationships, hardship in governing the earth, and death—physical and spiritual (3:16-19, 22-24). Nonetheless, God provided animal skins to cover Adam and Eve (3:21), and promised that Eve’s offspring would defeat Satan (3:15; see Rom 16:20; Rev 12:1-9; 20:1-10).<\/p>\nAdam was a historical individual (Gen 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tim 2:13-14; Jude 1:14) who also represents humanity as a whole. God’s mandates (Gen 1:26-30) and curses (3:16-19) affected not only Adam and Eve, but the entire human race. Adam represents separation from God, which all humanity experiences.<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul contrasted those represented by Adam, the first man, with those who follow Christ, the “last Adam” (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:45-50; see also Rom 8:5-11, 20-22). Those represented by Adam live only after his example—they partake of his sin, his alienation from God and God’s creation, and his spiritual death. By contrast, those who follow Christ live by faith in him. They are recreated in Christ’s image and become “new people” who partake of a new creation (see Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The barriers Adam and Eve raised are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16); Christ restores what they lost.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:26-31; 2:4–3:24; 4:25–5:5; Hos 6:6-7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:22, 45-49; 1 Tim 2:13-14<\/p>","summary_ro":"Adam and Eve Adam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17). God created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity...","summary_en":"Adam and Eve Adam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17). God created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":472,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Adam (Person)","title_en":"Adam (Person)","content_ro":"<h3>ADAM (Person<\/span>)<\/h3>\nFirst man and father of the human race. Adam’s role in biblical history is important not only in OT considerations but also in understanding the meaning of salvation and the person and work of Jesus Christ.<\/p>\nThe creation of Adam and the first woman, Eve, is recited in two accounts in the book of Genesis. The intent of the first account (1:26-31) is to present the first pair in their relationship to God and to the rest of the created order. It teaches that with regard to God the first humans were created male and female in God’s image with his specific mandate to populate and rule over the earth. With regard to the rest of creation the first humans were, on one hand, part of it, being created on the same day as other land animals; on the other hand, they were distinctly above it, being the culmination of the creation process and sole bearers of God’s image.<\/p>\nThe intent of the second account is much more specific (2:4–3:24); it seeks to explain the origin of the present human condition of sin and death and to set the stage for the drama of redemption. The story treats in detail aspects of Adam’s creation omitted from the first story. For example, it tells of the formation of Adam from the dust of the ground and of his receiving the breath of life from God (2:7). It recounts the planting of the Garden and the responsibility given to Adam to cultivate it (2:8-15). God’s instruction to Adam that the fruit of every tree in the Garden was his for food, except one, is carefully recorded, as well as the solemn warning that the fruit of the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” was never to be eaten, under the pain of death (2:16-17). Adam’s loneliness after naming the animals and not finding a suitable companion is also described, thus introducing the creation of the first woman (2:18-22). The creation of Eve from Adam’s rib poignantly portrays the essential unity of spirit and purpose of the sexes intended by God.<\/p>\nThe story does not end on such a positive note, however. It moves on to record the great deception Satan played upon Eve through the serpent. By clever insinuations and distortion of God’s original commandment (cf. 3:1 with 2:16-17), the serpent tricked Eve into eating the forbidden fruit and sharing it with Adam. Eve seems to have eaten because she was deceived (1 Tm 2:14), Adam out of a willful and conscious rebellion. Ironically, the two beings originally created in God’s image and likeness believed that they could become “like” God by disobeying him (Gn 3:5).<\/p>\nThe effects of their disobedience were immediate, though not at all what Adam had expected. For the first time a barrier of shame disrupted the unity of man and woman (3:7). More important, a barrier of real moral guilt was erected between the first couple and God. The story relates that when God came looking for Adam after his rebellion, he was hiding among the trees, already aware of his separation from God (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam threw the blame on Eve and, by implication, back on God: “It was the woman you gave me who brought me the fruit” (3:12, nlt<\/span>). Eve in turn blamed the serpent (3:13).<\/p>\nAccording to the story in Genesis, God held all three responsible and informed each one of the calamitous consequences of their rebellion (3:14-19). The two great mandates, originally signs of pure blessing, became mixed with curse and pain—the earth could now be populated only through the woman’s birth pangs and could be subdued only by the man’s labor and perspiration (3:16-18). Further, the unity of man and woman would be strained by man’s subjugation of her, or possibly by the beginning of a struggle for dominance between them (3:16b can be taken both ways). Finally, God pronounced the ultimate consequence: as he had originally warned, Adam and Eve were to die. Someday the breath of life would be taken from them, and their bodies would return to the dust from which they were made (3:19). That very day they also experienced a “spiritual” death; they were separated from God, the giver of life, and from the tree of life, the symbol of eternal life (3:22). God sent them out of Eden, and there was no way back. The entrance to paradise was blocked by the cherubim and flaming sword (3:23-24). Only God could restore what they had lost.<\/p>\nThe story is not devoid of hope. God was merciful even then. He made them garments of skin to cover their bodies and promised that someday the power of Satan behind the serpent would be crushed by the woman’s “seed” (Gn 3:15; cf. Rom 16:20). Many scholars consider that promise to be the first biblical mention of redemption.<\/p>\nThe Significance of Adam<\/p>\nAdam’s significance is based upon several assumptions, the first being that he was a historical individual. That assumption was made by many OT writers (Gn 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7). The NT writers agreed (Lk 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tm 2:13-14; Jude 1:14). Equally essential to Adam’s significance is a second assumption, that he was more than an individual. To begin with, the Hebrew word adam<\/span> (more correctly ’a–dha–m<\/span>) is not merely a proper name. Even in the Genesis story it is not used as a name until Genesis 4:25. The word is one of several Hebrew words meaning “man” and is the generic term for “human race.” In the vast majority of cases it refers either to a male individual (Lv 1:2; Jos 14:15; Neh 9:29; Is 56:2) or to humanity in general (Ex 4:11; Nm 12:3; 16:29; Dt 4:28; 1 Kgs 4:31; Jb 7:20; 14:1). The generic, collective sense of the word adam<\/span> is also behind the phrase “children (or sons) of men” (2 Sm 7:14; Pss 11:4; 12:1; 14:2; 53:2; 90:3; Eccl 1:13; 2:3). That phrase, literally “sons of adam<\/span>,”<\/em> simply means “men” or “human beings,” and when it is used the entire human race is in view. Indeed, the universalistic human connotation of the word adam<\/span> indicates a concern in the OT going far beyond Israel’s nationalistic hopes and its God—to all the earth’s people and the Lord of all nations (Gn 9:5-7; Dt 5:24; 8:3; 1 Kgs 8:38-39; Pss 8:4; 89:48; 107:8-31; Prv 12:14; Mi 6:8).<\/p>\nIt is no accident, then, that the first man was named “Adam” or “Man.” The name intimates that to speak about Adam is somehow also to speak about the entire human race. Such usage can perhaps best be understood through the ancient concept of corporate personality and representation familiar to the Hebrews and other Near Eastern peoples. Modern thinking emphasizes the individual; existence of the social group and all social relationships has been seen as secondary to, and dependent upon, the existence and desire of the individual. The Hebrew understanding was quite different. Though the separate personality of the individual was appreciated (Jer 31:29-30; Ez 18:4), there was a strong tendency to see the social group (family, tribe, nation) as a single organism with a corporate identity of its own. Likewise the group representative was seen as the embodiment or personification of the corporate personality of the group. Within the representative the essential qualities and characteristics of the social group resided in such a way that the actions and decisions of the representative were binding on the entire group. If the group was a family, the father was usually considered the corporate representative; for good or for ill his family, and sometimes his descendants, received the results of his actions (Gn 17:1-8; cf. Gn 20:1-9, 18; Ex 20:5-6; Jos 7:24-25; Rom 11:28; Heb 7:1-10).<\/p>\nAs the original man and father of humankind, in whose image all succeeding generations would be born (Gn 5:3), Adam was the corporate representative of humanity. The creation accounts themselves give the impression that the mandates of Genesis 1:26-30 (cf. Gn 9:1, 7; Pss 8:5-7; 104:14) as well as the curses of Genesis 3:16-19 (cf. Ps 90:3; Eccl 12:7; Is 13:8; 21:3) were meant not only for Adam (and Eve) but, through him, for the entire race.<\/p>\nIn Romans 5:12-21 the apostle Paul contrasted the death and condemnation brought upon humanity by Adam’s disobedience with the life and justification given to humanity through Christ’s obedience. More explicitly, in 1 Corinthians 15:45-50 (rsv<\/span>), Paul called Christ the “last Adam,” “second man,” and the “man of heaven” in juxtaposition to the “first Adam,” the “first man,” and the “man of dust.”<\/p>\nFor Paul, the human race was divided into two groups in the persons of Adam and Christ. Those who remain “incorporated” in Adam are the “old” humanity, bearing the image of the “man of dust” and partaking of his sin and alienation from God and Creation (Rom 5:12-19; 8:20-22). But those who are incorporated into Christ by faith become Christ’s “body” (Rom 12:4-5; 1 Cor 12:12-13, 27; Eph 1:22-23; Col 1:18); they are recreated in Christ’s image (Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 3:18); they become one “new man” (Eph 2:15; 4:24; Col 3:9-10, kjv<\/span>); and they partake of the new creation (2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The old barriers raised by Adam are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16). For Paul, the functional similarity of Adam and Christ as representatives meant that Christ had restored what Adam had lost.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Eve; Man, Old and New; New Creation, New Creature.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>ADAM (Person<\/span>)<\/h3>\nFirst man and father of the human race. Adam’s role in biblical history is important not only in OT considerations but also in understanding the meaning of salvation and the person and work of Jesus Christ.<\/p>\nThe creation of Adam and the first woman, Eve, is recited in two accounts in the book of Genesis. The intent of the first account (1:26-31) is to present the first pair in their relationship to God and to the rest of the created order. It teaches that with regard to God the first humans were created male and female in God’s image with his specific mandate to populate and rule over the earth. With regard to the rest of creation the first humans were, on one hand, part of it, being created on the same day as other land animals; on the other hand, they were distinctly above it, being the culmination of the creation process and sole bearers of God’s image.<\/p>\nThe intent of the second account is much more specific (2:4–3:24); it seeks to explain the origin of the present human condition of sin and death and to set the stage for the drama of redemption. The story treats in detail aspects of Adam’s creation omitted from the first story. For example, it tells of the formation of Adam from the dust of the ground and of his receiving the breath of life from God (2:7). It recounts the planting of the Garden and the responsibility given to Adam to cultivate it (2:8-15). God’s instruction to Adam that the fruit of every tree in the Garden was his for food, except one, is carefully recorded, as well as the solemn warning that the fruit of the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” was never to be eaten, under the pain of death (2:16-17). Adam’s loneliness after naming the animals and not finding a suitable companion is also described, thus introducing the creation of the first woman (2:18-22). The creation of Eve from Adam’s rib poignantly portrays the essential unity of spirit and purpose of the sexes intended by God.<\/p>\nThe story does not end on such a positive note, however. It moves on to record the great deception Satan played upon Eve through the serpent. By clever insinuations and distortion of God’s original commandment (cf. 3:1 with 2:16-17), the serpent tricked Eve into eating the forbidden fruit and sharing it with Adam. Eve seems to have eaten because she was deceived (1 Tm 2:14), Adam out of a willful and conscious rebellion. Ironically, the two beings originally created in God’s image and likeness believed that they could become “like” God by disobeying him (Gn 3:5).<\/p>\nThe effects of their disobedience were immediate, though not at all what Adam had expected. For the first time a barrier of shame disrupted the unity of man and woman (3:7). More important, a barrier of real moral guilt was erected between the first couple and God. The story relates that when God came looking for Adam after his rebellion, he was hiding among the trees, already aware of his separation from God (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam threw the blame on Eve and, by implication, back on God: “It was the woman you gave me who brought me the fruit” (3:12, nlt<\/span>). Eve in turn blamed the serpent (3:13).<\/p>\nAccording to the story in Genesis, God held all three responsible and informed each one of the calamitous consequences of their rebellion (3:14-19). The two great mandates, originally signs of pure blessing, became mixed with curse and pain—the earth could now be populated only through the woman’s birth pangs and could be subdued only by the man’s labor and perspiration (3:16-18). Further, the unity of man and woman would be strained by man’s subjugation of her, or possibly by the beginning of a struggle for dominance between them (3:16b can be taken both ways). Finally, God pronounced the ultimate consequence: as he had originally warned, Adam and Eve were to die. Someday the breath of life would be taken from them, and their bodies would return to the dust from which they were made (3:19). That very day they also experienced a “spiritual” death; they were separated from God, the giver of life, and from the tree of life, the symbol of eternal life (3:22). God sent them out of Eden, and there was no way back. The entrance to paradise was blocked by the cherubim and flaming sword (3:23-24). Only God could restore what they had lost.<\/p>\nThe story is not devoid of hope. God was merciful even then. He made them garments of skin to cover their bodies and promised that someday the power of Satan behind the serpent would be crushed by the woman’s “seed” (Gn 3:15; cf. Rom 16:20). Many scholars consider that promise to be the first biblical mention of redemption.<\/p>\nThe Significance of Adam<\/p>\nAdam’s significance is based upon several assumptions, the first being that he was a historical individual. That assumption was made by many OT writers (Gn 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7). The NT writers agreed (Lk 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tm 2:13-14; Jude 1:14). Equally essential to Adam’s significance is a second assumption, that he was more than an individual. To begin with, the Hebrew word adam<\/span> (more correctly ’a–dha–m<\/span>) is not merely a proper name. Even in the Genesis story it is not used as a name until Genesis 4:25. The word is one of several Hebrew words meaning “man” and is the generic term for “human race.” In the vast majority of cases it refers either to a male individual (Lv 1:2; Jos 14:15; Neh 9:29; Is 56:2) or to humanity in general (Ex 4:11; Nm 12:3; 16:29; Dt 4:28; 1 Kgs 4:31; Jb 7:20; 14:1). The generic, collective sense of the word adam<\/span> is also behind the phrase “children (or sons) of men” (2 Sm 7:14; Pss 11:4; 12:1; 14:2; 53:2; 90:3; Eccl 1:13; 2:3). That phrase, literally “sons of adam<\/span>,”<\/em> simply means “men” or “human beings,” and when it is used the entire human race is in view. Indeed, the universalistic human connotation of the word adam<\/span> indicates a concern in the OT going far beyond Israel’s nationalistic hopes and its God—to all the earth’s people and the Lord of all nations (Gn 9:5-7; Dt 5:24; 8:3; 1 Kgs 8:38-39; Pss 8:4; 89:48; 107:8-31; Prv 12:14; Mi 6:8).<\/p>\nIt is no accident, then, that the first man was named “Adam” or “Man.” The name intimates that to speak about Adam is somehow also to speak about the entire human race. Such usage can perhaps best be understood through the ancient concept of corporate personality and representation familiar to the Hebrews and other Near Eastern peoples. Modern thinking emphasizes the individual; existence of the social group and all social relationships has been seen as secondary to, and dependent upon, the existence and desire of the individual. The Hebrew understanding was quite different. Though the separate personality of the individual was appreciated (Jer 31:29-30; Ez 18:4), there was a strong tendency to see the social group (family, tribe, nation) as a single organism with a corporate identity of its own. Likewise the group representative was seen as the embodiment or personification of the corporate personality of the group. Within the representative the essential qualities and characteristics of the social group resided in such a way that the actions and decisions of the representative were binding on the entire group. If the group was a family, the father was usually considered the corporate representative; for good or for ill his family, and sometimes his descendants, received the results of his actions (Gn 17:1-8; cf. Gn 20:1-9, 18; Ex 20:5-6; Jos 7:24-25; Rom 11:28; Heb 7:1-10).<\/p>\nAs the original man and father of humankind, in whose image all succeeding generations would be born (Gn 5:3), Adam was the corporate representative of humanity. The creation accounts themselves give the impression that the mandates of Genesis 1:26-30 (cf. Gn 9:1, 7; Pss 8:5-7; 104:14) as well as the curses of Genesis 3:16-19 (cf. Ps 90:3; Eccl 12:7; Is 13:8; 21:3) were meant not only for Adam (and Eve) but, through him, for the entire race.<\/p>\nIn Romans 5:12-21 the apostle Paul contrasted the death and condemnation brought upon humanity by Adam’s disobedience with the life and justification given to humanity through Christ’s obedience. More explicitly, in 1 Corinthians 15:45-50 (rsv<\/span>), Paul called Christ the “last Adam,” “second man,” and the “man of heaven” in juxtaposition to the “first Adam,” the “first man,” and the “man of dust.”<\/p>\nFor Paul, the human race was divided into two groups in the persons of Adam and Christ. Those who remain “incorporated” in Adam are the “old” humanity, bearing the image of the “man of dust” and partaking of his sin and alienation from God and Creation (Rom 5:12-19; 8:20-22). But those who are incorporated into Christ by faith become Christ’s “body” (Rom 12:4-5; 1 Cor 12:12-13, 27; Eph 1:22-23; Col 1:18); they are recreated in Christ’s image (Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 3:18); they become one “new man” (Eph 2:15; 4:24; Col 3:9-10, kjv<\/span>); and they partake of the new creation (2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The old barriers raised by Adam are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16). For Paul, the functional similarity of Adam and Christ as representatives meant that Christ had restored what Adam had lost.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Eve; Man, Old and New; New Creation, New Creature.<\/p>","summary_ro":"ADAM (Person) First man and father of the human race. Adam’s role in biblical history is important not only in OT considerations but also in understanding the meaning of salvation and the person and work of Jesus Christ. The creation of Adam and the first woman, Eve, is recited in two accounts in the book of Genesis. The intent of the first account (1:26-31) is to present the first pair in their relationship to God and to the rest of the created order. It teaches that with regard to God the f...","summary_en":"ADAM (Person) First man and father of the human race. Adam’s role in biblical history is important not only in OT considerations but also in understanding the meaning of salvation and the person and work of Jesus Christ. The creation of Adam and the first woman, Eve, is recited in two accounts in the book of Genesis. The intent of the first account (1:26-31) is to present the first pair in their relationship to God and to the rest of the created order. It teaches that with regard to God the f...","source":"Articles\/A.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":20977,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Jubilee Year*","title_en":"Jubilee Year*","content_ro":"<h3>JUBILEE YEAR*<\/h3>\nYear of emancipation and restoration to be kept every 50 years. For Israel, the seventh year expressed at length the values of the seventh day Sabbath (Lv 25:1-7). When a series of seven years reached the perfection of seven sevens, the 50th year was heralded by the trumpet of jubilee and a whole additional year was set aside as belonging to the Lord.<\/p>\nThe word “jubilee” simply means a ram’s horn; it came to mean a trumpet made from or in the shape of a ram’s horn. Such horns were exclusively for religious use. The sacred trumpet gave its name to the year of the ram’s horn, the jubilee year—a year to which the people of God were summoned in a striking and holy way. It was not simply a release from labor, not just a rest, but a year belonging to the Lord. In Leviticus 25 this exact expression occurs in connection with the seventh year rather than expressly with the jubilee year. Functionally such a year was a Sabbath rest for the land, and it brought enjoyment “to the Lord<\/span>” (Lv 25:4). But nothing could more directly express the implications and orientations of the 50th year.<\/p>\nLordship<\/p>\nThe first principle of the jubilee is God’s lordship over the whole earth, acknowledged by his people in their obedience to his command to set the year aside in this way. Just as the Sabbath expressed his right to order life, giving it the shape of six days’ work and one day’s rest, and just as the seventh year, linked in Deuteronomy 31:9-13 with the reading of his law, expressed his right to command the obedience of his people, so the 50th year expressed his sovereign possession of all: land, people, means of production, and life itself. Take the typical case of debtor and creditor. When God brought his people into possession of the land, he gave to each his inheritance. In a given circumstance a man might be compelled to sell his land in whole or part, but it must come back to him: “The land must never be sold on a permanent basis because it really belongs to me. You are only foreigners and tenants living with me” (Lv 25:23, nlt<\/span>). In this verse “foreigners” carries the meaning “stateless persons,” “refugees,” “those who have sought political asylum”—in a word, those who have no rights except what mercy concedes. Such are the people of God and such they must acknowledge themselves to be when the jubilee year comes around. When a piece of real estate changed hands, the seller might congratulate himself on the astuteness with which he had solved his problem, and the buyer might rejoice in his skillful acquisitiveness, but in the Year of Jubilee seller and buyer alike are compelled to confess a different truth: neither is master, either of his own welfare or of the person and goods of another. Each has a Master in heaven.<\/p>\nRedemption<\/p>\nAccording to the ordinance, the trumpet that heralded the year was sounded on the Day of Atonement (Lv 25:9). That was the day on which the Lord proclaimed his people clean before him from all their sins (16:30). Forgiveness of sins ushered in the jubilee year. The verb “to redeem” and the noun “redemption” had a strong commercial use in the recovery of property pledged against loans of money, and in the 50th year these words would have sounded and resounded as debtors confessed that they could not “redeem” and creditors forewent their “redemption” rights, each using the very vocabulary of the Lord’s action at the exodus (Ex 6:6). This is what the Lord had done for his people, and the divine action must be the norm of the human. Brotherly generosity is urged (Lv 25:35-38), liberty is granted (vv 39-43), and slavery in perpetuity is forbidden (vv 47-55) simply because the divine redemptive act makes the redeemed into brothers, brings them into the Lord’s servitude, and cancels the bondage that would otherwise be theirs forever.<\/p>\nRest<\/p>\nThe correlative of redemption is rest. This rest is vividly illustrated and enforced as Moses legislates rest from all the toil connected with promoting next year’s crop (Lv 25:4); rest from the toil of harvesting, for the people of God were to live hand to mouth, gathering only what and when need dictated (vv 5-7); rest from the anxious burden of debts incurred; and rest from slavery (v 10). Like the Sabbath, this rest would have meant exactly what it said: freedom from toil; relaxation, refreshment, and recreation. Very likely tiredness was as endemic among the people of God then as now, and grace drew near to give them a holiday. But equally with the Sabbath, release from the preoccupations of staying alive created time to be preoccupied with the Lord, his worship, his Word, and the life that pleases him. We can understand Isaiah 58 as binding the ideals of Sabbath and jubilee together. The Lord frees his people not for unbroken idleness but for the redirection of life toward himself. The jubilee year was thus a deliberate opting out of the rat race; it called a halt to acquisitiveness; it abandoned concern over the pressure to stay alive. It reordered priorities, giving a chance to appraise the use of time and the selection of objectives. For a whole year the people of God stood back, rested, ceased from the good in order to attain the best.<\/p>\nFaith<\/p>\nBut this standing back from life was not in the style of a dropout. It was the action of responsible faith. No one on earth can escape questions such as “What shall we eat?” The Lord foresees and provides (Lv 25:20); grace provides so that God’s people can enjoy the ordinances of grace (cf. Ex 16:29). When he commands a year off, he enables them to take it. The 50th year was a living testimony to his faithfulness. The last season of sowing and reaping would have been the 49th year; in the final 7th year in the series the people would live off the casual growth; and in the 50th year nothing but the sheer attentive faithfulness of their God could provide for them (Lv 25:21). Here indeed their faith would be put to the test, for God spoke a word of majestic promise and called on them to believe. At the heart of their jubilee they took God at his word and found him faithful.<\/p>\nObedience<\/p>\nBiblically, it is a central characteristic of the people of God that they do what he commands for no other reason than that he commands it. In the ordinance of the 50th year the people of God must show themselves as his obedient ones, and in fact their obedience is the guarantee of continuance in the land he has granted to them. Thus, for example, Leviticus 26:34-35 teaches that loss of tenure and loss of liberty is directly related to contravention of the principle of the Sabbath, found on the seventh day, seventh year, and jubilee year. Refusal to obey goes hand in hand with loss of possession, leaving behind an empty land, which then enjoys the Sabbath rest it never received from its disobedient inhabitants.<\/p>\nHope<\/p>\nIn the 50th year the people lived in the light of the forgiveness of sins, walked by obedience in harmony with the God who redeemed them, and in freedom from toil, received from the ground its life-sustaining benefits without any sweat on their brows (Gn 2:16; 3:19). It was a sort of Eden restored, the curse momentarily held in abeyance—but also a prolonged foretaste of the coming day when the promises would all be fulfilled, the blood of the covenant efficacious without hindrance, the prisoners of hope (i.e., who had waited in hope for their release) freed, and the trumpet of liberation heard throughout the world (Is 27:13; Zec 9:11-14). The Year of Jubilee in a limited but real way foreshadowed what would yet be the eternal inheritance and bliss of the people of God.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Feasts and Festivals of Israel.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JUBILEE YEAR*<\/h3>\nYear of emancipation and restoration to be kept every 50 years. For Israel, the seventh year expressed at length the values of the seventh day Sabbath (Lv 25:1-7). When a series of seven years reached the perfection of seven sevens, the 50th year was heralded by the trumpet of jubilee and a whole additional year was set aside as belonging to the Lord.<\/p>\nThe word “jubilee” simply means a ram’s horn; it came to mean a trumpet made from or in the shape of a ram’s horn. Such horns were exclusively for religious use. The sacred trumpet gave its name to the year of the ram’s horn, the jubilee year—a year to which the people of God were summoned in a striking and holy way. It was not simply a release from labor, not just a rest, but a year belonging to the Lord. In Leviticus 25 this exact expression occurs in connection with the seventh year rather than expressly with the jubilee year. Functionally such a year was a Sabbath rest for the land, and it brought enjoyment “to the Lord<\/span>” (Lv 25:4). But nothing could more directly express the implications and orientations of the 50th year.<\/p>\nLordship<\/p>\nThe first principle of the jubilee is God’s lordship over the whole earth, acknowledged by his people in their obedience to his command to set the year aside in this way. Just as the Sabbath expressed his right to order life, giving it the shape of six days’ work and one day’s rest, and just as the seventh year, linked in Deuteronomy 31:9-13 with the reading of his law, expressed his right to command the obedience of his people, so the 50th year expressed his sovereign possession of all: land, people, means of production, and life itself. Take the typical case of debtor and creditor. When God brought his people into possession of the land, he gave to each his inheritance. In a given circumstance a man might be compelled to sell his land in whole or part, but it must come back to him: “The land must never be sold on a permanent basis because it really belongs to me. You are only foreigners and tenants living with me” (Lv 25:23, nlt<\/span>). In this verse “foreigners” carries the meaning “stateless persons,” “refugees,” “those who have sought political asylum”—in a word, those who have no rights except what mercy concedes. Such are the people of God and such they must acknowledge themselves to be when the jubilee year comes around. When a piece of real estate changed hands, the seller might congratulate himself on the astuteness with which he had solved his problem, and the buyer might rejoice in his skillful acquisitiveness, but in the Year of Jubilee seller and buyer alike are compelled to confess a different truth: neither is master, either of his own welfare or of the person and goods of another. Each has a Master in heaven.<\/p>\nRedemption<\/p>\nAccording to the ordinance, the trumpet that heralded the year was sounded on the Day of Atonement (Lv 25:9). That was the day on which the Lord proclaimed his people clean before him from all their sins (16:30). Forgiveness of sins ushered in the jubilee year. The verb “to redeem” and the noun “redemption” had a strong commercial use in the recovery of property pledged against loans of money, and in the 50th year these words would have sounded and resounded as debtors confessed that they could not “redeem” and creditors forewent their “redemption” rights, each using the very vocabulary of the Lord’s action at the exodus (Ex 6:6). This is what the Lord had done for his people, and the divine action must be the norm of the human. Brotherly generosity is urged (Lv 25:35-38), liberty is granted (vv 39-43), and slavery in perpetuity is forbidden (vv 47-55) simply because the divine redemptive act makes the redeemed into brothers, brings them into the Lord’s servitude, and cancels the bondage that would otherwise be theirs forever.<\/p>\nRest<\/p>\nThe correlative of redemption is rest. This rest is vividly illustrated and enforced as Moses legislates rest from all the toil connected with promoting next year’s crop (Lv 25:4); rest from the toil of harvesting, for the people of God were to live hand to mouth, gathering only what and when need dictated (vv 5-7); rest from the anxious burden of debts incurred; and rest from slavery (v 10). Like the Sabbath, this rest would have meant exactly what it said: freedom from toil; relaxation, refreshment, and recreation. Very likely tiredness was as endemic among the people of God then as now, and grace drew near to give them a holiday. But equally with the Sabbath, release from the preoccupations of staying alive created time to be preoccupied with the Lord, his worship, his Word, and the life that pleases him. We can understand Isaiah 58 as binding the ideals of Sabbath and jubilee together. The Lord frees his people not for unbroken idleness but for the redirection of life toward himself. The jubilee year was thus a deliberate opting out of the rat race; it called a halt to acquisitiveness; it abandoned concern over the pressure to stay alive. It reordered priorities, giving a chance to appraise the use of time and the selection of objectives. For a whole year the people of God stood back, rested, ceased from the good in order to attain the best.<\/p>\nFaith<\/p>\nBut this standing back from life was not in the style of a dropout. It was the action of responsible faith. No one on earth can escape questions such as “What shall we eat?” The Lord foresees and provides (Lv 25:20); grace provides so that God’s people can enjoy the ordinances of grace (cf. Ex 16:29). When he commands a year off, he enables them to take it. The 50th year was a living testimony to his faithfulness. The last season of sowing and reaping would have been the 49th year; in the final 7th year in the series the people would live off the casual growth; and in the 50th year nothing but the sheer attentive faithfulness of their God could provide for them (Lv 25:21). Here indeed their faith would be put to the test, for God spoke a word of majestic promise and called on them to believe. At the heart of their jubilee they took God at his word and found him faithful.<\/p>\nObedience<\/p>\nBiblically, it is a central characteristic of the people of God that they do what he commands for no other reason than that he commands it. In the ordinance of the 50th year the people of God must show themselves as his obedient ones, and in fact their obedience is the guarantee of continuance in the land he has granted to them. Thus, for example, Leviticus 26:34-35 teaches that loss of tenure and loss of liberty is directly related to contravention of the principle of the Sabbath, found on the seventh day, seventh year, and jubilee year. Refusal to obey goes hand in hand with loss of possession, leaving behind an empty land, which then enjoys the Sabbath rest it never received from its disobedient inhabitants.<\/p>\nHope<\/p>\nIn the 50th year the people lived in the light of the forgiveness of sins, walked by obedience in harmony with the God who redeemed them, and in freedom from toil, received from the ground its life-sustaining benefits without any sweat on their brows (Gn 2:16; 3:19). It was a sort of Eden restored, the curse momentarily held in abeyance—but also a prolonged foretaste of the coming day when the promises would all be fulfilled, the blood of the covenant efficacious without hindrance, the prisoners of hope (i.e., who had waited in hope for their release) freed, and the trumpet of liberation heard throughout the world (Is 27:13; Zec 9:11-14). The Year of Jubilee in a limited but real way foreshadowed what would yet be the eternal inheritance and bliss of the people of God.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Feasts and Festivals of Israel.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JUBILEE YEAR* Year of emancipation and restoration to be kept every 50 years. For Israel, the seventh year expressed at length the values of the seventh day Sabbath (Lv 25:1-7). When a series of seven years reached the perfection of seven sevens, the 50th year was heralded by the trumpet of jubilee and a whole additional year was set aside as belonging to the Lord. The word “jubilee” simply means a ram’s horn; it came to mean a trumpet made from or in the shape of a ram’s horn. Such horns wer...","summary_en":"JUBILEE YEAR* Year of emancipation and restoration to be kept every 50 years. For Israel, the seventh year expressed at length the values of the seventh day Sabbath (Lv 25:1-7). When a series of seven years reached the perfection of seven sevens, the 50th year was heralded by the trumpet of jubilee and a whole additional year was set aside as belonging to the Lord. The word “jubilee” simply means a ram’s horn; it came to mean a trumpet made from or in the shape of a ram’s horn. Such horns wer...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":21357,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Judgment","title_en":"Judgment","content_ro":"<h3>JUDGMENT<\/h3>\nConcept in Scripture closely related to the concept of God’s justice. In all his relationships God acts justly and morally. Human beings, created by God, have a moral dimension, so that they may positively respond to God’s righteous demands in their lives. Divine judgment, involving God’s approval or disapproval upon each human act, is a natural consequence of the Creator-creature relationship. Thus judgment, simply defined, is the divine response to human activity. God the Creator must also be God the Judge. Since God is just, he responds with either punishment or reward to what each person does. A human’s moral accountability to God (a quality not shared by the rest of creation) is an essential ingredient of being created in God’s image. Creation in the divine image means that God and man can communicate with each other in such a way that all people are able to understand God’s moral requirements and willingly respond to them. Among the various positive commands given to people in his original creation—including marriage, the subduing of the earth, and enjoyment of the Garden of Eden—was the negative command prohibiting the eating of the fruit from one tree. Defiance of this prohibition carried the threat of death as punishment (Gn 2:16-17). Genesis 3 contains the account of God’s first judgment, the one against Adam. He was punished by death since he had not lived within the moral regulations set by God (3:17-19). In a purely technical sense, judgment includes God’s approval upon acts that please him; more frequently, judgment is understood negatively in the sense that God punishes those who violate his commands. Since the fall, all human activity stands under God’s negative judgment (Rom 2:12).<\/p>\nJudgment in This Life<\/p>\nThe Christian idea of the atonement, that Christ died for sin in the place of man, depends on the premise that God holds humans accountable for their sins. But God sent his Son to deal with this problem. The Son willingly placed himself under God’s judgment, and in people’s place he received the divine punishment (Gal 3:13). Christ’s death for sin may therefore be considered the extreme manifestation of divine judgment. God as judge visits upon the soul of Christ in his crucifixion the total divine judgment against sin.<\/p>\nThrough faith, brought about by the Holy Spirit and fed by the Word, a believer becomes one with Christ and thus escapes divine judgment and is rescued from punishment (Rom 3:22). Those who, by faith, share in the benefits of Christ’s death stand before the divine Judge and receive a verdict of “not guilty,” and instead of punishment and divine retribution, receive a sentence of eternal life. Jesus says of those who believe in him that they have already passed through judgment, have escaped death, and are already sharing in eternal life (Jn 5:24).<\/p>\nThough sins have been atoned for by Christ, each person—believer and unbeliever alike—still suffers certain consequences of his or her sins here in this life. For every human action there is a divine reaction (Rom 2:6). Paul speaks about the conscience, which carries out a series of judgments even upon the actions of those who do not know the true God (v 15).<\/p>\nGovernments are also manifestations of divine judgment upon man’s public performances with respect to the law. Civil justice, though often corrupted, is a means through which God carries out temporal judgment upon any infringement of the law in this life (Rom 13:1-2). Public crimes against society are not the only sins subject to divine judgment.<\/p>\nIn addition to the accusations of the conscience against even the most private of sins, each human action carries with it potential reward or punishment. Living within the moral bounds established by God, especially as they are revealed in the Ten Commandments and further explicated in the rest of Scripture, results in certain physical benefits in this life. Living in disregard of the moral law results in penalties and hardships appropriate to the infraction (Gal 6:7-8). For example, refusal to work can result in poverty, and overindulgence can result in poor health. Some activities bring their own penalties. Christians should not conclude, however, that the presence of calamities in a person’s life must indicate a specific judgment of God against a particular sin. God can use calamities in the life of a Christian to guide him providentially to the goal of eternal life (1 Pt 4:12-13).<\/p>\nOn account of Adam’s sin, the creation was subject to a judgment of corruption (Gn 3:17). All of human life participates in a deterioration that is a manifestation of divine judgment against the sin that originated with Adam. God remains sovereign even over the universal corruption and is able to direct and control it for his ultimate purposes (Rom 8:20). Thus he can use calamities for the benefit of the Christian’s life (v 28), but he can also use them to manifest his anger on those who persist in deliberate sin and who reject his Son Jesus Christ as the Redeemer from sin. Pharaoh, who recognized Moses as God’s prophet and still rejected him and his message, is a prime example of a person who received God’s judgment (Ex 10:20). The Jews who saw the miracles of Jesus and rejected his claims to be the Messiah are also among those who received God’s judgment while living (Mt 12:22-32).<\/p>\nThrough wars and the creation and destruction of nations, God carries out judgment collectively against entire peoples. The OT records the rise and fall of nations and of kings. The refusal to acknowledge and worship the true God and to follow his laws eventually and most certainly results in national extinction. The destruction of Nineveh and Israel in the OT and Jerusalem in the NT are clear examples of God’s judgment against entire peoples who reject his message of salvation. Public disregard of the moral law must result in national disintegration, which is then frequently compounded by invasion by a foreign nation. The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was the direct result of immoral license (Jude 1:7).<\/p>\nLast Judgment<\/p>\nJudgment in its final and ultimate sense is best understood as the appearance of Jesus Christ on the last day. At that time believers will inherit eternal life and unbelievers will be damned. The Christian does not fear this moment, because he has already been acquitted in Christ Jesus. The unbeliever rightfully fears death. The cause of horrible and unchangeable judgment is the persistent rejection of God’s offer of salvation. This is the sin against the Holy Spirit (Mt 12:32). Those who fall under its condemnation are those who have heard God’s special message to them and are convinced of its truth but who nevertheless persist in rejecting this salvation. As the unbeliever has rejected God in this life, so God rejects him in his death forever.<\/p>\nIn addition to this individual judgment, all nations will appear before Jesus (Mt 25:31-32). The fate of all those who appear before the Judge has already been sealed. The Scriptures teach that there is a judgment on that last day that will be made on the basis of works (vv 31-46). This should not be seen as a denial and contradiction of the principle that one is saved by faith alone. People enter into a saving relationship with Jesus Christ through faith alone, without works. Faith is known only to God and of itself is not visible to others. The evidence for the presence of faith is works.<\/p>\nGod’s judgments upon people in this life can be of benefit because through these judgments he is calling them to repentance. The judgment of the last day will be final; no one will be permitted to repent or change his or her mind about God. On that day all will recognize the truthfulness of God’s claims in Christ Jesus, but only those who have believed in him and carried out his will in their lives will receive the invitation to enter eternal life (v 34).<\/p>\nPractical Implications<\/p>\nChristians live a positive and confident life knowing that Jesus has taken the divine judgment for them and thus they are free from any further divine retribution. At the same time they are aware of God’s judgment against all sins, including those of Christians, and that apart from Christ they would suffer the worst possible divine punishment. They see the evil and calamities of this life as God’s continued displeasure with sin. When they come, Christians use them as opportunities for searching their own souls and for repentance. Though they are not aware of the exact date of the last day, they prepare themselves each day for the final judgment.<\/p>\nConclusion<\/p>\nThe concept of judgment covers the entire history of the human race—from the fall to the last day. God, as a just God who sees a decisive difference between good and evil, has no choice but to carry out judgment upon all people in their daily lives and especially at life’s conclusion. God in his grace has sent his Son to suffer the judgment we deserved, and in his mercy delays the final Day of Judgment so that we can come to repentance by faith in Jesus Christ (2 Pt 3:9). The great concepts of creation, justice, law, salvation, and atonement reach their climax in the divine judgment of the last day.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Hell; Judgment Seat; Justification, Justified; Last Judgment; Second Coming of Christ; Wrath of God.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JUDGMENT<\/h3>\nConcept in Scripture closely related to the concept of God’s justice. In all his relationships God acts justly and morally. Human beings, created by God, have a moral dimension, so that they may positively respond to God’s righteous demands in their lives. Divine judgment, involving God’s approval or disapproval upon each human act, is a natural consequence of the Creator-creature relationship. Thus judgment, simply defined, is the divine response to human activity. God the Creator must also be God the Judge. Since God is just, he responds with either punishment or reward to what each person does. A human’s moral accountability to God (a quality not shared by the rest of creation) is an essential ingredient of being created in God’s image. Creation in the divine image means that God and man can communicate with each other in such a way that all people are able to understand God’s moral requirements and willingly respond to them. Among the various positive commands given to people in his original creation—including marriage, the subduing of the earth, and enjoyment of the Garden of Eden—was the negative command prohibiting the eating of the fruit from one tree. Defiance of this prohibition carried the threat of death as punishment (Gn 2:16-17). Genesis 3 contains the account of God’s first judgment, the one against Adam. He was punished by death since he had not lived within the moral regulations set by God (3:17-19). In a purely technical sense, judgment includes God’s approval upon acts that please him; more frequently, judgment is understood negatively in the sense that God punishes those who violate his commands. Since the fall, all human activity stands under God’s negative judgment (Rom 2:12).<\/p>\nJudgment in This Life<\/p>\nThe Christian idea of the atonement, that Christ died for sin in the place of man, depends on the premise that God holds humans accountable for their sins. But God sent his Son to deal with this problem. The Son willingly placed himself under God’s judgment, and in people’s place he received the divine punishment (Gal 3:13). Christ’s death for sin may therefore be considered the extreme manifestation of divine judgment. God as judge visits upon the soul of Christ in his crucifixion the total divine judgment against sin.<\/p>\nThrough faith, brought about by the Holy Spirit and fed by the Word, a believer becomes one with Christ and thus escapes divine judgment and is rescued from punishment (Rom 3:22). Those who, by faith, share in the benefits of Christ’s death stand before the divine Judge and receive a verdict of “not guilty,” and instead of punishment and divine retribution, receive a sentence of eternal life. Jesus says of those who believe in him that they have already passed through judgment, have escaped death, and are already sharing in eternal life (Jn 5:24).<\/p>\nThough sins have been atoned for by Christ, each person—believer and unbeliever alike—still suffers certain consequences of his or her sins here in this life. For every human action there is a divine reaction (Rom 2:6). Paul speaks about the conscience, which carries out a series of judgments even upon the actions of those who do not know the true God (v 15).<\/p>\nGovernments are also manifestations of divine judgment upon man’s public performances with respect to the law. Civil justice, though often corrupted, is a means through which God carries out temporal judgment upon any infringement of the law in this life (Rom 13:1-2). Public crimes against society are not the only sins subject to divine judgment.<\/p>\nIn addition to the accusations of the conscience against even the most private of sins, each human action carries with it potential reward or punishment. Living within the moral bounds established by God, especially as they are revealed in the Ten Commandments and further explicated in the rest of Scripture, results in certain physical benefits in this life. Living in disregard of the moral law results in penalties and hardships appropriate to the infraction (Gal 6:7-8). For example, refusal to work can result in poverty, and overindulgence can result in poor health. Some activities bring their own penalties. Christians should not conclude, however, that the presence of calamities in a person’s life must indicate a specific judgment of God against a particular sin. God can use calamities in the life of a Christian to guide him providentially to the goal of eternal life (1 Pt 4:12-13).<\/p>\nOn account of Adam’s sin, the creation was subject to a judgment of corruption (Gn 3:17). All of human life participates in a deterioration that is a manifestation of divine judgment against the sin that originated with Adam. God remains sovereign even over the universal corruption and is able to direct and control it for his ultimate purposes (Rom 8:20). Thus he can use calamities for the benefit of the Christian’s life (v 28), but he can also use them to manifest his anger on those who persist in deliberate sin and who reject his Son Jesus Christ as the Redeemer from sin. Pharaoh, who recognized Moses as God’s prophet and still rejected him and his message, is a prime example of a person who received God’s judgment (Ex 10:20). The Jews who saw the miracles of Jesus and rejected his claims to be the Messiah are also among those who received God’s judgment while living (Mt 12:22-32).<\/p>\nThrough wars and the creation and destruction of nations, God carries out judgment collectively against entire peoples. The OT records the rise and fall of nations and of kings. The refusal to acknowledge and worship the true God and to follow his laws eventually and most certainly results in national extinction. The destruction of Nineveh and Israel in the OT and Jerusalem in the NT are clear examples of God’s judgment against entire peoples who reject his message of salvation. Public disregard of the moral law must result in national disintegration, which is then frequently compounded by invasion by a foreign nation. The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was the direct result of immoral license (Jude 1:7).<\/p>\nLast Judgment<\/p>\nJudgment in its final and ultimate sense is best understood as the appearance of Jesus Christ on the last day. At that time believers will inherit eternal life and unbelievers will be damned. The Christian does not fear this moment, because he has already been acquitted in Christ Jesus. The unbeliever rightfully fears death. The cause of horrible and unchangeable judgment is the persistent rejection of God’s offer of salvation. This is the sin against the Holy Spirit (Mt 12:32). Those who fall under its condemnation are those who have heard God’s special message to them and are convinced of its truth but who nevertheless persist in rejecting this salvation. As the unbeliever has rejected God in this life, so God rejects him in his death forever.<\/p>\nIn addition to this individual judgment, all nations will appear before Jesus (Mt 25:31-32). The fate of all those who appear before the Judge has already been sealed. The Scriptures teach that there is a judgment on that last day that will be made on the basis of works (vv 31-46). This should not be seen as a denial and contradiction of the principle that one is saved by faith alone. People enter into a saving relationship with Jesus Christ through faith alone, without works. Faith is known only to God and of itself is not visible to others. The evidence for the presence of faith is works.<\/p>\nGod’s judgments upon people in this life can be of benefit because through these judgments he is calling them to repentance. The judgment of the last day will be final; no one will be permitted to repent or change his or her mind about God. On that day all will recognize the truthfulness of God’s claims in Christ Jesus, but only those who have believed in him and carried out his will in their lives will receive the invitation to enter eternal life (v 34).<\/p>\nPractical Implications<\/p>\nChristians live a positive and confident life knowing that Jesus has taken the divine judgment for them and thus they are free from any further divine retribution. At the same time they are aware of God’s judgment against all sins, including those of Christians, and that apart from Christ they would suffer the worst possible divine punishment. They see the evil and calamities of this life as God’s continued displeasure with sin. When they come, Christians use them as opportunities for searching their own souls and for repentance. Though they are not aware of the exact date of the last day, they prepare themselves each day for the final judgment.<\/p>\nConclusion<\/p>\nThe concept of judgment covers the entire history of the human race—from the fall to the last day. God, as a just God who sees a decisive difference between good and evil, has no choice but to carry out judgment upon all people in their daily lives and especially at life’s conclusion. God in his grace has sent his Son to suffer the judgment we deserved, and in his mercy delays the final Day of Judgment so that we can come to repentance by faith in Jesus Christ (2 Pt 3:9). The great concepts of creation, justice, law, salvation, and atonement reach their climax in the divine judgment of the last day.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Hell; Judgment Seat; Justification, Justified; Last Judgment; Second Coming of Christ; Wrath of God.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JUDGMENT Concept in Scripture closely related to the concept of God’s justice. In all his relationships God acts justly and morally. Human beings, created by God, have a moral dimension, so that they may positively respond to God’s righteous demands in their lives. Divine judgment, involving God’s approval or disapproval upon each human act, is a natural consequence of the Creator-creature relationship. Thus judgment, simply defined, is the divine response to human activity. God the Creator m...","summary_en":"JUDGMENT Concept in Scripture closely related to the concept of God’s justice. In all his relationships God acts justly and morally. Human beings, created by God, have a moral dimension, so that they may positively respond to God’s righteous demands in their lives. Divine judgment, involving God’s approval or disapproval upon each human act, is a natural consequence of the Creator-creature relationship. Thus judgment, simply defined, is the divine response to human activity. God the Creator m...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":37670,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Tree of Life","title_en":"Tree of Life","content_ro":"<h3>TREE OF LIFE<\/h3>\nTree placed by God in the midst of the Garden of Eden (Gn 2:8-9), a tree whose fruit could give eternal life. God told Adam that he could eat from every tree of the Garden except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (vv 16-17). When Adam and Eve disobeyed God by eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they were expelled from the garden lest they “take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever” (3:22).<\/p>\nThe Genesis narrative suggests that God intended the tree of life to provide Adam and Eve with a symbol of life in fellowship with and dependence on him. Human life, as distinguished from that of the animals, is much more than merely biological; it is also spiritual—it finds its deepest fulfillment in fellowship with God. Life in the fullness of its physical and spiritual dimensions, however, could remain a person’s possession only so long as he or she remained obedient to God’s command (Gn 2:17). Apart from Genesis, the only other OT occurrences of the phrase the “tree of life” are found in Proverbs (quoted here from rsv<\/span>), where it symbolizes the enrichment of life in various ways. In Proverbs 3:18 wisdom is referred to as “a tree of life to those who lay hold of her”; in 11:30 “the fruit of the righteous is a tree of life”; in 13:12 a fulfilled desire is as “a tree of life”; and in 15:4 “a gentle tongue is a tree of life.”<\/p>\nThe book of Revelation contains the only references to the tree of life in the NT (Rv 2:7; 22:2, 14, 19). The Bible begins and ends with a Paradise in the midst of which is a tree of life. The way to the tree of life, which was closed in Genesis 3, is open again for God’s believing people. This was made possible by the second Adam, Jesus Christ. Those who have washed their robes in the blood of Christ (cf. Rv 7:14) and have sought forgiveness of their sin through the redemptive work of Christ, receive the right to the tree of life (22:14), but the disobedient will have no access to it.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Adam (Person); Eve; Fall of Man; Garden of Eden; Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>TREE OF LIFE<\/h3>\nTree placed by God in the midst of the Garden of Eden (Gn 2:8-9), a tree whose fruit could give eternal life. God told Adam that he could eat from every tree of the Garden except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (vv 16-17). When Adam and Eve disobeyed God by eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they were expelled from the garden lest they “take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever” (3:22).<\/p>\nThe Genesis narrative suggests that God intended the tree of life to provide Adam and Eve with a symbol of life in fellowship with and dependence on him. Human life, as distinguished from that of the animals, is much more than merely biological; it is also spiritual—it finds its deepest fulfillment in fellowship with God. Life in the fullness of its physical and spiritual dimensions, however, could remain a person’s possession only so long as he or she remained obedient to God’s command (Gn 2:17). Apart from Genesis, the only other OT occurrences of the phrase the “tree of life” are found in Proverbs (quoted here from rsv<\/span>), where it symbolizes the enrichment of life in various ways. In Proverbs 3:18 wisdom is referred to as “a tree of life to those who lay hold of her”; in 11:30 “the fruit of the righteous is a tree of life”; in 13:12 a fulfilled desire is as “a tree of life”; and in 15:4 “a gentle tongue is a tree of life.”<\/p>\nThe book of Revelation contains the only references to the tree of life in the NT (Rv 2:7; 22:2, 14, 19). The Bible begins and ends with a Paradise in the midst of which is a tree of life. The way to the tree of life, which was closed in Genesis 3, is open again for God’s believing people. This was made possible by the second Adam, Jesus Christ. Those who have washed their robes in the blood of Christ (cf. Rv 7:14) and have sought forgiveness of their sin through the redemptive work of Christ, receive the right to the tree of life (22:14), but the disobedient will have no access to it.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Adam (Person); Eve; Fall of Man; Garden of Eden; Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.<\/p>","summary_ro":"TREE OF LIFE Tree placed by God in the midst of the Garden of Eden (Gn 2:8-9), a tree whose fruit could give eternal life. God told Adam that he could eat from every tree of the Garden except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (vv 16-17). When Adam and Eve disobeyed God by eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they were expelled from the garden lest they “take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever” (3:22). The Genesis narrative suggests that God intend...","summary_en":"TREE OF LIFE Tree placed by God in the midst of the Garden of Eden (Gn 2:8-9), a tree whose fruit could give eternal life. God told Adam that he could eat from every tree of the Garden except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (vv 16-17). When Adam and Eve disobeyed God by eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they were expelled from the garden lest they “take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever” (3:22). The Genesis narrative suggests that God intend...","source":"Articles\/T.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":59730,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Fall","title_en":"The Fall","content_ro":"<h3>The Fall<\/h3>\nGenesis 3 describes how human moral innocence collapsed through rebellion. What God declared as “very good” (Gen 1:31) was no longer completely so. Man and woman ate the fruit that promised knowledge of good and evil, thus breaking God’s command (2:16-17) and attempting to become like God (see 3:5). In doing so, they fell from their sinless state. Alienated from God, one another, and creation, they also became subject to death.<\/p>\nConsequently, all humans are “fallen”—born in sin, predisposed to sin (Gen 8:21; Job 4:17-21; Pss 51:5; 103:10; 143:2; Prov 20:9), and awaiting death. When the first man and woman ate the fruit in disobedience to God, they forfeited their own innocence and that of their children, the entire human race (Rom 5:12-14; 1 Cor 15:21-22, 45-49). The expression “original sin” denotes sin’s complete, universal infiltration into individual lives and human society as a result of human rebellion. As people yield to their inherited predisposition to sin, they become responsible for their own wrongdoing (Eccl 7:20; Rom 3:23).<\/p>\nThe first man, Adam, introduced sin, but the “second Adam,” Jesus Christ, is sin’s antidote (1 Cor 15:3; 2 Cor 5:21). When Christ died as Redeemer, he made God’s salvation from sin available to all (John 3:16; Rom 1:16).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 3:1-19; 8:21; Exod 34:7; Job 4:17-21; Ps 51:5; Prov 22:15; Ezek 36:16-36; John 8:1-11; Rom 1:18–3:20; 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:21-22; Gal 3:22; 5:17-24; Eph 2:1-10; 1 Jn 3:14<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Fall<\/h3>\nGenesis 3 describes how human moral innocence collapsed through rebellion. What God declared as “very good” (Gen 1:31) was no longer completely so. Man and woman ate the fruit that promised knowledge of good and evil, thus breaking God’s command (2:16-17) and attempting to become like God (see 3:5). In doing so, they fell from their sinless state. Alienated from God, one another, and creation, they also became subject to death.<\/p>\nConsequently, all humans are “fallen”—born in sin, predisposed to sin (Gen 8:21; Job 4:17-21; Pss 51:5; 103:10; 143:2; Prov 20:9), and awaiting death. When the first man and woman ate the fruit in disobedience to God, they forfeited their own innocence and that of their children, the entire human race (Rom 5:12-14; 1 Cor 15:21-22, 45-49). The expression “original sin” denotes sin’s complete, universal infiltration into individual lives and human society as a result of human rebellion. As people yield to their inherited predisposition to sin, they become responsible for their own wrongdoing (Eccl 7:20; Rom 3:23).<\/p>\nThe first man, Adam, introduced sin, but the “second Adam,” Jesus Christ, is sin’s antidote (1 Cor 15:3; 2 Cor 5:21). When Christ died as Redeemer, he made God’s salvation from sin available to all (John 3:16; Rom 1:16).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 3:1-19; 8:21; Exod 34:7; Job 4:17-21; Ps 51:5; Prov 22:15; Ezek 36:16-36; John 8:1-11; Rom 1:18–3:20; 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:21-22; Gal 3:22; 5:17-24; Eph 2:1-10; 1 Jn 3:14<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Fall Genesis 3 describes how human moral innocence collapsed through rebellion. What God declared as “very good” (Gen 1:31) was no longer completely so. Man and woman ate the fruit that promised knowledge of good and evil, thus breaking God’s command (2:16-17) and attempting to become like God (see 3:5). In doing so, they fell from their sinless state. Alienated from God, one another, and creation, they also became subject to death. Consequently, all humans are “fallen”—born in sin, predi...","summary_en":"The Fall Genesis 3 describes how human moral innocence collapsed through rebellion. What God declared as “very good” (Gen 1:31) was no longer completely so. Man and woman ate the fruit that promised knowledge of good and evil, thus breaking God’s command (2:16-17) and attempting to become like God (see 3:5). In doing so, they fell from their sinless state. Alienated from God, one another, and creation, they also became subject to death. Consequently, all humans are “fallen”—born in sin, predi...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":62247,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Centrality of God’s Word","title_en":"The Centrality of God’s Word","content_ro":"<h3>The Centrality of God’s Word<\/h3>\nWhen God gave the Law to his people at Sinai, it was written in stone (Exod 34:1) and was to be taught to children (Deut 6:7), worn on the hands and forehead, and written on doorposts (Deut 6:8-9), so that people would constantly be reminded of what God had said. God’s instructions were also to be read to the people every seven years so that they would remember to fear God (Deut 31:9-13). Success depended on meditating on God’s word and following it (Josh 1:7-8; Pss 1:2; 119:15). Obedience was far more important than offering sacrifices (1 Sam 15:22).<\/p>\nBut when God’s people neglect his Word and take their eyes off his truth, we have a tendency to fall away from the life he envisions for us. In the time of Josiah, even the priests had lost and forgotten the Book of the Law. When it was discovered in the Temple (2 Kgs 22:8-13), the young king read it and tore his clothing, realizing how the nation had forsaken the covenant.<\/p>\nIn the fall of 445 BC<\/span>, Nehemiah finished rebuilding the wall of Jerusalem. Just five days later, on the first day of the seventh month, the settlers in Judah came together to celebrate the Festival of Trumpets. During and after the festival, Ezra read from the Law, and as the people listened they mourned and wept, for they realized they had not obeyed God’s law. They confessed their sins, studied God’s word to learn what he required, and obeyed what they learned. The Book of the Law of Moses thus transformed their lives and behavior.<\/p>\nThese events provide a dramatic reminder that God’s word is central to the lives of his people. God’s word provides the essential guide to life or death (Gen 2:16-17), and his promises prove true (e.g., Gen 17:15-21; 18:10-14).<\/p>\nGod’s word is perfect. It has the power to restore, make wise, and give joy (Ps 19:7-9). Godly individuals love God’s word (Ps 119:97). It sheds light on their paths (Ps 119:105) and keeps them from sin (Ps 119:9). God’s word accomplishes its purpose (Isa 55:11) and remains perpetually relevant (Matt 5:17-19; 24:35; 2 Tim 3:14-17).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nExod 24:7; 34:1; Deut 4:2; 6:4-9; 31:9-13; Josh 1:7-8; 1 Sam 15:22; Neh 8:1–10:39; 13:1-3; Pss 1:2-3; 19:7-9; 119:9, 15, 97, 105; Isa 55:10-11; Matt 5:17-19; 13:3-23; 24:35; 2 Tim 3:14-17<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Centrality of God’s Word<\/h3>\nWhen God gave the Law to his people at Sinai, it was written in stone (Exod 34:1) and was to be taught to children (Deut 6:7), worn on the hands and forehead, and written on doorposts (Deut 6:8-9), so that people would constantly be reminded of what God had said. God’s instructions were also to be read to the people every seven years so that they would remember to fear God (Deut 31:9-13). Success depended on meditating on God’s word and following it (Josh 1:7-8; Pss 1:2; 119:15). Obedience was far more important than offering sacrifices (1 Sam 15:22).<\/p>\nBut when God’s people neglect his Word and take their eyes off his truth, we have a tendency to fall away from the life he envisions for us. In the time of Josiah, even the priests had lost and forgotten the Book of the Law. When it was discovered in the Temple (2 Kgs 22:8-13), the young king read it and tore his clothing, realizing how the nation had forsaken the covenant.<\/p>\nIn the fall of 445 BC<\/span>, Nehemiah finished rebuilding the wall of Jerusalem. Just five days later, on the first day of the seventh month, the settlers in Judah came together to celebrate the Festival of Trumpets. During and after the festival, Ezra read from the Law, and as the people listened they mourned and wept, for they realized they had not obeyed God’s law. They confessed their sins, studied God’s word to learn what he required, and obeyed what they learned. The Book of the Law of Moses thus transformed their lives and behavior.<\/p>\nThese events provide a dramatic reminder that God’s word is central to the lives of his people. God’s word provides the essential guide to life or death (Gen 2:16-17), and his promises prove true (e.g., Gen 17:15-21; 18:10-14).<\/p>\nGod’s word is perfect. It has the power to restore, make wise, and give joy (Ps 19:7-9). Godly individuals love God’s word (Ps 119:97). It sheds light on their paths (Ps 119:105) and keeps them from sin (Ps 119:9). God’s word accomplishes its purpose (Isa 55:11) and remains perpetually relevant (Matt 5:17-19; 24:35; 2 Tim 3:14-17).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nExod 24:7; 34:1; Deut 4:2; 6:4-9; 31:9-13; Josh 1:7-8; 1 Sam 15:22; Neh 8:1–10:39; 13:1-3; Pss 1:2-3; 19:7-9; 119:9, 15, 97, 105; Isa 55:10-11; Matt 5:17-19; 13:3-23; 24:35; 2 Tim 3:14-17<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Centrality of God’s Word When God gave the Law to his people at Sinai, it was written in stone (Exod 34:1) and was to be taught to children (Deut 6:7), worn on the hands and forehead, and written on doorposts (Deut 6:8-9), so that people would constantly be reminded of what God had said. God’s instructions were also to be read to the people every seven years so that they would remember to fear God (Deut 31:9-13). Success depended on meditating on God’s word and following it (Josh 1:7-8; P...","summary_en":"The Centrality of God’s Word When God gave the Law to his people at Sinai, it was written in stone (Exod 34:1) and was to be taught to children (Deut 6:7), worn on the hands and forehead, and written on doorposts (Deut 6:8-9), so that people would constantly be reminded of what God had said. God’s instructions were also to be read to the people every seven years so that they would remember to fear God (Deut 31:9-13). Success depended on meditating on God’s word and following it (Josh 1:7-8; P...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":62396,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Righteous Suffer","title_en":"The Righteous Suffer","content_ro":"<h3>The Righteous Suffer<\/h3>\nThe book of Job invites us to examine the basis of our faith in God. Job’s loss of possessions and family members and the alienation of his friends shook his faith to its foundation. However, he maintained his trust in God, and he proved Satan’s accusations to be lies.<\/p>\nSin undoubtedly brings suffering, but as the book of Job demonstrates, suffering is not necessarily the result of one’s sin. Human suffering is more complex than a simple equation of individual behavior and consequence. Some today blindly follow Job’s friends in equating godliness with material blessing. But at its root, this perspective is flawed, as demonstrated by the many examples throughout history of righteous suffering—including, of course, Christ himself. As believers we are told that “we must also share [Christ’s] suffering” and “what we suffer now is nothing compared to the glory he will reveal to us later” (Rom 8:17-18). At the core of being a disciple of Christ is a willingness to follow him into suffering (see Luke 9:23-25; Phil 3:10-11).<\/p>\nEven in his complaints, Job acknowledged that only God could provide the answers he needed. When Job wished for death, it was to gain relief until God could deal with him under more favorable conditions (14:13). When Job desired a mediator (9:33-35), it was to facilitate finding favor with God. When Job complained that God didn’t listen, it was because he knew that his answers had to come from God (see 19:25-27). That is the very essence of faith.<\/p>\nWe are not meant to know or understand everything (see Gen 2:16-17; Deut 29:29; Acts 1:7; 1 Thes 5:1-2). Some things are for God alone to comprehend and direct according to his sovereign will. Our response is to live by faith. Even when we suffer, we can trust God (see Rom 8:26-39).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 4:4-8; 26:17-33; 31:38-42; 37:2-36; 39:1-20; Exod 1:8-11; 1 Sam 18:10-11, 28-29; 19:10; 22:1-19; 1 Kgs 21:1-15; 2 Chr 24:20-22; Job 9:33-35; 14:13; 19:25-27; Isa 54:17; Jer 11:18-21; 26:1-23; 38:1-13; Matt 23:29-37; John 5:24; 15:20; Acts 6:8–7:60; Rom 8:17-18, 26-39; Heb 12:1-13; 1 Pet 4:12-16<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Righteous Suffer<\/h3>\nThe book of Job invites us to examine the basis of our faith in God. Job’s loss of possessions and family members and the alienation of his friends shook his faith to its foundation. However, he maintained his trust in God, and he proved Satan’s accusations to be lies.<\/p>\nSin undoubtedly brings suffering, but as the book of Job demonstrates, suffering is not necessarily the result of one’s sin. Human suffering is more complex than a simple equation of individual behavior and consequence. Some today blindly follow Job’s friends in equating godliness with material blessing. But at its root, this perspective is flawed, as demonstrated by the many examples throughout history of righteous suffering—including, of course, Christ himself. As believers we are told that “we must also share [Christ’s] suffering” and “what we suffer now is nothing compared to the glory he will reveal to us later” (Rom 8:17-18). At the core of being a disciple of Christ is a willingness to follow him into suffering (see Luke 9:23-25; Phil 3:10-11).<\/p>\nEven in his complaints, Job acknowledged that only God could provide the answers he needed. When Job wished for death, it was to gain relief until God could deal with him under more favorable conditions (14:13). When Job desired a mediator (9:33-35), it was to facilitate finding favor with God. When Job complained that God didn’t listen, it was because he knew that his answers had to come from God (see 19:25-27). That is the very essence of faith.<\/p>\nWe are not meant to know or understand everything (see Gen 2:16-17; Deut 29:29; Acts 1:7; 1 Thes 5:1-2). Some things are for God alone to comprehend and direct according to his sovereign will. Our response is to live by faith. Even when we suffer, we can trust God (see Rom 8:26-39).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 4:4-8; 26:17-33; 31:38-42; 37:2-36; 39:1-20; Exod 1:8-11; 1 Sam 18:10-11, 28-29; 19:10; 22:1-19; 1 Kgs 21:1-15; 2 Chr 24:20-22; Job 9:33-35; 14:13; 19:25-27; Isa 54:17; Jer 11:18-21; 26:1-23; 38:1-13; Matt 23:29-37; John 5:24; 15:20; Acts 6:8–7:60; Rom 8:17-18, 26-39; Heb 12:1-13; 1 Pet 4:12-16<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Righteous Suffer The book of Job invites us to examine the basis of our faith in God. Job’s loss of possessions and family members and the alienation of his friends shook his faith to its foundation. However, he maintained his trust in God, and he proved Satan’s accusations to be lies. Sin undoubtedly brings suffering, but as the book of Job demonstrates, suffering is not necessarily the result of one’s sin. Human suffering is more complex than a simple equation of individual behavior and...","summary_en":"The Righteous Suffer The book of Job invites us to examine the basis of our faith in God. Job’s loss of possessions and family members and the alienation of his friends shook his faith to its foundation. However, he maintained his trust in God, and he proved Satan’s accusations to be lies. Sin undoubtedly brings suffering, but as the book of Job demonstrates, suffering is not necessarily the result of one’s sin. Human suffering is more complex than a simple equation of individual behavior and...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":87356,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Fall","title_en":"The Fall","content_ro":"<h3>The Fall<\/h3>\nGenesis 3 describes how human moral innocence collapsed through rebellion. What God declared as “very good” (Gen 1:31) was no longer completely so. Man and woman ate the fruit that promised knowledge of good and evil, thus breaking God’s command (2:16-17) and attempting to become like God (see 3:5). In doing so, they fell from their sinless state. Alienated from God, one another, and creation, they also became subject to death.<\/p>\nConsequently, all humans are “fallen”—born in sin, predisposed to sin (Gen 8:21; Job 4:17-21; Pss 51:5; 103:10; 143:2; Prov 20:9), and awaiting death. When the first man and woman ate the fruit in disobedience to God, they forfeited their own innocence and that of their children, the entire human race (Rom 5:12-14; 1 Cor 15:21-22, 45-49). The expression “original sin” denotes sin’s complete, universal infiltration into individual lives and human society as a result of human rebellion. As people yield to their inherited predisposition to sin, they become responsible for their own wrongdoing (Eccl 7:20; Rom 3:23).<\/p>\nThe first man, Adam, introduced sin, but the “second Adam,” Jesus Christ, is sin’s antidote (1 Cor 15:3; 2 Cor 5:21). When Christ died as Redeemer, he made God’s salvation from sin available to all (John 3:16; Rom 1:16).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 3:1-19; 8:21; Exod 34:7; Job 4:17-21; Ps 51:5; Prov 22:15; Ezek 36:16-36; John 8:1-11; Rom 1:18–3:20; 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:21-22; Gal 3:22; 5:17-24; Eph 2:1-10; 1 Jn 3:14<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Fall<\/h3>\nGenesis 3 describes how human moral innocence collapsed through rebellion. What God declared as “very good” (Gen 1:31) was no longer completely so. Man and woman ate the fruit that promised knowledge of good and evil, thus breaking God’s command (2:16-17) and attempting to become like God (see 3:5). In doing so, they fell from their sinless state. Alienated from God, one another, and creation, they also became subject to death.<\/p>\nConsequently, all humans are “fallen”—born in sin, predisposed to sin (Gen 8:21; Job 4:17-21; Pss 51:5; 103:10; 143:2; Prov 20:9), and awaiting death. When the first man and woman ate the fruit in disobedience to God, they forfeited their own innocence and that of their children, the entire human race (Rom 5:12-14; 1 Cor 15:21-22, 45-49). The expression “original sin” denotes sin’s complete, universal infiltration into individual lives and human society as a result of human rebellion. As people yield to their inherited predisposition to sin, they become responsible for their own wrongdoing (Eccl 7:20; Rom 3:23).<\/p>\nThe first man, Adam, introduced sin, but the “second Adam,” Jesus Christ, is sin’s antidote (1 Cor 15:3; 2 Cor 5:21). When Christ died as Redeemer, he made God’s salvation from sin available to all (John 3:16; Rom 1:16).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 3:1-19; 8:21; Exod 34:7; Job 4:17-21; Ps 51:5; Prov 22:15; Ezek 36:16-36; John 8:1-11; Rom 1:18–3:20; 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:21-22; Gal 3:22; 5:17-24; Eph 2:1-10; 1 Jn 3:14<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Fall Genesis 3 describes how human moral innocence collapsed through rebellion. What God declared as “very good” (Gen 1:31) was no longer completely so. Man and woman ate the fruit that promised knowledge of good and evil, thus breaking God’s command (2:16-17) and attempting to become like God (see 3:5). In doing so, they fell from their sinless state. Alienated from God, one another, and creation, they also became subject to death. Consequently, all humans are “fallen”—born in sin, predi...","summary_en":"The Fall Genesis 3 describes how human moral innocence collapsed through rebellion. What God declared as “very good” (Gen 1:31) was no longer completely so. Man and woman ate the fruit that promised knowledge of good and evil, thus breaking God’s command (2:16-17) and attempting to become like God (see 3:5). In doing so, they fell from their sinless state. Alienated from God, one another, and creation, they also became subject to death. Consequently, all humans are “fallen”—born in sin, predi...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":89873,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Centrality of God’s Word","title_en":"The Centrality of God’s Word","content_ro":"<h3>The Centrality of God’s Word<\/h3>\nWhen God gave the Law to his people at Sinai, it was written in stone (Exod 34:1) and was to be taught to children (Deut 6:7), worn on the hands and forehead, and written on doorposts (Deut 6:8-9), so that people would constantly be reminded of what God had said. God’s instructions were also to be read to the people every seven years so that they would remember to fear God (Deut 31:9-13). Success depended on meditating on God’s word and following it (Josh 1:7-8; Pss 1:2; 119:15). Obedience was far more important than offering sacrifices (1 Sam 15:22).<\/p>\nBut when God’s people neglect his Word and take their eyes off his truth, we have a tendency to fall away from the life he envisions for us. In the time of Josiah, even the priests had lost and forgotten the Book of the Law. When it was discovered in the Temple (2 Kgs 22:8-13), the young king read it and tore his clothing, realizing how the nation had forsaken the covenant.<\/p>\nIn the fall of 445 BC<\/span>, Nehemiah finished rebuilding the wall of Jerusalem. Just five days later, on the first day of the seventh month, the settlers in Judah came together to celebrate the Festival of Trumpets. During and after the festival, Ezra read from the Law, and as the people listened they mourned and wept, for they realized they had not obeyed God’s law. They confessed their sins, studied God’s word to learn what he required, and obeyed what they learned. The Book of the Law of Moses thus transformed their lives and behavior.<\/p>\nThese events provide a dramatic reminder that God’s word is central to the lives of his people. God’s word provides the essential guide to life or death (Gen 2:16-17), and his promises prove true (e.g., Gen 17:15-21; 18:10-14).<\/p>\nGod’s word is perfect. It has the power to restore, make wise, and give joy (Ps 19:7-9). Godly individuals love God’s word (Ps 119:97). It sheds light on their paths (Ps 119:105) and keeps them from sin (Ps 119:9). God’s word accomplishes its purpose (Isa 55:11) and remains perpetually relevant (Matt 5:17-19; 24:35; 2 Tim 3:14-17).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nExod 24:7; 34:1; Deut 4:2; 6:4-9; 31:9-13; Josh 1:7-8; 1 Sam 15:22; Neh 8:1–10:39; 13:1-3; Pss 1:2-3; 19:7-9; 119:9, 15, 97, 105; Isa 55:10-11; Matt 5:17-19; 13:3-23; 24:35; 2 Tim 3:14-17<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Centrality of God’s Word<\/h3>\nWhen God gave the Law to his people at Sinai, it was written in stone (Exod 34:1) and was to be taught to children (Deut 6:7), worn on the hands and forehead, and written on doorposts (Deut 6:8-9), so that people would constantly be reminded of what God had said. God’s instructions were also to be read to the people every seven years so that they would remember to fear God (Deut 31:9-13). Success depended on meditating on God’s word and following it (Josh 1:7-8; Pss 1:2; 119:15). Obedience was far more important than offering sacrifices (1 Sam 15:22).<\/p>\nBut when God’s people neglect his Word and take their eyes off his truth, we have a tendency to fall away from the life he envisions for us. In the time of Josiah, even the priests had lost and forgotten the Book of the Law. When it was discovered in the Temple (2 Kgs 22:8-13), the young king read it and tore his clothing, realizing how the nation had forsaken the covenant.<\/p>\nIn the fall of 445 BC<\/span>, Nehemiah finished rebuilding the wall of Jerusalem. Just five days later, on the first day of the seventh month, the settlers in Judah came together to celebrate the Festival of Trumpets. During and after the festival, Ezra read from the Law, and as the people listened they mourned and wept, for they realized they had not obeyed God’s law. They confessed their sins, studied God’s word to learn what he required, and obeyed what they learned. The Book of the Law of Moses thus transformed their lives and behavior.<\/p>\nThese events provide a dramatic reminder that God’s word is central to the lives of his people. God’s word provides the essential guide to life or death (Gen 2:16-17), and his promises prove true (e.g., Gen 17:15-21; 18:10-14).<\/p>\nGod’s word is perfect. It has the power to restore, make wise, and give joy (Ps 19:7-9). Godly individuals love God’s word (Ps 119:97). It sheds light on their paths (Ps 119:105) and keeps them from sin (Ps 119:9). God’s word accomplishes its purpose (Isa 55:11) and remains perpetually relevant (Matt 5:17-19; 24:35; 2 Tim 3:14-17).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nExod 24:7; 34:1; Deut 4:2; 6:4-9; 31:9-13; Josh 1:7-8; 1 Sam 15:22; Neh 8:1–10:39; 13:1-3; Pss 1:2-3; 19:7-9; 119:9, 15, 97, 105; Isa 55:10-11; Matt 5:17-19; 13:3-23; 24:35; 2 Tim 3:14-17<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Centrality of God’s Word When God gave the Law to his people at Sinai, it was written in stone (Exod 34:1) and was to be taught to children (Deut 6:7), worn on the hands and forehead, and written on doorposts (Deut 6:8-9), so that people would constantly be reminded of what God had said. God’s instructions were also to be read to the people every seven years so that they would remember to fear God (Deut 31:9-13). Success depended on meditating on God’s word and following it (Josh 1:7-8; P...","summary_en":"The Centrality of God’s Word When God gave the Law to his people at Sinai, it was written in stone (Exod 34:1) and was to be taught to children (Deut 6:7), worn on the hands and forehead, and written on doorposts (Deut 6:8-9), so that people would constantly be reminded of what God had said. God’s instructions were also to be read to the people every seven years so that they would remember to fear God (Deut 31:9-13). Success depended on meditating on God’s word and following it (Josh 1:7-8; P...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":90022,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Righteous Suffer","title_en":"The Righteous Suffer","content_ro":"<h3>The Righteous Suffer<\/h3>\nThe book of Job invites us to examine the basis of our faith in God. Job’s loss of possessions and family members and the alienation of his friends shook his faith to its foundation. However, he maintained his trust in God, and he proved Satan’s accusations to be lies.<\/p>\nSin undoubtedly brings suffering, but as the book of Job demonstrates, suffering is not necessarily the result of one’s sin. Human suffering is more complex than a simple equation of individual behavior and consequence. Some today blindly follow Job’s friends in equating godliness with material blessing. But at its root, this perspective is flawed, as demonstrated by the many examples throughout history of righteous suffering—including, of course, Christ himself. As believers we are told that “we must also share [Christ’s] suffering” and “what we suffer now is nothing compared to the glory he will reveal to us later” (Rom 8:17-18). At the core of being a disciple of Christ is a willingness to follow him into suffering (see Luke 9:23-25; Phil 3:10-11).<\/p>\nEven in his complaints, Job acknowledged that only God could provide the answers he needed. When Job wished for death, it was to gain relief until God could deal with him under more favorable conditions (14:13). When Job desired a mediator (9:33-35), it was to facilitate finding favor with God. When Job complained that God didn’t listen, it was because he knew that his answers had to come from God (see 19:25-27). That is the very essence of faith.<\/p>\nWe are not meant to know or understand everything (see Gen 2:16-17; Deut 29:29; Acts 1:7; 1 Thes 5:1-2). Some things are for God alone to comprehend and direct according to his sovereign will. Our response is to live by faith. Even when we suffer, we can trust God (see Rom 8:26-39).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 4:4-8; 26:17-33; 31:38-42; 37:2-36; 39:1-20; Exod 1:8-11; 1 Sam 18:10-11, 28-29; 19:10; 22:1-19; 1 Kgs 21:1-15; 2 Chr 24:20-22; Job 9:33-35; 14:13; 19:25-27; Isa 54:17; Jer 11:18-21; 26:1-23; 38:1-13; Matt 23:29-37; John 5:24; 15:20; Acts 6:8–7:60; Rom 8:17-18, 26-39; Heb 12:1-13; 1 Pet 4:12-16<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Righteous Suffer<\/h3>\nThe book of Job invites us to examine the basis of our faith in God. Job’s loss of possessions and family members and the alienation of his friends shook his faith to its foundation. However, he maintained his trust in God, and he proved Satan’s accusations to be lies.<\/p>\nSin undoubtedly brings suffering, but as the book of Job demonstrates, suffering is not necessarily the result of one’s sin. Human suffering is more complex than a simple equation of individual behavior and consequence. Some today blindly follow Job’s friends in equating godliness with material blessing. But at its root, this perspective is flawed, as demonstrated by the many examples throughout history of righteous suffering—including, of course, Christ himself. As believers we are told that “we must also share [Christ’s] suffering” and “what we suffer now is nothing compared to the glory he will reveal to us later” (Rom 8:17-18). At the core of being a disciple of Christ is a willingness to follow him into suffering (see Luke 9:23-25; Phil 3:10-11).<\/p>\nEven in his complaints, Job acknowledged that only God could provide the answers he needed. When Job wished for death, it was to gain relief until God could deal with him under more favorable conditions (14:13). When Job desired a mediator (9:33-35), it was to facilitate finding favor with God. When Job complained that God didn’t listen, it was because he knew that his answers had to come from God (see 19:25-27). That is the very essence of faith.<\/p>\nWe are not meant to know or understand everything (see Gen 2:16-17; Deut 29:29; Acts 1:7; 1 Thes 5:1-2). Some things are for God alone to comprehend and direct according to his sovereign will. Our response is to live by faith. Even when we suffer, we can trust God (see Rom 8:26-39).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 4:4-8; 26:17-33; 31:38-42; 37:2-36; 39:1-20; Exod 1:8-11; 1 Sam 18:10-11, 28-29; 19:10; 22:1-19; 1 Kgs 21:1-15; 2 Chr 24:20-22; Job 9:33-35; 14:13; 19:25-27; Isa 54:17; Jer 11:18-21; 26:1-23; 38:1-13; Matt 23:29-37; John 5:24; 15:20; Acts 6:8–7:60; Rom 8:17-18, 26-39; Heb 12:1-13; 1 Pet 4:12-16<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Righteous Suffer The book of Job invites us to examine the basis of our faith in God. Job’s loss of possessions and family members and the alienation of his friends shook his faith to its foundation. However, he maintained his trust in God, and he proved Satan’s accusations to be lies. Sin undoubtedly brings suffering, but as the book of Job demonstrates, suffering is not necessarily the result of one’s sin. Human suffering is more complex than a simple equation of individual behavior and...","summary_en":"The Righteous Suffer The book of Job invites us to examine the basis of our faith in God. Job’s loss of possessions and family members and the alienation of his friends shook his faith to its foundation. However, he maintained his trust in God, and he proved Satan’s accusations to be lies. Sin undoubtedly brings suffering, but as the book of Job demonstrates, suffering is not necessarily the result of one’s sin. Human suffering is more complex than a simple equation of individual behavior and...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":114982,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Fall","title_en":"The Fall","content_ro":"<h3>The Fall<\/h3>\nGenesis 3 describes how human moral innocence collapsed through rebellion. What God declared as “very good” (Gen 1:31) was no longer completely so. Man and woman ate the fruit that promised knowledge of good and evil, thus breaking God’s command (2:16-17) and attempting to become like God (see 3:5). In doing so, they fell from their sinless state. Alienated from God, one another, and creation, they also became subject to death.<\/p>\nConsequently, all humans are “fallen”—born in sin, predisposed to sin (Gen 8:21; Job 4:17-21; Pss 51:5; 103:10; 143:2; Prov 20:9), and awaiting death. When the first man and woman ate the fruit in disobedience to God, they forfeited their own innocence and that of their children, the entire human race (Rom 5:12-14; 1 Cor 15:21-22, 45-49). The expression “original sin” denotes sin’s complete, universal infiltration into individual lives and human society as a result of human rebellion. As people yield to their inherited predisposition to sin, they become responsible for their own wrongdoing (Eccl 7:20; Rom 3:23).<\/p>\nThe first man, Adam, introduced sin, but the “second Adam,” Jesus Christ, is sin’s antidote (1 Cor 15:3; 2 Cor 5:21). When Christ died as Redeemer, he made God’s salvation from sin available to all (John 3:16; Rom 1:16).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 3:1-19; 8:21; Exod 34:7; Job 4:17-21; Ps 51:5; Prov 22:15; Ezek 36:16-36; John 8:1-11; Rom 1:18–3:20; 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:21-22; Gal 3:22; 5:17-24; Eph 2:1-10; 1 Jn 3:14<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Fall<\/h3>\nGenesis 3 describes how human moral innocence collapsed through rebellion. What God declared as “very good” (Gen 1:31) was no longer completely so. Man and woman ate the fruit that promised knowledge of good and evil, thus breaking God’s command (2:16-17) and attempting to become like God (see 3:5). In doing so, they fell from their sinless state. Alienated from God, one another, and creation, they also became subject to death.<\/p>\nConsequently, all humans are “fallen”—born in sin, predisposed to sin (Gen 8:21; Job 4:17-21; Pss 51:5; 103:10; 143:2; Prov 20:9), and awaiting death. When the first man and woman ate the fruit in disobedience to God, they forfeited their own innocence and that of their children, the entire human race (Rom 5:12-14; 1 Cor 15:21-22, 45-49). The expression “original sin” denotes sin’s complete, universal infiltration into individual lives and human society as a result of human rebellion. As people yield to their inherited predisposition to sin, they become responsible for their own wrongdoing (Eccl 7:20; Rom 3:23).<\/p>\nThe first man, Adam, introduced sin, but the “second Adam,” Jesus Christ, is sin’s antidote (1 Cor 15:3; 2 Cor 5:21). When Christ died as Redeemer, he made God’s salvation from sin available to all (John 3:16; Rom 1:16).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 3:1-19; 8:21; Exod 34:7; Job 4:17-21; Ps 51:5; Prov 22:15; Ezek 36:16-36; John 8:1-11; Rom 1:18–3:20; 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:21-22; Gal 3:22; 5:17-24; Eph 2:1-10; 1 Jn 3:14<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Fall Genesis 3 describes how human moral innocence collapsed through rebellion. What God declared as “very good” (Gen 1:31) was no longer completely so. Man and woman ate the fruit that promised knowledge of good and evil, thus breaking God’s command (2:16-17) and attempting to become like God (see 3:5). In doing so, they fell from their sinless state. Alienated from God, one another, and creation, they also became subject to death. Consequently, all humans are “fallen”—born in sin, predi...","summary_en":"The Fall Genesis 3 describes how human moral innocence collapsed through rebellion. What God declared as “very good” (Gen 1:31) was no longer completely so. Man and woman ate the fruit that promised knowledge of good and evil, thus breaking God’s command (2:16-17) and attempting to become like God (see 3:5). In doing so, they fell from their sinless state. Alienated from God, one another, and creation, they also became subject to death. Consequently, all humans are “fallen”—born in sin, predi...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":117499,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Centrality of God’s Word","title_en":"The Centrality of God’s Word","content_ro":"<h3>The Centrality of God’s Word<\/h3>\nWhen God gave the Law to his people at Sinai, it was written in stone (Exod 34:1) and was to be taught to children (Deut 6:7), worn on the hands and forehead, and written on doorposts (Deut 6:8-9), so that people would constantly be reminded of what God had said. God’s instructions were also to be read to the people every seven years so that they would remember to fear God (Deut 31:9-13). Success depended on meditating on God’s word and following it (Josh 1:7-8; Pss 1:2; 119:15). Obedience was far more important than offering sacrifices (1 Sam 15:22).<\/p>\nBut when God’s people neglect his Word and take their eyes off his truth, we have a tendency to fall away from the life he envisions for us. In the time of Josiah, even the priests had lost and forgotten the Book of the Law. When it was discovered in the Temple (2 Kgs 22:8-13), the young king read it and tore his clothing, realizing how the nation had forsaken the covenant.<\/p>\nIn the fall of 445 BC<\/span>, Nehemiah finished rebuilding the wall of Jerusalem. Just five days later, on the first day of the seventh month, the settlers in Judah came together to celebrate the Festival of Trumpets. During and after the festival, Ezra read from the Law, and as the people listened they mourned and wept, for they realized they had not obeyed God’s law. They confessed their sins, studied God’s word to learn what he required, and obeyed what they learned. The Book of the Law of Moses thus transformed their lives and behavior.<\/p>\nThese events provide a dramatic reminder that God’s word is central to the lives of his people. God’s word provides the essential guide to life or death (Gen 2:16-17), and his promises prove true (e.g., Gen 17:15-21; 18:10-14).<\/p>\nGod’s word is perfect. It has the power to restore, make wise, and give joy (Ps 19:7-9). Godly individuals love God’s word (Ps 119:97). It sheds light on their paths (Ps 119:105) and keeps them from sin (Ps 119:9). God’s word accomplishes its purpose (Isa 55:11) and remains perpetually relevant (Matt 5:17-19; 24:35; 2 Tim 3:14-17).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nExod 24:7; 34:1; Deut 4:2; 6:4-9; 31:9-13; Josh 1:7-8; 1 Sam 15:22; Neh 8:1–10:39; 13:1-3; Pss 1:2-3; 19:7-9; 119:9, 15, 97, 105; Isa 55:10-11; Matt 5:17-19; 13:3-23; 24:35; 2 Tim 3:14-17<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Centrality of God’s Word<\/h3>\nWhen God gave the Law to his people at Sinai, it was written in stone (Exod 34:1) and was to be taught to children (Deut 6:7), worn on the hands and forehead, and written on doorposts (Deut 6:8-9), so that people would constantly be reminded of what God had said. God’s instructions were also to be read to the people every seven years so that they would remember to fear God (Deut 31:9-13). Success depended on meditating on God’s word and following it (Josh 1:7-8; Pss 1:2; 119:15). Obedience was far more important than offering sacrifices (1 Sam 15:22).<\/p>\nBut when God’s people neglect his Word and take their eyes off his truth, we have a tendency to fall away from the life he envisions for us. In the time of Josiah, even the priests had lost and forgotten the Book of the Law. When it was discovered in the Temple (2 Kgs 22:8-13), the young king read it and tore his clothing, realizing how the nation had forsaken the covenant.<\/p>\nIn the fall of 445 BC<\/span>, Nehemiah finished rebuilding the wall of Jerusalem. Just five days later, on the first day of the seventh month, the settlers in Judah came together to celebrate the Festival of Trumpets. During and after the festival, Ezra read from the Law, and as the people listened they mourned and wept, for they realized they had not obeyed God’s law. They confessed their sins, studied God’s word to learn what he required, and obeyed what they learned. The Book of the Law of Moses thus transformed their lives and behavior.<\/p>\nThese events provide a dramatic reminder that God’s word is central to the lives of his people. God’s word provides the essential guide to life or death (Gen 2:16-17), and his promises prove true (e.g., Gen 17:15-21; 18:10-14).<\/p>\nGod’s word is perfect. It has the power to restore, make wise, and give joy (Ps 19:7-9). Godly individuals love God’s word (Ps 119:97). It sheds light on their paths (Ps 119:105) and keeps them from sin (Ps 119:9). God’s word accomplishes its purpose (Isa 55:11) and remains perpetually relevant (Matt 5:17-19; 24:35; 2 Tim 3:14-17).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nExod 24:7; 34:1; Deut 4:2; 6:4-9; 31:9-13; Josh 1:7-8; 1 Sam 15:22; Neh 8:1–10:39; 13:1-3; Pss 1:2-3; 19:7-9; 119:9, 15, 97, 105; Isa 55:10-11; Matt 5:17-19; 13:3-23; 24:35; 2 Tim 3:14-17<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Centrality of God’s Word When God gave the Law to his people at Sinai, it was written in stone (Exod 34:1) and was to be taught to children (Deut 6:7), worn on the hands and forehead, and written on doorposts (Deut 6:8-9), so that people would constantly be reminded of what God had said. God’s instructions were also to be read to the people every seven years so that they would remember to fear God (Deut 31:9-13). Success depended on meditating on God’s word and following it (Josh 1:7-8; P...","summary_en":"The Centrality of God’s Word When God gave the Law to his people at Sinai, it was written in stone (Exod 34:1) and was to be taught to children (Deut 6:7), worn on the hands and forehead, and written on doorposts (Deut 6:8-9), so that people would constantly be reminded of what God had said. God’s instructions were also to be read to the people every seven years so that they would remember to fear God (Deut 31:9-13). Success depended on meditating on God’s word and following it (Josh 1:7-8; P...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":117648,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Righteous Suffer","title_en":"The Righteous Suffer","content_ro":"<h3>The Righteous Suffer<\/h3>\nThe book of Job invites us to examine the basis of our faith in God. Job’s loss of possessions and family members and the alienation of his friends shook his faith to its foundation. However, he maintained his trust in God, and he proved Satan’s accusations to be lies.<\/p>\nSin undoubtedly brings suffering, but as the book of Job demonstrates, suffering is not necessarily the result of one’s sin. Human suffering is more complex than a simple equation of individual behavior and consequence. Some today blindly follow Job’s friends in equating godliness with material blessing. But at its root, this perspective is flawed, as demonstrated by the many examples throughout history of righteous suffering—including, of course, Christ himself. As believers we are told that “we must also share [Christ’s] suffering” and “what we suffer now is nothing compared to the glory he will reveal to us later” (Rom 8:17-18). At the core of being a disciple of Christ is a willingness to follow him into suffering (see Luke 9:23-25; Phil 3:10-11).<\/p>\nEven in his complaints, Job acknowledged that only God could provide the answers he needed. When Job wished for death, it was to gain relief until God could deal with him under more favorable conditions (14:13). When Job desired a mediator (9:33-35), it was to facilitate finding favor with God. When Job complained that God didn’t listen, it was because he knew that his answers had to come from God (see 19:25-27). That is the very essence of faith.<\/p>\nWe are not meant to know or understand everything (see Gen 2:16-17; Deut 29:29; Acts 1:7; 1 Thes 5:1-2). Some things are for God alone to comprehend and direct according to his sovereign will. Our response is to live by faith. Even when we suffer, we can trust God (see Rom 8:26-39).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 4:4-8; 26:17-33; 31:38-42; 37:2-36; 39:1-20; Exod 1:8-11; 1 Sam 18:10-11, 28-29; 19:10; 22:1-19; 1 Kgs 21:1-15; 2 Chr 24:20-22; Job 9:33-35; 14:13; 19:25-27; Isa 54:17; Jer 11:18-21; 26:1-23; 38:1-13; Matt 23:29-37; John 5:24; 15:20; Acts 6:8–7:60; Rom 8:17-18, 26-39; Heb 12:1-13; 1 Pet 4:12-16<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Righteous Suffer<\/h3>\nThe book of Job invites us to examine the basis of our faith in God. Job’s loss of possessions and family members and the alienation of his friends shook his faith to its foundation. However, he maintained his trust in God, and he proved Satan’s accusations to be lies.<\/p>\nSin undoubtedly brings suffering, but as the book of Job demonstrates, suffering is not necessarily the result of one’s sin. Human suffering is more complex than a simple equation of individual behavior and consequence. Some today blindly follow Job’s friends in equating godliness with material blessing. But at its root, this perspective is flawed, as demonstrated by the many examples throughout history of righteous suffering—including, of course, Christ himself. As believers we are told that “we must also share [Christ’s] suffering” and “what we suffer now is nothing compared to the glory he will reveal to us later” (Rom 8:17-18). At the core of being a disciple of Christ is a willingness to follow him into suffering (see Luke 9:23-25; Phil 3:10-11).<\/p>\nEven in his complaints, Job acknowledged that only God could provide the answers he needed. When Job wished for death, it was to gain relief until God could deal with him under more favorable conditions (14:13). When Job desired a mediator (9:33-35), it was to facilitate finding favor with God. When Job complained that God didn’t listen, it was because he knew that his answers had to come from God (see 19:25-27). That is the very essence of faith.<\/p>\nWe are not meant to know or understand everything (see Gen 2:16-17; Deut 29:29; Acts 1:7; 1 Thes 5:1-2). Some things are for God alone to comprehend and direct according to his sovereign will. Our response is to live by faith. Even when we suffer, we can trust God (see Rom 8:26-39).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 4:4-8; 26:17-33; 31:38-42; 37:2-36; 39:1-20; Exod 1:8-11; 1 Sam 18:10-11, 28-29; 19:10; 22:1-19; 1 Kgs 21:1-15; 2 Chr 24:20-22; Job 9:33-35; 14:13; 19:25-27; Isa 54:17; Jer 11:18-21; 26:1-23; 38:1-13; Matt 23:29-37; John 5:24; 15:20; Acts 6:8–7:60; Rom 8:17-18, 26-39; Heb 12:1-13; 1 Pet 4:12-16<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Righteous Suffer The book of Job invites us to examine the basis of our faith in God. Job’s loss of possessions and family members and the alienation of his friends shook his faith to its foundation. However, he maintained his trust in God, and he proved Satan’s accusations to be lies. Sin undoubtedly brings suffering, but as the book of Job demonstrates, suffering is not necessarily the result of one’s sin. Human suffering is more complex than a simple equation of individual behavior and...","summary_en":"The Righteous Suffer The book of Job invites us to examine the basis of our faith in God. Job’s loss of possessions and family members and the alienation of his friends shook his faith to its foundation. However, he maintained his trust in God, and he proved Satan’s accusations to be lies. Sin undoubtedly brings suffering, but as the book of Job demonstrates, suffering is not necessarily the result of one’s sin. Human suffering is more complex than a simple equation of individual behavior and...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":142608,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Fall","title_en":"The Fall","content_ro":"<h3>The Fall<\/h3>\nGenesis 3 describes how human moral innocence collapsed through rebellion. What God declared as “very good” (Gen 1:31) was no longer completely so. Man and woman ate the fruit that promised knowledge of good and evil, thus breaking God’s command (2:16-17) and attempting to become like God (see 3:5). In doing so, they fell from their sinless state. Alienated from God, one another, and creation, they also became subject to death.<\/p>\nConsequently, all humans are “fallen”—born in sin, predisposed to sin (Gen 8:21; Job 4:17-21; Pss 51:5; 103:10; 143:2; Prov 20:9), and awaiting death. When the first man and woman ate the fruit in disobedience to God, they forfeited their own innocence and that of their children, the entire human race (Rom 5:12-14; 1 Cor 15:21-22, 45-49). The expression “original sin” denotes sin’s complete, universal infiltration into individual lives and human society as a result of human rebellion. As people yield to their inherited predisposition to sin, they become responsible for their own wrongdoing (Eccl 7:20; Rom 3:23).<\/p>\nThe first man, Adam, introduced sin, but the “second Adam,” Jesus Christ, is sin’s antidote (1 Cor 15:3; 2 Cor 5:21). When Christ died as Redeemer, he made God’s salvation from sin available to all (John 3:16; Rom 1:16).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 3:1-19; 8:21; Exod 34:7; Job 4:17-21; Ps 51:5; Prov 22:15; Ezek 36:16-36; John 8:1-11; Rom 1:18–3:20; 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:21-22; Gal 3:22; 5:17-24; Eph 2:1-10; 1 Jn 3:14<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Fall<\/h3>\nGenesis 3 describes how human moral innocence collapsed through rebellion. What God declared as “very good” (Gen 1:31) was no longer completely so. Man and woman ate the fruit that promised knowledge of good and evil, thus breaking God’s command (2:16-17) and attempting to become like God (see 3:5). In doing so, they fell from their sinless state. Alienated from God, one another, and creation, they also became subject to death.<\/p>\nConsequently, all humans are “fallen”—born in sin, predisposed to sin (Gen 8:21; Job 4:17-21; Pss 51:5; 103:10; 143:2; Prov 20:9), and awaiting death. When the first man and woman ate the fruit in disobedience to God, they forfeited their own innocence and that of their children, the entire human race (Rom 5:12-14; 1 Cor 15:21-22, 45-49). The expression “original sin” denotes sin’s complete, universal infiltration into individual lives and human society as a result of human rebellion. As people yield to their inherited predisposition to sin, they become responsible for their own wrongdoing (Eccl 7:20; Rom 3:23).<\/p>\nThe first man, Adam, introduced sin, but the “second Adam,” Jesus Christ, is sin’s antidote (1 Cor 15:3; 2 Cor 5:21). When Christ died as Redeemer, he made God’s salvation from sin available to all (John 3:16; Rom 1:16).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 3:1-19; 8:21; Exod 34:7; Job 4:17-21; Ps 51:5; Prov 22:15; Ezek 36:16-36; John 8:1-11; Rom 1:18–3:20; 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:21-22; Gal 3:22; 5:17-24; Eph 2:1-10; 1 Jn 3:14<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Fall Genesis 3 describes how human moral innocence collapsed through rebellion. What God declared as “very good” (Gen 1:31) was no longer completely so. Man and woman ate the fruit that promised knowledge of good and evil, thus breaking God’s command (2:16-17) and attempting to become like God (see 3:5). In doing so, they fell from their sinless state. Alienated from God, one another, and creation, they also became subject to death. Consequently, all humans are “fallen”—born in sin, predi...","summary_en":"The Fall Genesis 3 describes how human moral innocence collapsed through rebellion. What God declared as “very good” (Gen 1:31) was no longer completely so. Man and woman ate the fruit that promised knowledge of good and evil, thus breaking God’s command (2:16-17) and attempting to become like God (see 3:5). In doing so, they fell from their sinless state. Alienated from God, one another, and creation, they also became subject to death. Consequently, all humans are “fallen”—born in sin, predi...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":145125,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Centrality of God’s Word","title_en":"The Centrality of God’s Word","content_ro":"<h3>The Centrality of God’s Word<\/h3>\nWhen God gave the Law to his people at Sinai, it was written in stone (Exod 34:1) and was to be taught to children (Deut 6:7), worn on the hands and forehead, and written on doorposts (Deut 6:8-9), so that people would constantly be reminded of what God had said. God’s instructions were also to be read to the people every seven years so that they would remember to fear God (Deut 31:9-13). Success depended on meditating on God’s word and following it (Josh 1:7-8; Pss 1:2; 119:15). Obedience was far more important than offering sacrifices (1 Sam 15:22).<\/p>\nBut when God’s people neglect his Word and take their eyes off his truth, we have a tendency to fall away from the life he envisions for us. In the time of Josiah, even the priests had lost and forgotten the Book of the Law. When it was discovered in the Temple (2 Kgs 22:8-13), the young king read it and tore his clothing, realizing how the nation had forsaken the covenant.<\/p>\nIn the fall of 445 BC<\/span>, Nehemiah finished rebuilding the wall of Jerusalem. Just five days later, on the first day of the seventh month, the settlers in Judah came together to celebrate the Festival of Trumpets. During and after the festival, Ezra read from the Law, and as the people listened they mourned and wept, for they realized they had not obeyed God’s law. They confessed their sins, studied God’s word to learn what he required, and obeyed what they learned. The Book of the Law of Moses thus transformed their lives and behavior.<\/p>\nThese events provide a dramatic reminder that God’s word is central to the lives of his people. God’s word provides the essential guide to life or death (Gen 2:16-17), and his promises prove true (e.g., Gen 17:15-21; 18:10-14).<\/p>\nGod’s word is perfect. It has the power to restore, make wise, and give joy (Ps 19:7-9). Godly individuals love God’s word (Ps 119:97). It sheds light on their paths (Ps 119:105) and keeps them from sin (Ps 119:9). God’s word accomplishes its purpose (Isa 55:11) and remains perpetually relevant (Matt 5:17-19; 24:35; 2 Tim 3:14-17).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nExod 24:7; 34:1; Deut 4:2; 6:4-9; 31:9-13; Josh 1:7-8; 1 Sam 15:22; Neh 8:1–10:39; 13:1-3; Pss 1:2-3; 19:7-9; 119:9, 15, 97, 105; Isa 55:10-11; Matt 5:17-19; 13:3-23; 24:35; 2 Tim 3:14-17<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Centrality of God’s Word<\/h3>\nWhen God gave the Law to his people at Sinai, it was written in stone (Exod 34:1) and was to be taught to children (Deut 6:7), worn on the hands and forehead, and written on doorposts (Deut 6:8-9), so that people would constantly be reminded of what God had said. God’s instructions were also to be read to the people every seven years so that they would remember to fear God (Deut 31:9-13). Success depended on meditating on God’s word and following it (Josh 1:7-8; Pss 1:2; 119:15). Obedience was far more important than offering sacrifices (1 Sam 15:22).<\/p>\nBut when God’s people neglect his Word and take their eyes off his truth, we have a tendency to fall away from the life he envisions for us. In the time of Josiah, even the priests had lost and forgotten the Book of the Law. When it was discovered in the Temple (2 Kgs 22:8-13), the young king read it and tore his clothing, realizing how the nation had forsaken the covenant.<\/p>\nIn the fall of 445 BC<\/span>, Nehemiah finished rebuilding the wall of Jerusalem. Just five days later, on the first day of the seventh month, the settlers in Judah came together to celebrate the Festival of Trumpets. During and after the festival, Ezra read from the Law, and as the people listened they mourned and wept, for they realized they had not obeyed God’s law. They confessed their sins, studied God’s word to learn what he required, and obeyed what they learned. The Book of the Law of Moses thus transformed their lives and behavior.<\/p>\nThese events provide a dramatic reminder that God’s word is central to the lives of his people. God’s word provides the essential guide to life or death (Gen 2:16-17), and his promises prove true (e.g., Gen 17:15-21; 18:10-14).<\/p>\nGod’s word is perfect. It has the power to restore, make wise, and give joy (Ps 19:7-9). Godly individuals love God’s word (Ps 119:97). It sheds light on their paths (Ps 119:105) and keeps them from sin (Ps 119:9). God’s word accomplishes its purpose (Isa 55:11) and remains perpetually relevant (Matt 5:17-19; 24:35; 2 Tim 3:14-17).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nExod 24:7; 34:1; Deut 4:2; 6:4-9; 31:9-13; Josh 1:7-8; 1 Sam 15:22; Neh 8:1–10:39; 13:1-3; Pss 1:2-3; 19:7-9; 119:9, 15, 97, 105; Isa 55:10-11; Matt 5:17-19; 13:3-23; 24:35; 2 Tim 3:14-17<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Centrality of God’s Word When God gave the Law to his people at Sinai, it was written in stone (Exod 34:1) and was to be taught to children (Deut 6:7), worn on the hands and forehead, and written on doorposts (Deut 6:8-9), so that people would constantly be reminded of what God had said. God’s instructions were also to be read to the people every seven years so that they would remember to fear God (Deut 31:9-13). Success depended on meditating on God’s word and following it (Josh 1:7-8; P...","summary_en":"The Centrality of God’s Word When God gave the Law to his people at Sinai, it was written in stone (Exod 34:1) and was to be taught to children (Deut 6:7), worn on the hands and forehead, and written on doorposts (Deut 6:8-9), so that people would constantly be reminded of what God had said. God’s instructions were also to be read to the people every seven years so that they would remember to fear God (Deut 31:9-13). Success depended on meditating on God’s word and following it (Josh 1:7-8; P...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":145274,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Righteous Suffer","title_en":"The Righteous Suffer","content_ro":"<h3>The Righteous Suffer<\/h3>\nThe book of Job invites us to examine the basis of our faith in God. Job’s loss of possessions and family members and the alienation of his friends shook his faith to its foundation. However, he maintained his trust in God, and he proved Satan’s accusations to be lies.<\/p>\nSin undoubtedly brings suffering, but as the book of Job demonstrates, suffering is not necessarily the result of one’s sin. Human suffering is more complex than a simple equation of individual behavior and consequence. Some today blindly follow Job’s friends in equating godliness with material blessing. But at its root, this perspective is flawed, as demonstrated by the many examples throughout history of righteous suffering—including, of course, Christ himself. As believers we are told that “we must also share [Christ’s] suffering” and “what we suffer now is nothing compared to the glory he will reveal to us later” (Rom 8:17-18). At the core of being a disciple of Christ is a willingness to follow him into suffering (see Luke 9:23-25; Phil 3:10-11).<\/p>\nEven in his complaints, Job acknowledged that only God could provide the answers he needed. When Job wished for death, it was to gain relief until God could deal with him under more favorable conditions (14:13). When Job desired a mediator (9:33-35), it was to facilitate finding favor with God. When Job complained that God didn’t listen, it was because he knew that his answers had to come from God (see 19:25-27). That is the very essence of faith.<\/p>\nWe are not meant to know or understand everything (see Gen 2:16-17; Deut 29:29; Acts 1:7; 1 Thes 5:1-2). Some things are for God alone to comprehend and direct according to his sovereign will. Our response is to live by faith. Even when we suffer, we can trust God (see Rom 8:26-39).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 4:4-8; 26:17-33; 31:38-42; 37:2-36; 39:1-20; Exod 1:8-11; 1 Sam 18:10-11, 28-29; 19:10; 22:1-19; 1 Kgs 21:1-15; 2 Chr 24:20-22; Job 9:33-35; 14:13; 19:25-27; Isa 54:17; Jer 11:18-21; 26:1-23; 38:1-13; Matt 23:29-37; John 5:24; 15:20; Acts 6:8–7:60; Rom 8:17-18, 26-39; Heb 12:1-13; 1 Pet 4:12-16<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Righteous Suffer<\/h3>\nThe book of Job invites us to examine the basis of our faith in God. Job’s loss of possessions and family members and the alienation of his friends shook his faith to its foundation. However, he maintained his trust in God, and he proved Satan’s accusations to be lies.<\/p>\nSin undoubtedly brings suffering, but as the book of Job demonstrates, suffering is not necessarily the result of one’s sin. Human suffering is more complex than a simple equation of individual behavior and consequence. Some today blindly follow Job’s friends in equating godliness with material blessing. But at its root, this perspective is flawed, as demonstrated by the many examples throughout history of righteous suffering—including, of course, Christ himself. As believers we are told that “we must also share [Christ’s] suffering” and “what we suffer now is nothing compared to the glory he will reveal to us later” (Rom 8:17-18). At the core of being a disciple of Christ is a willingness to follow him into suffering (see Luke 9:23-25; Phil 3:10-11).<\/p>\nEven in his complaints, Job acknowledged that only God could provide the answers he needed. When Job wished for death, it was to gain relief until God could deal with him under more favorable conditions (14:13). When Job desired a mediator (9:33-35), it was to facilitate finding favor with God. When Job complained that God didn’t listen, it was because he knew that his answers had to come from God (see 19:25-27). That is the very essence of faith.<\/p>\nWe are not meant to know or understand everything (see Gen 2:16-17; Deut 29:29; Acts 1:7; 1 Thes 5:1-2). Some things are for God alone to comprehend and direct according to his sovereign will. Our response is to live by faith. Even when we suffer, we can trust God (see Rom 8:26-39).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 4:4-8; 26:17-33; 31:38-42; 37:2-36; 39:1-20; Exod 1:8-11; 1 Sam 18:10-11, 28-29; 19:10; 22:1-19; 1 Kgs 21:1-15; 2 Chr 24:20-22; Job 9:33-35; 14:13; 19:25-27; Isa 54:17; Jer 11:18-21; 26:1-23; 38:1-13; Matt 23:29-37; John 5:24; 15:20; Acts 6:8–7:60; Rom 8:17-18, 26-39; Heb 12:1-13; 1 Pet 4:12-16<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Righteous Suffer The book of Job invites us to examine the basis of our faith in God. Job’s loss of possessions and family members and the alienation of his friends shook his faith to its foundation. However, he maintained his trust in God, and he proved Satan’s accusations to be lies. Sin undoubtedly brings suffering, but as the book of Job demonstrates, suffering is not necessarily the result of one’s sin. Human suffering is more complex than a simple equation of individual behavior and...","summary_en":"The Righteous Suffer The book of Job invites us to examine the basis of our faith in God. Job’s loss of possessions and family members and the alienation of his friends shook his faith to its foundation. However, he maintained his trust in God, and he proved Satan’s accusations to be lies. Sin undoubtedly brings suffering, but as the book of Job demonstrates, suffering is not necessarily the result of one’s sin. Human suffering is more complex than a simple equation of individual behavior and...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"17":[{"id":11318,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Eve","title_en":"Eve","content_ro":"<h3>EVE<\/h3>\nFirst woman, “the mother of all living” (Gn 3:20). The book of Genesis recounts that after God had finished his creation of Adam, he saw that it was not good for Adam to be alone. He decided to create “a helper fit for him” (2:18). The woman is called ezer<\/span> (in Hebrew lit. “help”), a word that appears elsewhere in the OT in reference to God as Israel’s help. Causing Adam to fall into a deep sleep, God took one of his ribs and used it to fashion Eve (vv 21-25).<\/p>\nEve was given two names by Adam. The first was “woman,” a generic designation with theological connotations that denote her relationship to man (Gn 2:23). The second, Eve (“life”), was given after the fall and refers to her role in the procreation of the human race (3:20).<\/p>\nAdam and Eve are pictured as living in Eden, serving God and fulfilling each other’s needs. Then evil entered when Eve was tempted by the serpent to disobey God’s command, which forbade their eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gn 2:17; 3:3). Tricked by the serpent’s subtle persuasion, Eve transgressed God’s will by eating the fruit. Adam did the same when she brought some to him, although he was not deceived as she had been. Both then recognized their nakedness and made garments of fig leaves.<\/p>\nWhen God came to commune with them, they hid from him. When he demanded an account, Adam blamed Eve, and Eve blamed the serpent. God told Eve that as a result of their sin, childbirth would be a painful experience and her husband would rule over her (Gn 3:16). Eve later became the mother of Cain, Abel, Seth, and other children (4:1-2, 25; 5:4).<\/p>\nEve is mentioned twice in the NT. In his letter to Timothy, the apostle Paul referred to her when discussing whether or not women could teach (1 Tm 2:13). He said that a woman could not teach or have authority over a man because of man’s priority in creation and Eve’s responsibility for the original transgression (see 2 Cor 11:3).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Adam (Person); Garden of Eden.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>EVE<\/h3>\nFirst woman, “the mother of all living” (Gn 3:20). The book of Genesis recounts that after God had finished his creation of Adam, he saw that it was not good for Adam to be alone. He decided to create “a helper fit for him” (2:18). The woman is called ezer<\/span> (in Hebrew lit. “help”), a word that appears elsewhere in the OT in reference to God as Israel’s help. Causing Adam to fall into a deep sleep, God took one of his ribs and used it to fashion Eve (vv 21-25).<\/p>\nEve was given two names by Adam. The first was “woman,” a generic designation with theological connotations that denote her relationship to man (Gn 2:23). The second, Eve (“life”), was given after the fall and refers to her role in the procreation of the human race (3:20).<\/p>\nAdam and Eve are pictured as living in Eden, serving God and fulfilling each other’s needs. Then evil entered when Eve was tempted by the serpent to disobey God’s command, which forbade their eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gn 2:17; 3:3). Tricked by the serpent’s subtle persuasion, Eve transgressed God’s will by eating the fruit. Adam did the same when she brought some to him, although he was not deceived as she had been. Both then recognized their nakedness and made garments of fig leaves.<\/p>\nWhen God came to commune with them, they hid from him. When he demanded an account, Adam blamed Eve, and Eve blamed the serpent. God told Eve that as a result of their sin, childbirth would be a painful experience and her husband would rule over her (Gn 3:16). Eve later became the mother of Cain, Abel, Seth, and other children (4:1-2, 25; 5:4).<\/p>\nEve is mentioned twice in the NT. In his letter to Timothy, the apostle Paul referred to her when discussing whether or not women could teach (1 Tm 2:13). He said that a woman could not teach or have authority over a man because of man’s priority in creation and Eve’s responsibility for the original transgression (see 2 Cor 11:3).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Adam (Person); Garden of Eden.<\/p>","summary_ro":"EVE First woman, “the mother of all living” (Gn 3:20). The book of Genesis recounts that after God had finished his creation of Adam, he saw that it was not good for Adam to be alone. He decided to create “a helper fit for him” (2:18). The woman is called ezer (in Hebrew lit. “help”), a word that appears elsewhere in the OT in reference to God as Israel’s help. Causing Adam to fall into a deep sleep, God took one of his ribs and used it to fashion Eve (vv 21-25). Eve was given two names by Ad...","summary_en":"EVE First woman, “the mother of all living” (Gn 3:20). The book of Genesis recounts that after God had finished his creation of Adam, he saw that it was not good for Adam to be alone. He decided to create “a helper fit for him” (2:18). The woman is called ezer (in Hebrew lit. “help”), a word that appears elsewhere in the OT in reference to God as Israel’s help. Causing Adam to fall into a deep sleep, God took one of his ribs and used it to fashion Eve (vv 21-25). Eve was given two names by Ad...","source":"Articles\/E.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":16118,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Hell","title_en":"Hell","content_ro":"<h3>HELL<\/h3>\nPlace of future punishment for the lost, unrepentant, wicked dead.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Definition and Description<\/p>\n• Biblical Terms<\/p>\n• The Justice of Eternal Punishment<\/p>\nDefinition and Description<\/p>\nHell is the final destiny of unbelievers and is variously described by the figures of a furnace of fire, eternal fire, eternal punishment (Mt 13:42, 50; 25:41, 46); outer darkness, the place of weeping and torment (8:12); the lake of fire, the second death (Rv 21:8); a place for the devil and his demons (Mt 25:41). Evidently, those in hell experience everlasting separation from the Lord, never to see the glory of his power (2 Thes 1:9). Those who worshiped the beast will be subject to continuous torment (Rv 14:10-11).<\/p>\nOther expressions that indicate that the final state of the wicked is eternal are these: “burn with unquenchable fire” (Mt 3:12); “to the unquenchable fire . . . where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched” (Mk 9:43, 48); there is sin that “will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come” (Mt 12:32, rsv<\/span>). When Scripture is understood properly, there is no hint anywhere of the termination of the terrible state of unbelievers in hell. Their doom is unending; there is a solemn finality about their miserable condition. (It is significant that the most descriptive and conclusive utterances about hell come from the lips of Jesus.)<\/p>\nA summary of all Scripture that speaks of hell indicates that there is the loss and absence of all good, and the misery and torment of an evil conscience. The most terrifying aspect is the complete and deserved separation from God and from all that is pure, holy, and beautiful. In addition, there is the awareness of being under the wrath of God and of enduring the curse of a righteous sentence because of one’s sins that were consciously and voluntarily committed.<\/p>\nAlthough the biblical descriptions of hell are stated in very physical and literal terms, the essential character of hell should not be conceived in or limited to designations such as the worm that devours, the stripes that are inflicted, the burning or being consumed by fire. This affirmation does not detract from the horror or the gravity of the situation in hell, because nothing could possibly be worse than separation from God and the torment of an evil conscience. Hell is hell for those who are there essentially because they are completely alienated from God, and wherever there is alienation from God, there is always estrangement from one’s fellows. This is the worst possible punishment to which anyone could be subject: to be totally and irrevocably cut off from God and to be at enmity with all those who are around oneself. Another painful consequence of such a condition is to be at odds with oneself—torn apart from within by an accusing sense of guilt and shame. This condition is one of total conflict: with God, one’s neighbors, and oneself. This is hell! If the descriptions of hell are figurative or symbolic, the conditions they represent are more intense and real than the figures of speech in which they are expressed.<\/p>\nPunishment for sin is a persistent teaching of the Bible. The doctrine of judgment is as extensive as the Canon itself. Typical of such passages are Genesis 2:17; 3:17-19; 4:13; Leviticus 26:27-33; Psalm 149:7; Isaiah 3:11; Ezekiel 14:10; Amos 1:2–2:16; Zechariah 14:19; Matthew 25:41, 46; Luke 16:23-24; Romans 2:5-12; Galatians 6:7-8; Hebrews 10:29-31; and Revelation 20:11-15.<\/p>\nBiblical Terms<\/p>\nThe Hebrew word “Sheol” in the OT is predominantly used for “the grave, the pit, the place of the departed dead” (Gn 37:35; Jb 7:9; 14:13; 17:13-16; Pss 6:5; 16:10; 55:15; Prv 9:18; Eccl 9:10; Is 14:11; 38:10-12, 18). There does not seem to be a very clear distinction in the OT between the final destiny of the good and the evil. They all alike go to the grave, to the world below, a world of gloom, weariness, darkness, decay, and forgetfulness, where one is remote from God (Jb 10:20-22; Ps 88:3-6), yet accessible to him (Jb 26:6; Ps 138:8; Am 9:2). It is a place characterized by silence (Pss 94:17; 115:17) and rest (Jb 3:17). Other texts, however, seem to suggest some aspect of consciousness, hope, and communication in Sheol (Jb 14:13-15; 19:25-27; Pss 16:10; 49:15; Is 14:9-10; Ez 32:21). A few texts seem to suggest the threat of divine judgment after death (Pss 9:17; 55:15). On the whole, Sheol was regarded with dismay and foreboding (Dt 32:22; Is 38:18).<\/p>\nIt was not until the time of the postcanonical Jewish literature, the writings that were developed between the close of the OT and the beginning of NT times, that clear distinctions were made between the final destinies of the righteous and the unrighteous. The idea of separate divisions within Sheol for the good and the evil was developed. It is unmistakable that there was in Jewish thought, as reflected throughout the OT, a belief in a future and continued existence beyond death, however shadowy and indefinite the concept.<\/p>\nThe Greek word “hades” in the NT is used very similarly to “Sheol” in the OT. It was, in fact, used by the translators of the Septuagint, the Greek version of the OT, for Sheol. It designated in general the place or state of the dead, the grave, or death itself. In some versions the word is not translated at all but is transliterated simply as “hades.” The NT is not always very explicit about the meaning of hades, other than what has just been described. Use of the word often does not reveal much about the specific condition of the dead. There are some passages, however, that indicate a distinct advance over the use of Sheol in the OT. One NT passage definitely describes hades as a place of evil and punishment of the wicked, and may appropriately be translated “hell” (Lk 16:23). In all other instances, hades indicates nothing more than the place of the dead.<\/p>\nThe Greek word “Gehenna” is used in a number of NT texts to designate the fiery place for punishment of sinners and is often translated “hell” or “the fires of hell” (Mt 5:22, 29-30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:15, 33; Mk 9:43, 45, 47; Jas 3:6). It is usually used in connection with the final judgment and often has the suggestion that the punishment spoken of is eternal. Gehenna is derived by transliteration from the Hebrew of the OT “valley of Hinnom” or the “valley of the son of Hinnom,” a ravine on the south side of Jerusalem. This valley was the center of idolatrous worship in which children were burned by fire as an offering to the heathen god Molech (2 Chr 28:3; 33:6). In the time of Josiah it became a place of abomination, polluted by dead men’s bones and rubbish (2 Kgs 23:10-14) and by the garbage and filth of Jerusalem dumped there. A fire burned continuously in this valley. It thus became a symbol of the unending fires of hell where the lost are consumed in torment. It was a symbol of judgment to be imposed on the idolatrous and disobedient (Jer 7:31-34; 32:35).<\/p>\nAnother Greek word used to designate hell or “the lower regions” is “Tartarus” (2 Pt 2:4), a classical word for the place of eternal punishment. The apostle Peter uses it for the fallen angels who were thrown into hell, “committed . . . to pits of nether gloom to be kept until the judgment” (rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\nAs noted above, there are, in addition to these terms, the very explicit and vivid phrases that clearly teach the doctrine of hell, as developed at the beginning of this article. The biblical doctrine is determined much more by these decisive phrases than by the somewhat indecisive but frequently used terms “Sheol” and “hades.”<\/p>\n\nThe Justice of Eternal Punishment<\/p>\nIt is difficult for us to understand the righteous judgment of a holy God who, on one hand, hates all evil, yet, on the other hand, loves the evildoers enough to sacrifice his only Son for their salvation from sin. Divine wrath is the necessary reaction of a holy God who hates all that is contrary to his righteous nature. When the only remedy for human sin is rejected and all appeals of a loving, seeking God for the reconciliation of rebellious sinners are refused, there is no other course of action that God himself can pursue but to leave the sinner to his self-chosen destiny. Punishment for sin is then the inevitable and inescapable response of holiness to that which is morally opposite, and it must continue as long as the sinful condition requiring it continues. There is no indication anywhere in Scripture that lost sinners in hell are capable of repentance and faith. If in this life they did not turn away from sin and receive Christ as Savior with all the favorable circumstances and opportunities afforded them on earth, it is unreasonable to think they will do so in the life to come. Punishment cannot come to an end until guilt and sin come to an end. When the sinner ultimately resists and rejects the work of the Holy Spirit whereby he is convicted of sin, there remains no more possibility of repentance or salvation. He has committed an eternal sin (Mk 3:29; Rv 22:11), which deserves eternal punishment.<\/p>\nThe impossibility of faith and repentance in hell is seen also from the tragic reality of the depraved will, conditioned and determined by its repeated rebellion against God. Sin reproduces itself in the will, and character tends to become irrevocably fixed. God responds to endless sinning with the necessary counterpart of endless punishment.<\/p>\nIf the question is raised, How can a loving God send people to an everlasting hell? it must be replied that God does not choose this destination for people; they freely choose it for themselves. God simply concurs in their self-chosen way and reveals the full consequences of their evil choice. It must always be remembered that God is not only loving; he is also holy and righteous. There must be some adequate reckoning with justice in the universe where a revolt against God has brought evil consequences of enormous proportions.<\/p>\nWhile the duration of punishment in hell is eternal for all who have chosen that destiny for themselves, there are degrees of punishment proportional to the degrees of guilt of each individual. Only God is able to determine what those degrees are, and he will assign the consequences with perfect justice according to the responsibility of each one. Evidence of such gradations in future punishment is found in Scripture (Mt 11:20-24; Lk 12:47-48; Rv 20:12-13; cf. Ez 16:48-61). An obvious comparison is made in these texts between the differing intensities of punishment that are involved in the contrasting privileges, knowledge, and opportunities.<\/p>\nFrom all that has been said, it should be obvious that a variety of nonbiblical views must be ruled out, however attractively they may be presented by their advocates and however popular they may be from time to time. Among these views are the erroneous, but sometimes persuasive, doctrines of universalism, annihilationism, and second probation. Universalism promotes the concept that God will save everyone in the end. Annihilationism teaches that hell is not a place of conscious suffering but of final extermination. And second probation is a notion that people can be delivered from hell. It must always be remembered that the Bible is our rule of faith for the doctrine of hell, however difficult the doctrine may seem for natural reason or for human sentiment. Scripture leaves no doubt about the terrible nature and the eternal duration of hell. Rejection or neglect of this doctrine will have dire effects upon the mission of the church.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> “Abraham’s Bosom”; Dead, Place of the; Death; Gehenna; Hades; Intermediate State; Sheol; Wrath of God.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>HELL<\/h3>\nPlace of future punishment for the lost, unrepentant, wicked dead.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Definition and Description<\/p>\n• Biblical Terms<\/p>\n• The Justice of Eternal Punishment<\/p>\nDefinition and Description<\/p>\nHell is the final destiny of unbelievers and is variously described by the figures of a furnace of fire, eternal fire, eternal punishment (Mt 13:42, 50; 25:41, 46); outer darkness, the place of weeping and torment (8:12); the lake of fire, the second death (Rv 21:8); a place for the devil and his demons (Mt 25:41). Evidently, those in hell experience everlasting separation from the Lord, never to see the glory of his power (2 Thes 1:9). Those who worshiped the beast will be subject to continuous torment (Rv 14:10-11).<\/p>\nOther expressions that indicate that the final state of the wicked is eternal are these: “burn with unquenchable fire” (Mt 3:12); “to the unquenchable fire . . . where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched” (Mk 9:43, 48); there is sin that “will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come” (Mt 12:32, rsv<\/span>). When Scripture is understood properly, there is no hint anywhere of the termination of the terrible state of unbelievers in hell. Their doom is unending; there is a solemn finality about their miserable condition. (It is significant that the most descriptive and conclusive utterances about hell come from the lips of Jesus.)<\/p>\nA summary of all Scripture that speaks of hell indicates that there is the loss and absence of all good, and the misery and torment of an evil conscience. The most terrifying aspect is the complete and deserved separation from God and from all that is pure, holy, and beautiful. In addition, there is the awareness of being under the wrath of God and of enduring the curse of a righteous sentence because of one’s sins that were consciously and voluntarily committed.<\/p>\nAlthough the biblical descriptions of hell are stated in very physical and literal terms, the essential character of hell should not be conceived in or limited to designations such as the worm that devours, the stripes that are inflicted, the burning or being consumed by fire. This affirmation does not detract from the horror or the gravity of the situation in hell, because nothing could possibly be worse than separation from God and the torment of an evil conscience. Hell is hell for those who are there essentially because they are completely alienated from God, and wherever there is alienation from God, there is always estrangement from one’s fellows. This is the worst possible punishment to which anyone could be subject: to be totally and irrevocably cut off from God and to be at enmity with all those who are around oneself. Another painful consequence of such a condition is to be at odds with oneself—torn apart from within by an accusing sense of guilt and shame. This condition is one of total conflict: with God, one’s neighbors, and oneself. This is hell! If the descriptions of hell are figurative or symbolic, the conditions they represent are more intense and real than the figures of speech in which they are expressed.<\/p>\nPunishment for sin is a persistent teaching of the Bible. The doctrine of judgment is as extensive as the Canon itself. Typical of such passages are Genesis 2:17; 3:17-19; 4:13; Leviticus 26:27-33; Psalm 149:7; Isaiah 3:11; Ezekiel 14:10; Amos 1:2–2:16; Zechariah 14:19; Matthew 25:41, 46; Luke 16:23-24; Romans 2:5-12; Galatians 6:7-8; Hebrews 10:29-31; and Revelation 20:11-15.<\/p>\nBiblical Terms<\/p>\nThe Hebrew word “Sheol” in the OT is predominantly used for “the grave, the pit, the place of the departed dead” (Gn 37:35; Jb 7:9; 14:13; 17:13-16; Pss 6:5; 16:10; 55:15; Prv 9:18; Eccl 9:10; Is 14:11; 38:10-12, 18). There does not seem to be a very clear distinction in the OT between the final destiny of the good and the evil. They all alike go to the grave, to the world below, a world of gloom, weariness, darkness, decay, and forgetfulness, where one is remote from God (Jb 10:20-22; Ps 88:3-6), yet accessible to him (Jb 26:6; Ps 138:8; Am 9:2). It is a place characterized by silence (Pss 94:17; 115:17) and rest (Jb 3:17). Other texts, however, seem to suggest some aspect of consciousness, hope, and communication in Sheol (Jb 14:13-15; 19:25-27; Pss 16:10; 49:15; Is 14:9-10; Ez 32:21). A few texts seem to suggest the threat of divine judgment after death (Pss 9:17; 55:15). On the whole, Sheol was regarded with dismay and foreboding (Dt 32:22; Is 38:18).<\/p>\nIt was not until the time of the postcanonical Jewish literature, the writings that were developed between the close of the OT and the beginning of NT times, that clear distinctions were made between the final destinies of the righteous and the unrighteous. The idea of separate divisions within Sheol for the good and the evil was developed. It is unmistakable that there was in Jewish thought, as reflected throughout the OT, a belief in a future and continued existence beyond death, however shadowy and indefinite the concept.<\/p>\nThe Greek word “hades” in the NT is used very similarly to “Sheol” in the OT. It was, in fact, used by the translators of the Septuagint, the Greek version of the OT, for Sheol. It designated in general the place or state of the dead, the grave, or death itself. In some versions the word is not translated at all but is transliterated simply as “hades.” The NT is not always very explicit about the meaning of hades, other than what has just been described. Use of the word often does not reveal much about the specific condition of the dead. There are some passages, however, that indicate a distinct advance over the use of Sheol in the OT. One NT passage definitely describes hades as a place of evil and punishment of the wicked, and may appropriately be translated “hell” (Lk 16:23). In all other instances, hades indicates nothing more than the place of the dead.<\/p>\nThe Greek word “Gehenna” is used in a number of NT texts to designate the fiery place for punishment of sinners and is often translated “hell” or “the fires of hell” (Mt 5:22, 29-30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:15, 33; Mk 9:43, 45, 47; Jas 3:6). It is usually used in connection with the final judgment and often has the suggestion that the punishment spoken of is eternal. Gehenna is derived by transliteration from the Hebrew of the OT “valley of Hinnom” or the “valley of the son of Hinnom,” a ravine on the south side of Jerusalem. This valley was the center of idolatrous worship in which children were burned by fire as an offering to the heathen god Molech (2 Chr 28:3; 33:6). In the time of Josiah it became a place of abomination, polluted by dead men’s bones and rubbish (2 Kgs 23:10-14) and by the garbage and filth of Jerusalem dumped there. A fire burned continuously in this valley. It thus became a symbol of the unending fires of hell where the lost are consumed in torment. It was a symbol of judgment to be imposed on the idolatrous and disobedient (Jer 7:31-34; 32:35).<\/p>\nAnother Greek word used to designate hell or “the lower regions” is “Tartarus” (2 Pt 2:4), a classical word for the place of eternal punishment. The apostle Peter uses it for the fallen angels who were thrown into hell, “committed . . . to pits of nether gloom to be kept until the judgment” (rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\nAs noted above, there are, in addition to these terms, the very explicit and vivid phrases that clearly teach the doctrine of hell, as developed at the beginning of this article. The biblical doctrine is determined much more by these decisive phrases than by the somewhat indecisive but frequently used terms “Sheol” and “hades.”<\/p>\n\nThe Justice of Eternal Punishment<\/p>\nIt is difficult for us to understand the righteous judgment of a holy God who, on one hand, hates all evil, yet, on the other hand, loves the evildoers enough to sacrifice his only Son for their salvation from sin. Divine wrath is the necessary reaction of a holy God who hates all that is contrary to his righteous nature. When the only remedy for human sin is rejected and all appeals of a loving, seeking God for the reconciliation of rebellious sinners are refused, there is no other course of action that God himself can pursue but to leave the sinner to his self-chosen destiny. Punishment for sin is then the inevitable and inescapable response of holiness to that which is morally opposite, and it must continue as long as the sinful condition requiring it continues. There is no indication anywhere in Scripture that lost sinners in hell are capable of repentance and faith. If in this life they did not turn away from sin and receive Christ as Savior with all the favorable circumstances and opportunities afforded them on earth, it is unreasonable to think they will do so in the life to come. Punishment cannot come to an end until guilt and sin come to an end. When the sinner ultimately resists and rejects the work of the Holy Spirit whereby he is convicted of sin, there remains no more possibility of repentance or salvation. He has committed an eternal sin (Mk 3:29; Rv 22:11), which deserves eternal punishment.<\/p>\nThe impossibility of faith and repentance in hell is seen also from the tragic reality of the depraved will, conditioned and determined by its repeated rebellion against God. Sin reproduces itself in the will, and character tends to become irrevocably fixed. God responds to endless sinning with the necessary counterpart of endless punishment.<\/p>\nIf the question is raised, How can a loving God send people to an everlasting hell? it must be replied that God does not choose this destination for people; they freely choose it for themselves. God simply concurs in their self-chosen way and reveals the full consequences of their evil choice. It must always be remembered that God is not only loving; he is also holy and righteous. There must be some adequate reckoning with justice in the universe where a revolt against God has brought evil consequences of enormous proportions.<\/p>\nWhile the duration of punishment in hell is eternal for all who have chosen that destiny for themselves, there are degrees of punishment proportional to the degrees of guilt of each individual. Only God is able to determine what those degrees are, and he will assign the consequences with perfect justice according to the responsibility of each one. Evidence of such gradations in future punishment is found in Scripture (Mt 11:20-24; Lk 12:47-48; Rv 20:12-13; cf. Ez 16:48-61). An obvious comparison is made in these texts between the differing intensities of punishment that are involved in the contrasting privileges, knowledge, and opportunities.<\/p>\nFrom all that has been said, it should be obvious that a variety of nonbiblical views must be ruled out, however attractively they may be presented by their advocates and however popular they may be from time to time. Among these views are the erroneous, but sometimes persuasive, doctrines of universalism, annihilationism, and second probation. Universalism promotes the concept that God will save everyone in the end. Annihilationism teaches that hell is not a place of conscious suffering but of final extermination. And second probation is a notion that people can be delivered from hell. It must always be remembered that the Bible is our rule of faith for the doctrine of hell, however difficult the doctrine may seem for natural reason or for human sentiment. Scripture leaves no doubt about the terrible nature and the eternal duration of hell. Rejection or neglect of this doctrine will have dire effects upon the mission of the church.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> “Abraham’s Bosom”; Dead, Place of the; Death; Gehenna; Hades; Intermediate State; Sheol; Wrath of God.<\/p>","summary_ro":"HELL Place of future punishment for the lost, unrepentant, wicked dead. Preview • Definition and Description • Biblical Terms • The Justice of Eternal Punishment Definition and Description Hell is the final destiny of unbelievers and is variously described by the figures of a furnace of fire, eternal fire, eternal punishment (Mt 13:42, 50; 25:41, 46); outer darkness, the place of weeping and torment (8:12); the lake of fire, the second death (Rv 21:8); a place for the devil and his demons (Mt...","summary_en":"HELL Place of future punishment for the lost, unrepentant, wicked dead. Preview • Definition and Description • Biblical Terms • The Justice of Eternal Punishment Definition and Description Hell is the final destiny of unbelievers and is variously described by the figures of a furnace of fire, eternal fire, eternal punishment (Mt 13:42, 50; 25:41, 46); outer darkness, the place of weeping and torment (8:12); the lake of fire, the second death (Rv 21:8); a place for the devil and his demons (Mt...","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":22662,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Biblical Concept of Law","title_en":"Biblical Concept of Law","content_ro":"<h3>LAW, Biblical Concept of<\/h3>\nGod’s means of consecrating his people to himself. The nature and content of “law” may change, but the goal remains the same: maturity and conformity to the image of God.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Historical Context<\/p>\n• Law in the Old Testament<\/p>\n• Israelite Law and the Ancient Near East<\/p>\n• Old Testament Laws<\/p>\n• Purposes of the Law<\/p>\nHistorical Context<\/p>\nWhen man was created in God’s image, he received glory, rule, and provision for his daily sustenance from the Creator-King (Gn 1:27-30). However, in his exalted status as ruler over God’s creation on earth, man had to prove his loyalty to the Lord. For this purpose God set up a simple test: the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Man was prohibited from eating the fruit of that tree (2:17). His disobedience marked him as unfit for fellowship with the great King. He was rebellious and by nature full of treachery, as the subsequent accounts of Cain (4:1-16), the generation of the Flood (6:1-13), Ham and Canaan (9:18-26; 10:6-20), and the Tower of Babel (11:1-9) demonstrate.<\/p>\nYet in the midst of all this the Lord graciously called Abraham. He promised to bless him, his seed, and the families of the earth that would join in a common expression of faith (Gn 12:2-3; 17:4-7). Abraham responded to God in faith (15:6), willingly observed the ritual of circumcision as a sign of the covenant (17:10; cf. 21:4), and walked before God with integrity of heart (17:1). Abraham subsequently learned that God had sovereignly and graciously chosen him with the purpose that Abraham’s family might distinguish itself from the nations “by doing righteousness and justice” (18:19). The Lord was pleased with his servant Abraham, who, though he had not received detailed laws, was a man of integrity. His heart was right with God, so that he willingly did what God commanded.<\/p>\nThe father of faith was the father of the faithful; the Lord testified that Abraham “obeyed me and kept my requirements, my commands, my decrees and my laws” (Gn 26:5, niv<\/span>). His faith resulted in the fruits of righteousness (Jas 2:21-24).<\/p>\nHowever, Israel, blessed by the Lord in the increase of descendants, the exodus, the crossing of the Red Sea, and his presence, did not respond to him in faith. They murmured and complained at Mt Sinai, at Kadesh-barnea, and in the plains of Moab. They proved themselves to be a rebellious and stiff-necked people (Ex 32:9; 33:3, 5; 34:9; Dt 9:6, 13). Though they had shown their character, the Lord was faithful to Abraham by covenanting himself to them. Israel became his people, his royal priesthood, his holy nation (Ex 19:5-6; Dt 26:18-19). He gave Israel the Ten Commandments, the law, and the covenant, symbolized by the two tablets of the testimony (Ex 32:15-16). Even after Moses had broken them in anger because of the people’s idolatrous worship of the golden calf, the Lord renewed his covenant by writing again the words of the covenant (34:28). On one hand, the context in which the law was given reflects God’s grace and forbearance with Israel’s sins (vv 6-7) and his determination to use Israel in the unfolding of his plan of redemption for the world. On the other hand, the context reflects Israel’s immaturity and stubbornness. Therefore, the law in the OT has positive and negative purposes.<\/p>\nLaw in the Old Testament<\/p>\nThe OT has many words for God’s law. The most general word is Torah<\/span>,<\/em> which signifies instruction of any kind: religious and secular, written and oral, divine and human. Law in Israel was God’s law, mediated through Moses (Ex 20:19; Dt 5:23-27). Because Israel rejected the direct revelation of God’s oracles, the law was mediated through Moses the servant of God (Jn 1:17).<\/p>\nSynonyms for law are, in various translations, word (cf. Ex 24:3; 34:27), judgment (cf. Ex 24:3), decree (cf. Nm 30:16; Dt 4:1), ordinance (cf. Nm 9:12, 14; Dt 6:2), command(ment) (cf. Dt 6:1, 25), statutes (Lv 3:17; 10:11), precepts (a Hebrew word used only in Psalms; cf. 119:4, 15, 27, 40, 45, 56, 63, 69, 78, 87, 93, 94, 100, 104, 110, 128, 134, 141, 159, 168, 173), stipulations, requirements, testimonies (cf. Dt 4:45; 6:20; 1 Kgs 2:3), precept (a Hebrew term not in the Pentateuch; cf. Ps 119:15), or simply the “way(s)” (cf. 1 Kgs 2:3; Pss 18:21; 25:9; 37:34).<\/p>\nThese words form a semantic field, and it is far from easy to distinguish clearly among the various forms of laws. Generally “the words” pertain to the duties of man toward God, especially the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:1; 34:27). The “judgments” contain civil regulations and duties to one’s fellows and to the social environment (21:1–23:9); these are often in the form of “if . . . then. . . .” In Leviticus and in cultic formulations the word “ordinances” has the technical sense of cultic regulations—the ceremonial laws. However, in other contexts, especially in a series of synonyms for law, it signifies any expectation or regulation. The “commandments” are those regulations given by a higher authority. Though the OT has many words for law, the connotation of one word is often indistinguishable from that of other words, especially in series such as “the decrees and laws” (Dt 4:1, 5; 5:1), “the commands, decrees and laws” (6:1), “walk in his ways, and keep his decrees and commands, his laws and requirements, as written in the Law of Moses” (1 Kgs 2:3, niv<\/span>).<\/p>\nThe motivation for keeping the divine law lies in the acts and presence of the Lord. The prologue to the Decalogue reminds us of God’s mighty acts: “I am the Lord<\/span> your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage” (Ex 20:2, rsv<\/span>). In the historic acts of Israel’s redemption, revelation at Mt Sinai, and consecration of Israel to be his people, he involved himself with Israel as a “father.” He adopted Israel to sonship and consecrated them; that is, he declared them holy (Ex 19:6; 31:13; Lv 20:8; 22:32; cf. Rom 9:4). Sometimes the two concepts of redemption and consecration are placed together, but whether they are or not, they are inseparable: “I am the Lord<\/span>, who makes you holy” (Lv 22:32b, niv<\/span>). The ground of obedience can be stated simply by an appeal to God’s name: “I am Yahweh” (cf. Lv 18:6, 21, 30; 19:10, 14, 16, 18, 28, 30-31, 34, 36-37). The requisite of practical holiness is also based on the experience of God’s presence. The Lord commanded Israel to be holy because he is holy (Lv 11:44-45; 19:2). The “holy one of Israel” dwelt in the midst of his people (Ex 25:8; 29:45; Nm 5:3; 35:34).<\/p>\nHow could rebellious Israel grasp what God required, if it were not by precise moral, social, civil, and cultic regulations? The Lord had observed that they did not have “the heart” to serve him as a covenant-loyal people (Dt 5:29). By Israel’s very nature, it could not develop an adequate moral and cultic system to please God. Because of the people’s hardness of heart, God had to reveal (i.e., “spell out”) his will.<\/p>\nIsraelite Law and the Ancient Near East<\/p>\nIsrael’s law reflected the practices of its ancient Near Eastern context. Ancient Babylonian law codes (Eshnunna, Hammurabi) show similarities with the biblical codes. The similarities go beyond similarity of cases and include legal formulations (casuistic law). Israelite law is distinct in that it is divine law. Moses is the mediator and not the promulgator of the law, as was the practice of a king who, like Hammurabi, put into force a legal code. The Lord himself gave Israel its laws (cf. Dt 4:5-8). The laws in the ancient Near East dealt with the ordering of society. But Israel’s laws were given to regulate every aspect of life: personal, familial, social, and cultic. The laws were to teach Israel to distinguish between holy and profane, between clean and unclean, and between just and unjust.<\/p>\nOld Testament Laws<\/p>\nThe legal corpus of the OT is not given in one book or in one section. Moreover, the laws reflect the development from the desert context (Exodus) to the context of the land (Deuteronomy). The OT legal material is complex, full of variations and duplications. It is found in Exodus (chs 20–24; 25–31), Leviticus, Numbers (chs 3–6; 8–10; 15; 18; 19; 28–30), and Deuteronomy (chs 5–26).<\/p>\n<h5>The Ten Commandments<\/h5>\nThe commandments are simply designated as “the words” of God (Ex 20:1). They appear in Exodus 20:1-17 and in Deuteronomy 5:6-21, but minor variations and individual commandments occur in other contexts (e.g., Ex 34:14, 17, 21; Lv 19:1-8; Dt 27:15-16). As a part of the covenant, the commandments were first addressed to Israel; they now form the basis of morality in Christianity. The abiding relevance of the moral law is clear from the NT. Our Lord established his authority as interpreter of all the commandments (Mt 5:17-48; 12:1-14; 23:23-24). He summarized the law in terms of love for God and man (cf. Mt 22:37-40; Mk 12:28-34; Lk 10:27; cf. Rom 13:8-9; Gal 5:14). Since he is also the Lord of the Sabbath, the Sabbath cannot be divorced from the other commandments (Mt 12:8). The apostle Paul also upheld the law, as his “ethics of the Spirit” reflects an internalization of the law of God in the hearts of believers (cf. Rom 8:1-17; 12:1–15:13; 1 Cor 2:6-16; 5:1-8; 10:23–11:1; Gal 5:13–6:10; Eph 4:17–6:9; Phil 2:1-18; Col 3:1–4:6; 1 Thes 4:1-12; 5:12-24; 2 Thes 3:6-15; 1 Tm 6:3-10; Ti 3:1-11).<\/p>\nThe commandments were written on both sides of the two tablets by the Lord (Ex 32:15-16). It is unclear whether the tablets were duplicate copies, how the commandments were divided, and how the commandments were numbered. They were kept in the ark of the covenant as a testimony to the covenant (40:20).<\/p>\n<h5>The Book of the Covenant (Ex 20:23–23:19)<\/h5>\nThe purpose of the covenant code was to exemplify and to set into motion the legal machinery by which Israel as a nation could reflect God’s concern for justice, love, peace, and the value of life. The laws in the Book of the Covenant are mainly of the casuistic type. They regulate life in an agricultural society with servants, donkeys, bulls, oxen, sheep, and fields of grain. The regulations pertain to relations with women (including widows), aliens, orphans; to legal concerns (liability, damages, ownership); as well as to religious obligations (altar, Sabbath). Often the law requires restitution, but restitution is not the rule when human life is involved (Ex 21:12-29; 22:2-3), especially when it involves one’s family (21:15-17, 22-25). The penal code attached to the case laws makes clear the value of human life, which is protected by the lex talionis<\/em> (“law of retaliation”). The lex talionis<\/em> does not point to a lack of forgiveness under the OT but rather was intended to be a legal principle giving coherence and justice to a society. The Book of the Covenant explicates by means of principles and cases how Israel must live together as a nation embracing the law of God and applying it justly<\/em> (without discrimination or twisting of rights), lovingly<\/em> (with a concern for the parties involved), and peaceably.<\/em><\/p>\n<h5>The Priestly Law<\/h5>\nGod’s concern for holiness and purity comes to expression in the priestly laws (Ex 25–31; 35–40; Lv 1–27; Nm 4–10). The regulations pertain to the construction of the tabernacle, the consecration and ordination of priests, the offerings and sacrifices, rules of purity, the holy days, and vows.<\/p>\nThe tabernacle was set in the middle of Israel’s camp in the wilderness. It symbolized the presence of God with his people. The priests and Levites were encamped around the tabernacle to serve and protect God’s holiness. All the tribes were situated around the tabernacle, and though the members of the tribes did not have access to all parts of the tabernacle, they had to be ritually clean to live in the camp. Anyone who was ritually defiled (Lv 13:46; Nm 5:1-3) or had sinned grievously was put outside the camp (Lv 24:10-23; Nm 15:32-36). This regulation even included objects that had become defiled (Lv 8:17; 9:11).<\/p>\nBy means of prescribed offerings and sacrifices (Lv 1–7; 16; Nm 15:1-31; 28), God assured Israel, individually and corporately, of forgiveness when it had unwittingly sinned. The offerings and sacrifices concretely embodied the purpose of the offerer, whether forgiveness, dedication, or fellowship.<\/p>\nThe priests and Levites taught the law of God (Dt 31:9-13), applied its regulations, and served in courts (17:8-13).<\/p>\n<h5>The Holiness Code (Lv 17–26)<\/h5>\nThe holiness code forms a significant part of the book of Leviticus. Here Moses addressed all of Israel (cf. Lv 17:2; 18:2; 19:2; 20:2; 21:24; 23:2; 24:2; 25:2; 26:46; 27:2).<\/p>\nThe laws are in the form of prohibitions and direct commands. They pertain to the place of sacrifice and the prohibition of eating meat with blood in it (ch 17); the prohibition of sexual relations with specified family members (ch 18); and regulations promoting godliness, holiness, justice, and love in society (ch 19). The penal code applies penalties to those who sin against the regulations (ch 20; 24:10-23). Chapters 21–24 apply the cultic regulations to the priests and to all Israelites. The institutions of the sabbatical year and the Year of Jubilee regulate the remission of debts, freedom of people, and restitution of land (ch 25).<\/p>\nThe holiness code spells out the qualities required of a holy people: devotion to God (offerings, sacrifices, priests) and love for man (Lv 19:18b) demonstrated in concern for justice, peace, freedom, the value of human life, and a concern for the family. Many of the laws reflect the spirit of the Decalogue (ch 19).<\/p>\nBoth promises and curses are attached to the holiness code (ch 26). The curses predict exile as a consequence of breaking the laws. But always underlying the laws and penalties is the grace of the Lord, who promises freely to forgive the people’s sins and to renew the broken covenant (26:44-45).<\/p>\n<h5>Laws of Deuteronomy<\/h5>\nThe Deuteronomic laws are explications and new applications of the Book of the Covenant in view of Israel’s new historical situation. Israel was about to enter the Promised Land when Moses outlined to them the law of God (Dt 1:5). The impersonal element of the Book of the Covenant is here transformed by personal appeal. Moses strongly appeals to Israel to be loyal to the Lord, the covenant, and the covenantal stipulations. The Deuteronomic laws envision the people in the land of promise, with a central sanctuary (12:5, 11-18; 14:23; 15:20; 16:5-7, 16, 21; 17:8; 18:6; 26:2; 31:11) and with a king (17:14-20). The blessings and the curses motivate covenant loyalty (ch 28). However, Israel is also here assured that even if it breaks God’s law, the Lord remains gracious and forgiving.<\/p>\nPurposes of the Law<\/p>\nThe law revealed at Mt Sinai was intended to lead Israel closer to God. Rebellious though they were, God used the law as his righteous instrument to teach, in a very specific way, what sin is (cf. Rom 5:20; 7:7-8) and how they should walk on a path that kept them undefiled by sin and holy to the Lord. The law was the teacher and the keeper of Israel (Gal 3:24). The detailed explications of the laws in all areas of life (work, society, family, cult, and nation) had an important place in God’s dealings with Israel. Israel was a nation in a special land, with a theocratic government, and was in need of a legislative corpus. Moreover, Israel’s condition at Mt Sinai was such that it could not receive direct revelation. The revelation had to be mediated through Moses. It had to be set forth in detail because Israel had no intuitive grasp of what the revelation of God’s holiness, justice, righteousness, love, and forebearance required of them. They had adopted Egyptian ways and had to learn the divine will by revelation. However, Moses and the prophets emphasize that the purpose of the law is not strict adherence to the law for its own sake (legalism) or for a reward (Pharisaism). Keeping the law is an act of devotion to God, for the sake of God. Our Lord confirmed the purpose of the law: to establish a dynamic way of life in which one continually seeks God’s kingdom and his righteousness (Mt 6:33).<\/p>\nThe law of God is his means of sanctification. He consecrated Israel by an act of grace, and he required Israel to remain holy. Jesus confirmed those uses of the law whereby one may know his sinfulness and by which he may be driven to Christ. On the cross our Lord carried the penalties of the law, fulfilled in a greater way the tabernacle\/temple presence of God, fulfilled the Father’s expectations of atonement, and demonstrated the love of the Father. He, the Son and greater than Moses, gave the essence of the law in the summary of God’s requirements: love of God and love of neighbor (Mt 23:23-24; Lk 11:42-44). Jesus taught that the purpose of obedience is not primarily to receive a reward but to serve as salt (Mt 5:13) and light (Mt 5:14-16; cf. Eph 4:17–5:20), and to bear fruit (Jn 15:1-17). The purpose of the law of God is the gradual transformation of the children of God to reflect the image of the Son (Rom 8:29; 2 Cor 3:18; Col 3:10), to be an imitation of the Father (Eph 5:1-2), and to be filled with the Spirit of God (Gal 5:18, 22-24). For this purpose Jesus gave us the Beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount, which summarize the intent of the teaching of Moses and the prophets (Mt 5–7).<\/p>\nThe purpose of the law is to transform regenerated believers into maturity. Spiritual maturity is not a privilege that was reserved for believers after Christ; OT saints also walked with God (Enoch, Gn 5:22-24; Noah, 6:9; Abraham, 17:1). These were mature men who lived with integrity in the presence of God (cf. Gn 17:1; Dt 18:13; Pss 15:1-2; 18:26; 101:2, 6; 119:80; Prv 11:5).<\/p>\nMaturity, or integrity, is that response to God whereby the believer no longer needs to live by individual stipulations or in fear of mistakes and sins of omission, but delights in doing the Lord’s will (Pss 1:2; 112:1). Since the coming of Christ and Pentecost, the Holy Spirit has been poured out on every believer. He has come not only to internalize the law of God (Jer 31:33) but also to help us develop Christian maturity by giving the fruits of godliness in greater fullness (Gal 5:22-24). Whereas maturity and freedom were experienced by some OT saints, it is God’s gift to all his children in Christ (Acts 2:39; 1 Cor 12:13). The purpose is still the same, “so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped [mature] for every good work” (2 Tm 3:17, niv<\/span>), but the means to accomplish this and the status of the child of God is so much better since Pentecost.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Civil Law and Justice; Cleanness and Uncleanness, Regulations Concerning; Criminal Law and Punishment; Galatians, Letter to the; Hammurabi, Law Code of; Justification; Romans, Letter to the; Commandments, The Ten; Torah; Tradition.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>LAW, Biblical Concept of<\/h3>\nGod’s means of consecrating his people to himself. The nature and content of “law” may change, but the goal remains the same: maturity and conformity to the image of God.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Historical Context<\/p>\n• Law in the Old Testament<\/p>\n• Israelite Law and the Ancient Near East<\/p>\n• Old Testament Laws<\/p>\n• Purposes of the Law<\/p>\nHistorical Context<\/p>\nWhen man was created in God’s image, he received glory, rule, and provision for his daily sustenance from the Creator-King (Gn 1:27-30). However, in his exalted status as ruler over God’s creation on earth, man had to prove his loyalty to the Lord. For this purpose God set up a simple test: the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Man was prohibited from eating the fruit of that tree (2:17). His disobedience marked him as unfit for fellowship with the great King. He was rebellious and by nature full of treachery, as the subsequent accounts of Cain (4:1-16), the generation of the Flood (6:1-13), Ham and Canaan (9:18-26; 10:6-20), and the Tower of Babel (11:1-9) demonstrate.<\/p>\nYet in the midst of all this the Lord graciously called Abraham. He promised to bless him, his seed, and the families of the earth that would join in a common expression of faith (Gn 12:2-3; 17:4-7). Abraham responded to God in faith (15:6), willingly observed the ritual of circumcision as a sign of the covenant (17:10; cf. 21:4), and walked before God with integrity of heart (17:1). Abraham subsequently learned that God had sovereignly and graciously chosen him with the purpose that Abraham’s family might distinguish itself from the nations “by doing righteousness and justice” (18:19). The Lord was pleased with his servant Abraham, who, though he had not received detailed laws, was a man of integrity. His heart was right with God, so that he willingly did what God commanded.<\/p>\nThe father of faith was the father of the faithful; the Lord testified that Abraham “obeyed me and kept my requirements, my commands, my decrees and my laws” (Gn 26:5, niv<\/span>). His faith resulted in the fruits of righteousness (Jas 2:21-24).<\/p>\nHowever, Israel, blessed by the Lord in the increase of descendants, the exodus, the crossing of the Red Sea, and his presence, did not respond to him in faith. They murmured and complained at Mt Sinai, at Kadesh-barnea, and in the plains of Moab. They proved themselves to be a rebellious and stiff-necked people (Ex 32:9; 33:3, 5; 34:9; Dt 9:6, 13). Though they had shown their character, the Lord was faithful to Abraham by covenanting himself to them. Israel became his people, his royal priesthood, his holy nation (Ex 19:5-6; Dt 26:18-19). He gave Israel the Ten Commandments, the law, and the covenant, symbolized by the two tablets of the testimony (Ex 32:15-16). Even after Moses had broken them in anger because of the people’s idolatrous worship of the golden calf, the Lord renewed his covenant by writing again the words of the covenant (34:28). On one hand, the context in which the law was given reflects God’s grace and forbearance with Israel’s sins (vv 6-7) and his determination to use Israel in the unfolding of his plan of redemption for the world. On the other hand, the context reflects Israel’s immaturity and stubbornness. Therefore, the law in the OT has positive and negative purposes.<\/p>\nLaw in the Old Testament<\/p>\nThe OT has many words for God’s law. The most general word is Torah<\/span>,<\/em> which signifies instruction of any kind: religious and secular, written and oral, divine and human. Law in Israel was God’s law, mediated through Moses (Ex 20:19; Dt 5:23-27). Because Israel rejected the direct revelation of God’s oracles, the law was mediated through Moses the servant of God (Jn 1:17).<\/p>\nSynonyms for law are, in various translations, word (cf. Ex 24:3; 34:27), judgment (cf. Ex 24:3), decree (cf. Nm 30:16; Dt 4:1), ordinance (cf. Nm 9:12, 14; Dt 6:2), command(ment) (cf. Dt 6:1, 25), statutes (Lv 3:17; 10:11), precepts (a Hebrew word used only in Psalms; cf. 119:4, 15, 27, 40, 45, 56, 63, 69, 78, 87, 93, 94, 100, 104, 110, 128, 134, 141, 159, 168, 173), stipulations, requirements, testimonies (cf. Dt 4:45; 6:20; 1 Kgs 2:3), precept (a Hebrew term not in the Pentateuch; cf. Ps 119:15), or simply the “way(s)” (cf. 1 Kgs 2:3; Pss 18:21; 25:9; 37:34).<\/p>\nThese words form a semantic field, and it is far from easy to distinguish clearly among the various forms of laws. Generally “the words” pertain to the duties of man toward God, especially the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:1; 34:27). The “judgments” contain civil regulations and duties to one’s fellows and to the social environment (21:1–23:9); these are often in the form of “if . . . then. . . .” In Leviticus and in cultic formulations the word “ordinances” has the technical sense of cultic regulations—the ceremonial laws. However, in other contexts, especially in a series of synonyms for law, it signifies any expectation or regulation. The “commandments” are those regulations given by a higher authority. Though the OT has many words for law, the connotation of one word is often indistinguishable from that of other words, especially in series such as “the decrees and laws” (Dt 4:1, 5; 5:1), “the commands, decrees and laws” (6:1), “walk in his ways, and keep his decrees and commands, his laws and requirements, as written in the Law of Moses” (1 Kgs 2:3, niv<\/span>).<\/p>\nThe motivation for keeping the divine law lies in the acts and presence of the Lord. The prologue to the Decalogue reminds us of God’s mighty acts: “I am the Lord<\/span> your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage” (Ex 20:2, rsv<\/span>). In the historic acts of Israel’s redemption, revelation at Mt Sinai, and consecration of Israel to be his people, he involved himself with Israel as a “father.” He adopted Israel to sonship and consecrated them; that is, he declared them holy (Ex 19:6; 31:13; Lv 20:8; 22:32; cf. Rom 9:4). Sometimes the two concepts of redemption and consecration are placed together, but whether they are or not, they are inseparable: “I am the Lord<\/span>, who makes you holy” (Lv 22:32b, niv<\/span>). The ground of obedience can be stated simply by an appeal to God’s name: “I am Yahweh” (cf. Lv 18:6, 21, 30; 19:10, 14, 16, 18, 28, 30-31, 34, 36-37). The requisite of practical holiness is also based on the experience of God’s presence. The Lord commanded Israel to be holy because he is holy (Lv 11:44-45; 19:2). The “holy one of Israel” dwelt in the midst of his people (Ex 25:8; 29:45; Nm 5:3; 35:34).<\/p>\nHow could rebellious Israel grasp what God required, if it were not by precise moral, social, civil, and cultic regulations? The Lord had observed that they did not have “the heart” to serve him as a covenant-loyal people (Dt 5:29). By Israel’s very nature, it could not develop an adequate moral and cultic system to please God. Because of the people’s hardness of heart, God had to reveal (i.e., “spell out”) his will.<\/p>\nIsraelite Law and the Ancient Near East<\/p>\nIsrael’s law reflected the practices of its ancient Near Eastern context. Ancient Babylonian law codes (Eshnunna, Hammurabi) show similarities with the biblical codes. The similarities go beyond similarity of cases and include legal formulations (casuistic law). Israelite law is distinct in that it is divine law. Moses is the mediator and not the promulgator of the law, as was the practice of a king who, like Hammurabi, put into force a legal code. The Lord himself gave Israel its laws (cf. Dt 4:5-8). The laws in the ancient Near East dealt with the ordering of society. But Israel’s laws were given to regulate every aspect of life: personal, familial, social, and cultic. The laws were to teach Israel to distinguish between holy and profane, between clean and unclean, and between just and unjust.<\/p>\nOld Testament Laws<\/p>\nThe legal corpus of the OT is not given in one book or in one section. Moreover, the laws reflect the development from the desert context (Exodus) to the context of the land (Deuteronomy). The OT legal material is complex, full of variations and duplications. It is found in Exodus (chs 20–24; 25–31), Leviticus, Numbers (chs 3–6; 8–10; 15; 18; 19; 28–30), and Deuteronomy (chs 5–26).<\/p>\n<h5>The Ten Commandments<\/h5>\nThe commandments are simply designated as “the words” of God (Ex 20:1). They appear in Exodus 20:1-17 and in Deuteronomy 5:6-21, but minor variations and individual commandments occur in other contexts (e.g., Ex 34:14, 17, 21; Lv 19:1-8; Dt 27:15-16). As a part of the covenant, the commandments were first addressed to Israel; they now form the basis of morality in Christianity. The abiding relevance of the moral law is clear from the NT. Our Lord established his authority as interpreter of all the commandments (Mt 5:17-48; 12:1-14; 23:23-24). He summarized the law in terms of love for God and man (cf. Mt 22:37-40; Mk 12:28-34; Lk 10:27; cf. Rom 13:8-9; Gal 5:14). Since he is also the Lord of the Sabbath, the Sabbath cannot be divorced from the other commandments (Mt 12:8). The apostle Paul also upheld the law, as his “ethics of the Spirit” reflects an internalization of the law of God in the hearts of believers (cf. Rom 8:1-17; 12:1–15:13; 1 Cor 2:6-16; 5:1-8; 10:23–11:1; Gal 5:13–6:10; Eph 4:17–6:9; Phil 2:1-18; Col 3:1–4:6; 1 Thes 4:1-12; 5:12-24; 2 Thes 3:6-15; 1 Tm 6:3-10; Ti 3:1-11).<\/p>\nThe commandments were written on both sides of the two tablets by the Lord (Ex 32:15-16). It is unclear whether the tablets were duplicate copies, how the commandments were divided, and how the commandments were numbered. They were kept in the ark of the covenant as a testimony to the covenant (40:20).<\/p>\n<h5>The Book of the Covenant (Ex 20:23–23:19)<\/h5>\nThe purpose of the covenant code was to exemplify and to set into motion the legal machinery by which Israel as a nation could reflect God’s concern for justice, love, peace, and the value of life. The laws in the Book of the Covenant are mainly of the casuistic type. They regulate life in an agricultural society with servants, donkeys, bulls, oxen, sheep, and fields of grain. The regulations pertain to relations with women (including widows), aliens, orphans; to legal concerns (liability, damages, ownership); as well as to religious obligations (altar, Sabbath). Often the law requires restitution, but restitution is not the rule when human life is involved (Ex 21:12-29; 22:2-3), especially when it involves one’s family (21:15-17, 22-25). The penal code attached to the case laws makes clear the value of human life, which is protected by the lex talionis<\/em> (“law of retaliation”). The lex talionis<\/em> does not point to a lack of forgiveness under the OT but rather was intended to be a legal principle giving coherence and justice to a society. The Book of the Covenant explicates by means of principles and cases how Israel must live together as a nation embracing the law of God and applying it justly<\/em> (without discrimination or twisting of rights), lovingly<\/em> (with a concern for the parties involved), and peaceably.<\/em><\/p>\n<h5>The Priestly Law<\/h5>\nGod’s concern for holiness and purity comes to expression in the priestly laws (Ex 25–31; 35–40; Lv 1–27; Nm 4–10). The regulations pertain to the construction of the tabernacle, the consecration and ordination of priests, the offerings and sacrifices, rules of purity, the holy days, and vows.<\/p>\nThe tabernacle was set in the middle of Israel’s camp in the wilderness. It symbolized the presence of God with his people. The priests and Levites were encamped around the tabernacle to serve and protect God’s holiness. All the tribes were situated around the tabernacle, and though the members of the tribes did not have access to all parts of the tabernacle, they had to be ritually clean to live in the camp. Anyone who was ritually defiled (Lv 13:46; Nm 5:1-3) or had sinned grievously was put outside the camp (Lv 24:10-23; Nm 15:32-36). This regulation even included objects that had become defiled (Lv 8:17; 9:11).<\/p>\nBy means of prescribed offerings and sacrifices (Lv 1–7; 16; Nm 15:1-31; 28), God assured Israel, individually and corporately, of forgiveness when it had unwittingly sinned. The offerings and sacrifices concretely embodied the purpose of the offerer, whether forgiveness, dedication, or fellowship.<\/p>\nThe priests and Levites taught the law of God (Dt 31:9-13), applied its regulations, and served in courts (17:8-13).<\/p>\n<h5>The Holiness Code (Lv 17–26)<\/h5>\nThe holiness code forms a significant part of the book of Leviticus. Here Moses addressed all of Israel (cf. Lv 17:2; 18:2; 19:2; 20:2; 21:24; 23:2; 24:2; 25:2; 26:46; 27:2).<\/p>\nThe laws are in the form of prohibitions and direct commands. They pertain to the place of sacrifice and the prohibition of eating meat with blood in it (ch 17); the prohibition of sexual relations with specified family members (ch 18); and regulations promoting godliness, holiness, justice, and love in society (ch 19). The penal code applies penalties to those who sin against the regulations (ch 20; 24:10-23). Chapters 21–24 apply the cultic regulations to the priests and to all Israelites. The institutions of the sabbatical year and the Year of Jubilee regulate the remission of debts, freedom of people, and restitution of land (ch 25).<\/p>\nThe holiness code spells out the qualities required of a holy people: devotion to God (offerings, sacrifices, priests) and love for man (Lv 19:18b) demonstrated in concern for justice, peace, freedom, the value of human life, and a concern for the family. Many of the laws reflect the spirit of the Decalogue (ch 19).<\/p>\nBoth promises and curses are attached to the holiness code (ch 26). The curses predict exile as a consequence of breaking the laws. But always underlying the laws and penalties is the grace of the Lord, who promises freely to forgive the people’s sins and to renew the broken covenant (26:44-45).<\/p>\n<h5>Laws of Deuteronomy<\/h5>\nThe Deuteronomic laws are explications and new applications of the Book of the Covenant in view of Israel’s new historical situation. Israel was about to enter the Promised Land when Moses outlined to them the law of God (Dt 1:5). The impersonal element of the Book of the Covenant is here transformed by personal appeal. Moses strongly appeals to Israel to be loyal to the Lord, the covenant, and the covenantal stipulations. The Deuteronomic laws envision the people in the land of promise, with a central sanctuary (12:5, 11-18; 14:23; 15:20; 16:5-7, 16, 21; 17:8; 18:6; 26:2; 31:11) and with a king (17:14-20). The blessings and the curses motivate covenant loyalty (ch 28). However, Israel is also here assured that even if it breaks God’s law, the Lord remains gracious and forgiving.<\/p>\nPurposes of the Law<\/p>\nThe law revealed at Mt Sinai was intended to lead Israel closer to God. Rebellious though they were, God used the law as his righteous instrument to teach, in a very specific way, what sin is (cf. Rom 5:20; 7:7-8) and how they should walk on a path that kept them undefiled by sin and holy to the Lord. The law was the teacher and the keeper of Israel (Gal 3:24). The detailed explications of the laws in all areas of life (work, society, family, cult, and nation) had an important place in God’s dealings with Israel. Israel was a nation in a special land, with a theocratic government, and was in need of a legislative corpus. Moreover, Israel’s condition at Mt Sinai was such that it could not receive direct revelation. The revelation had to be mediated through Moses. It had to be set forth in detail because Israel had no intuitive grasp of what the revelation of God’s holiness, justice, righteousness, love, and forebearance required of them. They had adopted Egyptian ways and had to learn the divine will by revelation. However, Moses and the prophets emphasize that the purpose of the law is not strict adherence to the law for its own sake (legalism) or for a reward (Pharisaism). Keeping the law is an act of devotion to God, for the sake of God. Our Lord confirmed the purpose of the law: to establish a dynamic way of life in which one continually seeks God’s kingdom and his righteousness (Mt 6:33).<\/p>\nThe law of God is his means of sanctification. He consecrated Israel by an act of grace, and he required Israel to remain holy. Jesus confirmed those uses of the law whereby one may know his sinfulness and by which he may be driven to Christ. On the cross our Lord carried the penalties of the law, fulfilled in a greater way the tabernacle\/temple presence of God, fulfilled the Father’s expectations of atonement, and demonstrated the love of the Father. He, the Son and greater than Moses, gave the essence of the law in the summary of God’s requirements: love of God and love of neighbor (Mt 23:23-24; Lk 11:42-44). Jesus taught that the purpose of obedience is not primarily to receive a reward but to serve as salt (Mt 5:13) and light (Mt 5:14-16; cf. Eph 4:17–5:20), and to bear fruit (Jn 15:1-17). The purpose of the law of God is the gradual transformation of the children of God to reflect the image of the Son (Rom 8:29; 2 Cor 3:18; Col 3:10), to be an imitation of the Father (Eph 5:1-2), and to be filled with the Spirit of God (Gal 5:18, 22-24). For this purpose Jesus gave us the Beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount, which summarize the intent of the teaching of Moses and the prophets (Mt 5–7).<\/p>\nThe purpose of the law is to transform regenerated believers into maturity. Spiritual maturity is not a privilege that was reserved for believers after Christ; OT saints also walked with God (Enoch, Gn 5:22-24; Noah, 6:9; Abraham, 17:1). These were mature men who lived with integrity in the presence of God (cf. Gn 17:1; Dt 18:13; Pss 15:1-2; 18:26; 101:2, 6; 119:80; Prv 11:5).<\/p>\nMaturity, or integrity, is that response to God whereby the believer no longer needs to live by individual stipulations or in fear of mistakes and sins of omission, but delights in doing the Lord’s will (Pss 1:2; 112:1). Since the coming of Christ and Pentecost, the Holy Spirit has been poured out on every believer. He has come not only to internalize the law of God (Jer 31:33) but also to help us develop Christian maturity by giving the fruits of godliness in greater fullness (Gal 5:22-24). Whereas maturity and freedom were experienced by some OT saints, it is God’s gift to all his children in Christ (Acts 2:39; 1 Cor 12:13). The purpose is still the same, “so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped [mature] for every good work” (2 Tm 3:17, niv<\/span>), but the means to accomplish this and the status of the child of God is so much better since Pentecost.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Civil Law and Justice; Cleanness and Uncleanness, Regulations Concerning; Criminal Law and Punishment; Galatians, Letter to the; Hammurabi, Law Code of; Justification; Romans, Letter to the; Commandments, The Ten; Torah; Tradition.<\/p>","summary_ro":"LAW, Biblical Concept of God’s means of consecrating his people to himself. The nature and content of “law” may change, but the goal remains the same: maturity and conformity to the image of God. Preview • Historical Context • Law in the Old Testament • Israelite Law and the Ancient Near East • Old Testament Laws • Purposes of the Law Historical Context When man was created in God’s image, he received glory, rule, and provision for his daily sustenance from the Creator-King (Gn 1:27-30). Howe...","summary_en":"LAW, Biblical Concept of God’s means of consecrating his people to himself. The nature and content of “law” may change, but the goal remains the same: maturity and conformity to the image of God. Preview • Historical Context • Law in the Old Testament • Israelite Law and the Ancient Near East • Old Testament Laws • Purposes of the Law Historical Context When man was created in God’s image, he received glory, rule, and provision for his daily sustenance from the Creator-King (Gn 1:27-30). Howe...","source":"Articles\/L.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":37672,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Tree of Life","title_en":"Tree of Life","content_ro":"<h3>TREE OF LIFE<\/h3>\nTree placed by God in the midst of the Garden of Eden (Gn 2:8-9), a tree whose fruit could give eternal life. God told Adam that he could eat from every tree of the Garden except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (vv 16-17). When Adam and Eve disobeyed God by eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they were expelled from the garden lest they “take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever” (3:22).<\/p>\nThe Genesis narrative suggests that God intended the tree of life to provide Adam and Eve with a symbol of life in fellowship with and dependence on him. Human life, as distinguished from that of the animals, is much more than merely biological; it is also spiritual—it finds its deepest fulfillment in fellowship with God. Life in the fullness of its physical and spiritual dimensions, however, could remain a person’s possession only so long as he or she remained obedient to God’s command (Gn 2:17). Apart from Genesis, the only other OT occurrences of the phrase the “tree of life” are found in Proverbs (quoted here from rsv<\/span>), where it symbolizes the enrichment of life in various ways. In Proverbs 3:18 wisdom is referred to as “a tree of life to those who lay hold of her”; in 11:30 “the fruit of the righteous is a tree of life”; in 13:12 a fulfilled desire is as “a tree of life”; and in 15:4 “a gentle tongue is a tree of life.”<\/p>\nThe book of Revelation contains the only references to the tree of life in the NT (Rv 2:7; 22:2, 14, 19). The Bible begins and ends with a Paradise in the midst of which is a tree of life. The way to the tree of life, which was closed in Genesis 3, is open again for God’s believing people. This was made possible by the second Adam, Jesus Christ. Those who have washed their robes in the blood of Christ (cf. Rv 7:14) and have sought forgiveness of their sin through the redemptive work of Christ, receive the right to the tree of life (22:14), but the disobedient will have no access to it.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Adam (Person); Eve; Fall of Man; Garden of Eden; Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>TREE OF LIFE<\/h3>\nTree placed by God in the midst of the Garden of Eden (Gn 2:8-9), a tree whose fruit could give eternal life. God told Adam that he could eat from every tree of the Garden except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (vv 16-17). When Adam and Eve disobeyed God by eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they were expelled from the garden lest they “take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever” (3:22).<\/p>\nThe Genesis narrative suggests that God intended the tree of life to provide Adam and Eve with a symbol of life in fellowship with and dependence on him. Human life, as distinguished from that of the animals, is much more than merely biological; it is also spiritual—it finds its deepest fulfillment in fellowship with God. Life in the fullness of its physical and spiritual dimensions, however, could remain a person’s possession only so long as he or she remained obedient to God’s command (Gn 2:17). Apart from Genesis, the only other OT occurrences of the phrase the “tree of life” are found in Proverbs (quoted here from rsv<\/span>), where it symbolizes the enrichment of life in various ways. In Proverbs 3:18 wisdom is referred to as “a tree of life to those who lay hold of her”; in 11:30 “the fruit of the righteous is a tree of life”; in 13:12 a fulfilled desire is as “a tree of life”; and in 15:4 “a gentle tongue is a tree of life.”<\/p>\nThe book of Revelation contains the only references to the tree of life in the NT (Rv 2:7; 22:2, 14, 19). The Bible begins and ends with a Paradise in the midst of which is a tree of life. The way to the tree of life, which was closed in Genesis 3, is open again for God’s believing people. This was made possible by the second Adam, Jesus Christ. Those who have washed their robes in the blood of Christ (cf. Rv 7:14) and have sought forgiveness of their sin through the redemptive work of Christ, receive the right to the tree of life (22:14), but the disobedient will have no access to it.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Adam (Person); Eve; Fall of Man; Garden of Eden; Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.<\/p>","summary_ro":"TREE OF LIFE Tree placed by God in the midst of the Garden of Eden (Gn 2:8-9), a tree whose fruit could give eternal life. God told Adam that he could eat from every tree of the Garden except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (vv 16-17). When Adam and Eve disobeyed God by eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they were expelled from the garden lest they “take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever” (3:22). The Genesis narrative suggests that God intend...","summary_en":"TREE OF LIFE Tree placed by God in the midst of the Garden of Eden (Gn 2:8-9), a tree whose fruit could give eternal life. God told Adam that he could eat from every tree of the Garden except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (vv 16-17). When Adam and Eve disobeyed God by eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they were expelled from the garden lest they “take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever” (3:22). The Genesis narrative suggests that God intend...","source":"Articles\/T.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":42853,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:17","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:17","content_ro":"2:17<\/strong> except<\/em> (literally but you must not eat<\/em>): This prohibition is given in the same legal format as Israel’s Ten Commandments (see Exod 20:1-17; Deut 5:6-21). The Lord built law and obedience into the fabric of his covenant relationship with humanity. • the knowledge of good and evil:<\/em> See study note on 2:9. • you are sure to die:<\/em> The consequences of disobedience would be immediate spiritual death (loss of relationship with God) and eventual physical death (see 3:22-23; Eccl 12:6-7).<\/p>","content_en":"2:17<\/strong> except<\/em> (literally but you must not eat<\/em>): This prohibition is given in the same legal format as Israel’s Ten Commandments (see Exod 20:1-17; Deut 5:6-21). The Lord built law and obedience into the fabric of his covenant relationship with humanity. • the knowledge of good and evil:<\/em> See study note on 2:9. • you are sure to die:<\/em> The consequences of disobedience would be immediate spiritual death (loss of relationship with God) and eventual physical death (see 3:22-23; Eccl 12:6-7).<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:17 except (literally but you must not eat): This prohibition is given in the same legal format as Israel’s Ten Commandments (see Exod 20:1-17; Deut 5:6-21). The Lord built law and obedience into the fabric of his covenant relationship with humanity. • the knowledge of good and evil: See study note on 2:9. • you are sure to die: The consequences of disobedience would be immediate spiritual death (loss of relationship with God) and eventual physical death (see 3:22-23; Eccl 12:6-7).","summary_en":"2:17 except (literally but you must not eat): This prohibition is given in the same legal format as Israel’s Ten Commandments (see Exod 20:1-17; Deut 5:6-21). The Lord built law and obedience into the fabric of his covenant relationship with humanity. • the knowledge of good and evil: See study note on 2:9. • you are sure to die: The consequences of disobedience would be immediate spiritual death (loss of relationship with God) and eventual physical death (see 3:22-23; Eccl 12:6-7).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":70479,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:17","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:17","content_ro":"2:17<\/strong> except<\/em> (literally but you must not eat<\/em>): This prohibition is given in the same legal format as Israel’s Ten Commandments (see Exod 20:1-17; Deut 5:6-21). The Lord built law and obedience into the fabric of his covenant relationship with humanity. • the knowledge of good and evil:<\/em> See study note on 2:9. • you are sure to die:<\/em> The consequences of disobedience would be immediate spiritual death (loss of relationship with God) and eventual physical death (see 3:22-23; Eccl 12:6-7).<\/p>","content_en":"2:17<\/strong> except<\/em> (literally but you must not eat<\/em>): This prohibition is given in the same legal format as Israel’s Ten Commandments (see Exod 20:1-17; Deut 5:6-21). The Lord built law and obedience into the fabric of his covenant relationship with humanity. • the knowledge of good and evil:<\/em> See study note on 2:9. • you are sure to die:<\/em> The consequences of disobedience would be immediate spiritual death (loss of relationship with God) and eventual physical death (see 3:22-23; Eccl 12:6-7).<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:17 except (literally but you must not eat): This prohibition is given in the same legal format as Israel’s Ten Commandments (see Exod 20:1-17; Deut 5:6-21). The Lord built law and obedience into the fabric of his covenant relationship with humanity. • the knowledge of good and evil: See study note on 2:9. • you are sure to die: The consequences of disobedience would be immediate spiritual death (loss of relationship with God) and eventual physical death (see 3:22-23; Eccl 12:6-7).","summary_en":"2:17 except (literally but you must not eat): This prohibition is given in the same legal format as Israel’s Ten Commandments (see Exod 20:1-17; Deut 5:6-21). The Lord built law and obedience into the fabric of his covenant relationship with humanity. • the knowledge of good and evil: See study note on 2:9. • you are sure to die: The consequences of disobedience would be immediate spiritual death (loss of relationship with God) and eventual physical death (see 3:22-23; Eccl 12:6-7).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":98105,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:17","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:17","content_ro":"2:17<\/strong> except<\/em> (literally but you must not eat<\/em>): This prohibition is given in the same legal format as Israel’s Ten Commandments (see Exod 20:1-17; Deut 5:6-21). The Lord built law and obedience into the fabric of his covenant relationship with humanity. • the knowledge of good and evil:<\/em> See study note on 2:9. • you are sure to die:<\/em> The consequences of disobedience would be immediate spiritual death (loss of relationship with God) and eventual physical death (see 3:22-23; Eccl 12:6-7).<\/p>","content_en":"2:17<\/strong> except<\/em> (literally but you must not eat<\/em>): This prohibition is given in the same legal format as Israel’s Ten Commandments (see Exod 20:1-17; Deut 5:6-21). The Lord built law and obedience into the fabric of his covenant relationship with humanity. • the knowledge of good and evil:<\/em> See study note on 2:9. • you are sure to die:<\/em> The consequences of disobedience would be immediate spiritual death (loss of relationship with God) and eventual physical death (see 3:22-23; Eccl 12:6-7).<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:17 except (literally but you must not eat): This prohibition is given in the same legal format as Israel’s Ten Commandments (see Exod 20:1-17; Deut 5:6-21). The Lord built law and obedience into the fabric of his covenant relationship with humanity. • the knowledge of good and evil: See study note on 2:9. • you are sure to die: The consequences of disobedience would be immediate spiritual death (loss of relationship with God) and eventual physical death (see 3:22-23; Eccl 12:6-7).","summary_en":"2:17 except (literally but you must not eat): This prohibition is given in the same legal format as Israel’s Ten Commandments (see Exod 20:1-17; Deut 5:6-21). The Lord built law and obedience into the fabric of his covenant relationship with humanity. • the knowledge of good and evil: See study note on 2:9. • you are sure to die: The consequences of disobedience would be immediate spiritual death (loss of relationship with God) and eventual physical death (see 3:22-23; Eccl 12:6-7).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":125731,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:17","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:17","content_ro":"2:17<\/strong> except<\/em> (literally but you must not eat<\/em>): This prohibition is given in the same legal format as Israel’s Ten Commandments (see Exod 20:1-17; Deut 5:6-21). The Lord built law and obedience into the fabric of his covenant relationship with humanity. • the knowledge of good and evil:<\/em> See study note on 2:9. • you are sure to die:<\/em> The consequences of disobedience would be immediate spiritual death (loss of relationship with God) and eventual physical death (see 3:22-23; Eccl 12:6-7).<\/p>","content_en":"2:17<\/strong> except<\/em> (literally but you must not eat<\/em>): This prohibition is given in the same legal format as Israel’s Ten Commandments (see Exod 20:1-17; Deut 5:6-21). The Lord built law and obedience into the fabric of his covenant relationship with humanity. • the knowledge of good and evil:<\/em> See study note on 2:9. • you are sure to die:<\/em> The consequences of disobedience would be immediate spiritual death (loss of relationship with God) and eventual physical death (see 3:22-23; Eccl 12:6-7).<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:17 except (literally but you must not eat): This prohibition is given in the same legal format as Israel’s Ten Commandments (see Exod 20:1-17; Deut 5:6-21). The Lord built law and obedience into the fabric of his covenant relationship with humanity. • the knowledge of good and evil: See study note on 2:9. • you are sure to die: The consequences of disobedience would be immediate spiritual death (loss of relationship with God) and eventual physical death (see 3:22-23; Eccl 12:6-7).","summary_en":"2:17 except (literally but you must not eat): This prohibition is given in the same legal format as Israel’s Ten Commandments (see Exod 20:1-17; Deut 5:6-21). The Lord built law and obedience into the fabric of his covenant relationship with humanity. • the knowledge of good and evil: See study note on 2:9. • you are sure to die: The consequences of disobedience would be immediate spiritual death (loss of relationship with God) and eventual physical death (see 3:22-23; Eccl 12:6-7).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"18":[{"id":40454,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Adam and Eve","title_en":"Adam and Eve","content_ro":"<h3>Adam and Eve<\/h3>\nAdam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17).<\/p>\nGod created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity that God intended for man and woman in marriage (2:23-25). She is honored as “the mother of all who live” (3:20).<\/p>\nAfter the serpent deceived Eve into rejecting God’s rule, Adam also rebelled (3:1-6). Their willful disobedience disrupted their relationship (3:7) and separated them from God. God looked for Adam after his rebellion; he and Eve were hiding among the trees, already aware of the alienation (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam blamed Eve and, by implication, God (3:12). Their rebellion brought pain, strained relationships, hardship in governing the earth, and death—physical and spiritual (3:16-19, 22-24). Nonetheless, God provided animal skins to cover Adam and Eve (3:21), and promised that Eve’s offspring would defeat Satan (3:15; see Rom 16:20; Rev 12:1-9; 20:1-10).<\/p>\nAdam was a historical individual (Gen 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tim 2:13-14; Jude 1:14) who also represents humanity as a whole. God’s mandates (Gen 1:26-30) and curses (3:16-19) affected not only Adam and Eve, but the entire human race. Adam represents separation from God, which all humanity experiences.<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul contrasted those represented by Adam, the first man, with those who follow Christ, the “last Adam” (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:45-50; see also Rom 8:5-11, 20-22). Those represented by Adam live only after his example—they partake of his sin, his alienation from God and God’s creation, and his spiritual death. By contrast, those who follow Christ live by faith in him. They are recreated in Christ’s image and become “new people” who partake of a new creation (see Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The barriers Adam and Eve raised are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16); Christ restores what they lost.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:26-31; 2:4–3:24; 4:25–5:5; Hos 6:6-7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:22, 45-49; 1 Tim 2:13-14<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Adam and Eve<\/h3>\nAdam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17).<\/p>\nGod created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity that God intended for man and woman in marriage (2:23-25). She is honored as “the mother of all who live” (3:20).<\/p>\nAfter the serpent deceived Eve into rejecting God’s rule, Adam also rebelled (3:1-6). Their willful disobedience disrupted their relationship (3:7) and separated them from God. God looked for Adam after his rebellion; he and Eve were hiding among the trees, already aware of the alienation (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam blamed Eve and, by implication, God (3:12). Their rebellion brought pain, strained relationships, hardship in governing the earth, and death—physical and spiritual (3:16-19, 22-24). Nonetheless, God provided animal skins to cover Adam and Eve (3:21), and promised that Eve’s offspring would defeat Satan (3:15; see Rom 16:20; Rev 12:1-9; 20:1-10).<\/p>\nAdam was a historical individual (Gen 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tim 2:13-14; Jude 1:14) who also represents humanity as a whole. God’s mandates (Gen 1:26-30) and curses (3:16-19) affected not only Adam and Eve, but the entire human race. Adam represents separation from God, which all humanity experiences.<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul contrasted those represented by Adam, the first man, with those who follow Christ, the “last Adam” (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:45-50; see also Rom 8:5-11, 20-22). Those represented by Adam live only after his example—they partake of his sin, his alienation from God and God’s creation, and his spiritual death. By contrast, those who follow Christ live by faith in him. They are recreated in Christ’s image and become “new people” who partake of a new creation (see Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The barriers Adam and Eve raised are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16); Christ restores what they lost.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:26-31; 2:4–3:24; 4:25–5:5; Hos 6:6-7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:22, 45-49; 1 Tim 2:13-14<\/p>","summary_ro":"Adam and Eve Adam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17). God created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity...","summary_en":"Adam and Eve Adam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17). God created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":68080,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Adam and Eve","title_en":"Adam and Eve","content_ro":"<h3>Adam and Eve<\/h3>\nAdam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17).<\/p>\nGod created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity that God intended for man and woman in marriage (2:23-25). She is honored as “the mother of all who live” (3:20).<\/p>\nAfter the serpent deceived Eve into rejecting God’s rule, Adam also rebelled (3:1-6). Their willful disobedience disrupted their relationship (3:7) and separated them from God. God looked for Adam after his rebellion; he and Eve were hiding among the trees, already aware of the alienation (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam blamed Eve and, by implication, God (3:12). Their rebellion brought pain, strained relationships, hardship in governing the earth, and death—physical and spiritual (3:16-19, 22-24). Nonetheless, God provided animal skins to cover Adam and Eve (3:21), and promised that Eve’s offspring would defeat Satan (3:15; see Rom 16:20; Rev 12:1-9; 20:1-10).<\/p>\nAdam was a historical individual (Gen 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tim 2:13-14; Jude 1:14) who also represents humanity as a whole. God’s mandates (Gen 1:26-30) and curses (3:16-19) affected not only Adam and Eve, but the entire human race. Adam represents separation from God, which all humanity experiences.<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul contrasted those represented by Adam, the first man, with those who follow Christ, the “last Adam” (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:45-50; see also Rom 8:5-11, 20-22). Those represented by Adam live only after his example—they partake of his sin, his alienation from God and God’s creation, and his spiritual death. By contrast, those who follow Christ live by faith in him. They are recreated in Christ’s image and become “new people” who partake of a new creation (see Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The barriers Adam and Eve raised are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16); Christ restores what they lost.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:26-31; 2:4–3:24; 4:25–5:5; Hos 6:6-7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:22, 45-49; 1 Tim 2:13-14<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Adam and Eve<\/h3>\nAdam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17).<\/p>\nGod created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity that God intended for man and woman in marriage (2:23-25). She is honored as “the mother of all who live” (3:20).<\/p>\nAfter the serpent deceived Eve into rejecting God’s rule, Adam also rebelled (3:1-6). Their willful disobedience disrupted their relationship (3:7) and separated them from God. God looked for Adam after his rebellion; he and Eve were hiding among the trees, already aware of the alienation (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam blamed Eve and, by implication, God (3:12). Their rebellion brought pain, strained relationships, hardship in governing the earth, and death—physical and spiritual (3:16-19, 22-24). Nonetheless, God provided animal skins to cover Adam and Eve (3:21), and promised that Eve’s offspring would defeat Satan (3:15; see Rom 16:20; Rev 12:1-9; 20:1-10).<\/p>\nAdam was a historical individual (Gen 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tim 2:13-14; Jude 1:14) who also represents humanity as a whole. God’s mandates (Gen 1:26-30) and curses (3:16-19) affected not only Adam and Eve, but the entire human race. Adam represents separation from God, which all humanity experiences.<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul contrasted those represented by Adam, the first man, with those who follow Christ, the “last Adam” (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:45-50; see also Rom 8:5-11, 20-22). Those represented by Adam live only after his example—they partake of his sin, his alienation from God and God’s creation, and his spiritual death. By contrast, those who follow Christ live by faith in him. They are recreated in Christ’s image and become “new people” who partake of a new creation (see Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The barriers Adam and Eve raised are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16); Christ restores what they lost.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:26-31; 2:4–3:24; 4:25–5:5; Hos 6:6-7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:22, 45-49; 1 Tim 2:13-14<\/p>","summary_ro":"Adam and Eve Adam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17). God created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity...","summary_en":"Adam and Eve Adam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17). God created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":95706,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Adam and Eve","title_en":"Adam and Eve","content_ro":"<h3>Adam and Eve<\/h3>\nAdam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17).<\/p>\nGod created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity that God intended for man and woman in marriage (2:23-25). She is honored as “the mother of all who live” (3:20).<\/p>\nAfter the serpent deceived Eve into rejecting God’s rule, Adam also rebelled (3:1-6). Their willful disobedience disrupted their relationship (3:7) and separated them from God. God looked for Adam after his rebellion; he and Eve were hiding among the trees, already aware of the alienation (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam blamed Eve and, by implication, God (3:12). Their rebellion brought pain, strained relationships, hardship in governing the earth, and death—physical and spiritual (3:16-19, 22-24). Nonetheless, God provided animal skins to cover Adam and Eve (3:21), and promised that Eve’s offspring would defeat Satan (3:15; see Rom 16:20; Rev 12:1-9; 20:1-10).<\/p>\nAdam was a historical individual (Gen 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tim 2:13-14; Jude 1:14) who also represents humanity as a whole. God’s mandates (Gen 1:26-30) and curses (3:16-19) affected not only Adam and Eve, but the entire human race. Adam represents separation from God, which all humanity experiences.<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul contrasted those represented by Adam, the first man, with those who follow Christ, the “last Adam” (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:45-50; see also Rom 8:5-11, 20-22). Those represented by Adam live only after his example—they partake of his sin, his alienation from God and God’s creation, and his spiritual death. By contrast, those who follow Christ live by faith in him. They are recreated in Christ’s image and become “new people” who partake of a new creation (see Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The barriers Adam and Eve raised are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16); Christ restores what they lost.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:26-31; 2:4–3:24; 4:25–5:5; Hos 6:6-7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:22, 45-49; 1 Tim 2:13-14<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Adam and Eve<\/h3>\nAdam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17).<\/p>\nGod created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity that God intended for man and woman in marriage (2:23-25). She is honored as “the mother of all who live” (3:20).<\/p>\nAfter the serpent deceived Eve into rejecting God’s rule, Adam also rebelled (3:1-6). Their willful disobedience disrupted their relationship (3:7) and separated them from God. God looked for Adam after his rebellion; he and Eve were hiding among the trees, already aware of the alienation (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam blamed Eve and, by implication, God (3:12). Their rebellion brought pain, strained relationships, hardship in governing the earth, and death—physical and spiritual (3:16-19, 22-24). Nonetheless, God provided animal skins to cover Adam and Eve (3:21), and promised that Eve’s offspring would defeat Satan (3:15; see Rom 16:20; Rev 12:1-9; 20:1-10).<\/p>\nAdam was a historical individual (Gen 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tim 2:13-14; Jude 1:14) who also represents humanity as a whole. God’s mandates (Gen 1:26-30) and curses (3:16-19) affected not only Adam and Eve, but the entire human race. Adam represents separation from God, which all humanity experiences.<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul contrasted those represented by Adam, the first man, with those who follow Christ, the “last Adam” (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:45-50; see also Rom 8:5-11, 20-22). Those represented by Adam live only after his example—they partake of his sin, his alienation from God and God’s creation, and his spiritual death. By contrast, those who follow Christ live by faith in him. They are recreated in Christ’s image and become “new people” who partake of a new creation (see Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The barriers Adam and Eve raised are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16); Christ restores what they lost.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:26-31; 2:4–3:24; 4:25–5:5; Hos 6:6-7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:22, 45-49; 1 Tim 2:13-14<\/p>","summary_ro":"Adam and Eve Adam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17). God created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity...","summary_en":"Adam and Eve Adam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17). God created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":123332,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Adam and Eve","title_en":"Adam and Eve","content_ro":"<h3>Adam and Eve<\/h3>\nAdam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17).<\/p>\nGod created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity that God intended for man and woman in marriage (2:23-25). She is honored as “the mother of all who live” (3:20).<\/p>\nAfter the serpent deceived Eve into rejecting God’s rule, Adam also rebelled (3:1-6). Their willful disobedience disrupted their relationship (3:7) and separated them from God. God looked for Adam after his rebellion; he and Eve were hiding among the trees, already aware of the alienation (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam blamed Eve and, by implication, God (3:12). Their rebellion brought pain, strained relationships, hardship in governing the earth, and death—physical and spiritual (3:16-19, 22-24). Nonetheless, God provided animal skins to cover Adam and Eve (3:21), and promised that Eve’s offspring would defeat Satan (3:15; see Rom 16:20; Rev 12:1-9; 20:1-10).<\/p>\nAdam was a historical individual (Gen 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tim 2:13-14; Jude 1:14) who also represents humanity as a whole. God’s mandates (Gen 1:26-30) and curses (3:16-19) affected not only Adam and Eve, but the entire human race. Adam represents separation from God, which all humanity experiences.<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul contrasted those represented by Adam, the first man, with those who follow Christ, the “last Adam” (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:45-50; see also Rom 8:5-11, 20-22). Those represented by Adam live only after his example—they partake of his sin, his alienation from God and God’s creation, and his spiritual death. By contrast, those who follow Christ live by faith in him. They are recreated in Christ’s image and become “new people” who partake of a new creation (see Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The barriers Adam and Eve raised are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16); Christ restores what they lost.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:26-31; 2:4–3:24; 4:25–5:5; Hos 6:6-7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:22, 45-49; 1 Tim 2:13-14<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Adam and Eve<\/h3>\nAdam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17).<\/p>\nGod created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity that God intended for man and woman in marriage (2:23-25). She is honored as “the mother of all who live” (3:20).<\/p>\nAfter the serpent deceived Eve into rejecting God’s rule, Adam also rebelled (3:1-6). Their willful disobedience disrupted their relationship (3:7) and separated them from God. God looked for Adam after his rebellion; he and Eve were hiding among the trees, already aware of the alienation (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam blamed Eve and, by implication, God (3:12). Their rebellion brought pain, strained relationships, hardship in governing the earth, and death—physical and spiritual (3:16-19, 22-24). Nonetheless, God provided animal skins to cover Adam and Eve (3:21), and promised that Eve’s offspring would defeat Satan (3:15; see Rom 16:20; Rev 12:1-9; 20:1-10).<\/p>\nAdam was a historical individual (Gen 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tim 2:13-14; Jude 1:14) who also represents humanity as a whole. God’s mandates (Gen 1:26-30) and curses (3:16-19) affected not only Adam and Eve, but the entire human race. Adam represents separation from God, which all humanity experiences.<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul contrasted those represented by Adam, the first man, with those who follow Christ, the “last Adam” (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:45-50; see also Rom 8:5-11, 20-22). Those represented by Adam live only after his example—they partake of his sin, his alienation from God and God’s creation, and his spiritual death. By contrast, those who follow Christ live by faith in him. They are recreated in Christ’s image and become “new people” who partake of a new creation (see Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The barriers Adam and Eve raised are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16); Christ restores what they lost.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:26-31; 2:4–3:24; 4:25–5:5; Hos 6:6-7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:22, 45-49; 1 Tim 2:13-14<\/p>","summary_ro":"Adam and Eve Adam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17). God created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity...","summary_en":"Adam and Eve Adam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17). God created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":473,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Adam (Person)","title_en":"Adam (Person)","content_ro":"<h3>ADAM (Person<\/span>)<\/h3>\nFirst man and father of the human race. Adam’s role in biblical history is important not only in OT considerations but also in understanding the meaning of salvation and the person and work of Jesus Christ.<\/p>\nThe creation of Adam and the first woman, Eve, is recited in two accounts in the book of Genesis. The intent of the first account (1:26-31) is to present the first pair in their relationship to God and to the rest of the created order. It teaches that with regard to God the first humans were created male and female in God’s image with his specific mandate to populate and rule over the earth. With regard to the rest of creation the first humans were, on one hand, part of it, being created on the same day as other land animals; on the other hand, they were distinctly above it, being the culmination of the creation process and sole bearers of God’s image.<\/p>\nThe intent of the second account is much more specific (2:4–3:24); it seeks to explain the origin of the present human condition of sin and death and to set the stage for the drama of redemption. The story treats in detail aspects of Adam’s creation omitted from the first story. For example, it tells of the formation of Adam from the dust of the ground and of his receiving the breath of life from God (2:7). It recounts the planting of the Garden and the responsibility given to Adam to cultivate it (2:8-15). God’s instruction to Adam that the fruit of every tree in the Garden was his for food, except one, is carefully recorded, as well as the solemn warning that the fruit of the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” was never to be eaten, under the pain of death (2:16-17). Adam’s loneliness after naming the animals and not finding a suitable companion is also described, thus introducing the creation of the first woman (2:18-22). The creation of Eve from Adam’s rib poignantly portrays the essential unity of spirit and purpose of the sexes intended by God.<\/p>\nThe story does not end on such a positive note, however. It moves on to record the great deception Satan played upon Eve through the serpent. By clever insinuations and distortion of God’s original commandment (cf. 3:1 with 2:16-17), the serpent tricked Eve into eating the forbidden fruit and sharing it with Adam. Eve seems to have eaten because she was deceived (1 Tm 2:14), Adam out of a willful and conscious rebellion. Ironically, the two beings originally created in God’s image and likeness believed that they could become “like” God by disobeying him (Gn 3:5).<\/p>\nThe effects of their disobedience were immediate, though not at all what Adam had expected. For the first time a barrier of shame disrupted the unity of man and woman (3:7). More important, a barrier of real moral guilt was erected between the first couple and God. The story relates that when God came looking for Adam after his rebellion, he was hiding among the trees, already aware of his separation from God (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam threw the blame on Eve and, by implication, back on God: “It was the woman you gave me who brought me the fruit” (3:12, nlt<\/span>). Eve in turn blamed the serpent (3:13).<\/p>\nAccording to the story in Genesis, God held all three responsible and informed each one of the calamitous consequences of their rebellion (3:14-19). The two great mandates, originally signs of pure blessing, became mixed with curse and pain—the earth could now be populated only through the woman’s birth pangs and could be subdued only by the man’s labor and perspiration (3:16-18). Further, the unity of man and woman would be strained by man’s subjugation of her, or possibly by the beginning of a struggle for dominance between them (3:16b can be taken both ways). Finally, God pronounced the ultimate consequence: as he had originally warned, Adam and Eve were to die. Someday the breath of life would be taken from them, and their bodies would return to the dust from which they were made (3:19). That very day they also experienced a “spiritual” death; they were separated from God, the giver of life, and from the tree of life, the symbol of eternal life (3:22). God sent them out of Eden, and there was no way back. The entrance to paradise was blocked by the cherubim and flaming sword (3:23-24). Only God could restore what they had lost.<\/p>\nThe story is not devoid of hope. God was merciful even then. He made them garments of skin to cover their bodies and promised that someday the power of Satan behind the serpent would be crushed by the woman’s “seed” (Gn 3:15; cf. Rom 16:20). Many scholars consider that promise to be the first biblical mention of redemption.<\/p>\nThe Significance of Adam<\/p>\nAdam’s significance is based upon several assumptions, the first being that he was a historical individual. That assumption was made by many OT writers (Gn 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7). The NT writers agreed (Lk 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tm 2:13-14; Jude 1:14). Equally essential to Adam’s significance is a second assumption, that he was more than an individual. To begin with, the Hebrew word adam<\/span> (more correctly ’a–dha–m<\/span>) is not merely a proper name. Even in the Genesis story it is not used as a name until Genesis 4:25. The word is one of several Hebrew words meaning “man” and is the generic term for “human race.” In the vast majority of cases it refers either to a male individual (Lv 1:2; Jos 14:15; Neh 9:29; Is 56:2) or to humanity in general (Ex 4:11; Nm 12:3; 16:29; Dt 4:28; 1 Kgs 4:31; Jb 7:20; 14:1). The generic, collective sense of the word adam<\/span> is also behind the phrase “children (or sons) of men” (2 Sm 7:14; Pss 11:4; 12:1; 14:2; 53:2; 90:3; Eccl 1:13; 2:3). That phrase, literally “sons of adam<\/span>,”<\/em> simply means “men” or “human beings,” and when it is used the entire human race is in view. Indeed, the universalistic human connotation of the word adam<\/span> indicates a concern in the OT going far beyond Israel’s nationalistic hopes and its God—to all the earth’s people and the Lord of all nations (Gn 9:5-7; Dt 5:24; 8:3; 1 Kgs 8:38-39; Pss 8:4; 89:48; 107:8-31; Prv 12:14; Mi 6:8).<\/p>\nIt is no accident, then, that the first man was named “Adam” or “Man.” The name intimates that to speak about Adam is somehow also to speak about the entire human race. Such usage can perhaps best be understood through the ancient concept of corporate personality and representation familiar to the Hebrews and other Near Eastern peoples. Modern thinking emphasizes the individual; existence of the social group and all social relationships has been seen as secondary to, and dependent upon, the existence and desire of the individual. The Hebrew understanding was quite different. Though the separate personality of the individual was appreciated (Jer 31:29-30; Ez 18:4), there was a strong tendency to see the social group (family, tribe, nation) as a single organism with a corporate identity of its own. Likewise the group representative was seen as the embodiment or personification of the corporate personality of the group. Within the representative the essential qualities and characteristics of the social group resided in such a way that the actions and decisions of the representative were binding on the entire group. If the group was a family, the father was usually considered the corporate representative; for good or for ill his family, and sometimes his descendants, received the results of his actions (Gn 17:1-8; cf. Gn 20:1-9, 18; Ex 20:5-6; Jos 7:24-25; Rom 11:28; Heb 7:1-10).<\/p>\nAs the original man and father of humankind, in whose image all succeeding generations would be born (Gn 5:3), Adam was the corporate representative of humanity. The creation accounts themselves give the impression that the mandates of Genesis 1:26-30 (cf. Gn 9:1, 7; Pss 8:5-7; 104:14) as well as the curses of Genesis 3:16-19 (cf. Ps 90:3; Eccl 12:7; Is 13:8; 21:3) were meant not only for Adam (and Eve) but, through him, for the entire race.<\/p>\nIn Romans 5:12-21 the apostle Paul contrasted the death and condemnation brought upon humanity by Adam’s disobedience with the life and justification given to humanity through Christ’s obedience. More explicitly, in 1 Corinthians 15:45-50 (rsv<\/span>), Paul called Christ the “last Adam,” “second man,” and the “man of heaven” in juxtaposition to the “first Adam,” the “first man,” and the “man of dust.”<\/p>\nFor Paul, the human race was divided into two groups in the persons of Adam and Christ. Those who remain “incorporated” in Adam are the “old” humanity, bearing the image of the “man of dust” and partaking of his sin and alienation from God and Creation (Rom 5:12-19; 8:20-22). But those who are incorporated into Christ by faith become Christ’s “body” (Rom 12:4-5; 1 Cor 12:12-13, 27; Eph 1:22-23; Col 1:18); they are recreated in Christ’s image (Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 3:18); they become one “new man” (Eph 2:15; 4:24; Col 3:9-10, kjv<\/span>); and they partake of the new creation (2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The old barriers raised by Adam are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16). For Paul, the functional similarity of Adam and Christ as representatives meant that Christ had restored what Adam had lost.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Eve; Man, Old and New; New Creation, New Creature.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>ADAM (Person<\/span>)<\/h3>\nFirst man and father of the human race. Adam’s role in biblical history is important not only in OT considerations but also in understanding the meaning of salvation and the person and work of Jesus Christ.<\/p>\nThe creation of Adam and the first woman, Eve, is recited in two accounts in the book of Genesis. The intent of the first account (1:26-31) is to present the first pair in their relationship to God and to the rest of the created order. It teaches that with regard to God the first humans were created male and female in God’s image with his specific mandate to populate and rule over the earth. With regard to the rest of creation the first humans were, on one hand, part of it, being created on the same day as other land animals; on the other hand, they were distinctly above it, being the culmination of the creation process and sole bearers of God’s image.<\/p>\nThe intent of the second account is much more specific (2:4–3:24); it seeks to explain the origin of the present human condition of sin and death and to set the stage for the drama of redemption. The story treats in detail aspects of Adam’s creation omitted from the first story. For example, it tells of the formation of Adam from the dust of the ground and of his receiving the breath of life from God (2:7). It recounts the planting of the Garden and the responsibility given to Adam to cultivate it (2:8-15). God’s instruction to Adam that the fruit of every tree in the Garden was his for food, except one, is carefully recorded, as well as the solemn warning that the fruit of the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” was never to be eaten, under the pain of death (2:16-17). Adam’s loneliness after naming the animals and not finding a suitable companion is also described, thus introducing the creation of the first woman (2:18-22). The creation of Eve from Adam’s rib poignantly portrays the essential unity of spirit and purpose of the sexes intended by God.<\/p>\nThe story does not end on such a positive note, however. It moves on to record the great deception Satan played upon Eve through the serpent. By clever insinuations and distortion of God’s original commandment (cf. 3:1 with 2:16-17), the serpent tricked Eve into eating the forbidden fruit and sharing it with Adam. Eve seems to have eaten because she was deceived (1 Tm 2:14), Adam out of a willful and conscious rebellion. Ironically, the two beings originally created in God’s image and likeness believed that they could become “like” God by disobeying him (Gn 3:5).<\/p>\nThe effects of their disobedience were immediate, though not at all what Adam had expected. For the first time a barrier of shame disrupted the unity of man and woman (3:7). More important, a barrier of real moral guilt was erected between the first couple and God. The story relates that when God came looking for Adam after his rebellion, he was hiding among the trees, already aware of his separation from God (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam threw the blame on Eve and, by implication, back on God: “It was the woman you gave me who brought me the fruit” (3:12, nlt<\/span>). Eve in turn blamed the serpent (3:13).<\/p>\nAccording to the story in Genesis, God held all three responsible and informed each one of the calamitous consequences of their rebellion (3:14-19). The two great mandates, originally signs of pure blessing, became mixed with curse and pain—the earth could now be populated only through the woman’s birth pangs and could be subdued only by the man’s labor and perspiration (3:16-18). Further, the unity of man and woman would be strained by man’s subjugation of her, or possibly by the beginning of a struggle for dominance between them (3:16b can be taken both ways). Finally, God pronounced the ultimate consequence: as he had originally warned, Adam and Eve were to die. Someday the breath of life would be taken from them, and their bodies would return to the dust from which they were made (3:19). That very day they also experienced a “spiritual” death; they were separated from God, the giver of life, and from the tree of life, the symbol of eternal life (3:22). God sent them out of Eden, and there was no way back. The entrance to paradise was blocked by the cherubim and flaming sword (3:23-24). Only God could restore what they had lost.<\/p>\nThe story is not devoid of hope. God was merciful even then. He made them garments of skin to cover their bodies and promised that someday the power of Satan behind the serpent would be crushed by the woman’s “seed” (Gn 3:15; cf. Rom 16:20). Many scholars consider that promise to be the first biblical mention of redemption.<\/p>\nThe Significance of Adam<\/p>\nAdam’s significance is based upon several assumptions, the first being that he was a historical individual. That assumption was made by many OT writers (Gn 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7). The NT writers agreed (Lk 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tm 2:13-14; Jude 1:14). Equally essential to Adam’s significance is a second assumption, that he was more than an individual. To begin with, the Hebrew word adam<\/span> (more correctly ’a–dha–m<\/span>) is not merely a proper name. Even in the Genesis story it is not used as a name until Genesis 4:25. The word is one of several Hebrew words meaning “man” and is the generic term for “human race.” In the vast majority of cases it refers either to a male individual (Lv 1:2; Jos 14:15; Neh 9:29; Is 56:2) or to humanity in general (Ex 4:11; Nm 12:3; 16:29; Dt 4:28; 1 Kgs 4:31; Jb 7:20; 14:1). The generic, collective sense of the word adam<\/span> is also behind the phrase “children (or sons) of men” (2 Sm 7:14; Pss 11:4; 12:1; 14:2; 53:2; 90:3; Eccl 1:13; 2:3). That phrase, literally “sons of adam<\/span>,”<\/em> simply means “men” or “human beings,” and when it is used the entire human race is in view. Indeed, the universalistic human connotation of the word adam<\/span> indicates a concern in the OT going far beyond Israel’s nationalistic hopes and its God—to all the earth’s people and the Lord of all nations (Gn 9:5-7; Dt 5:24; 8:3; 1 Kgs 8:38-39; Pss 8:4; 89:48; 107:8-31; Prv 12:14; Mi 6:8).<\/p>\nIt is no accident, then, that the first man was named “Adam” or “Man.” The name intimates that to speak about Adam is somehow also to speak about the entire human race. Such usage can perhaps best be understood through the ancient concept of corporate personality and representation familiar to the Hebrews and other Near Eastern peoples. Modern thinking emphasizes the individual; existence of the social group and all social relationships has been seen as secondary to, and dependent upon, the existence and desire of the individual. The Hebrew understanding was quite different. Though the separate personality of the individual was appreciated (Jer 31:29-30; Ez 18:4), there was a strong tendency to see the social group (family, tribe, nation) as a single organism with a corporate identity of its own. Likewise the group representative was seen as the embodiment or personification of the corporate personality of the group. Within the representative the essential qualities and characteristics of the social group resided in such a way that the actions and decisions of the representative were binding on the entire group. If the group was a family, the father was usually considered the corporate representative; for good or for ill his family, and sometimes his descendants, received the results of his actions (Gn 17:1-8; cf. Gn 20:1-9, 18; Ex 20:5-6; Jos 7:24-25; Rom 11:28; Heb 7:1-10).<\/p>\nAs the original man and father of humankind, in whose image all succeeding generations would be born (Gn 5:3), Adam was the corporate representative of humanity. The creation accounts themselves give the impression that the mandates of Genesis 1:26-30 (cf. Gn 9:1, 7; Pss 8:5-7; 104:14) as well as the curses of Genesis 3:16-19 (cf. Ps 90:3; Eccl 12:7; Is 13:8; 21:3) were meant not only for Adam (and Eve) but, through him, for the entire race.<\/p>\nIn Romans 5:12-21 the apostle Paul contrasted the death and condemnation brought upon humanity by Adam’s disobedience with the life and justification given to humanity through Christ’s obedience. More explicitly, in 1 Corinthians 15:45-50 (rsv<\/span>), Paul called Christ the “last Adam,” “second man,” and the “man of heaven” in juxtaposition to the “first Adam,” the “first man,” and the “man of dust.”<\/p>\nFor Paul, the human race was divided into two groups in the persons of Adam and Christ. Those who remain “incorporated” in Adam are the “old” humanity, bearing the image of the “man of dust” and partaking of his sin and alienation from God and Creation (Rom 5:12-19; 8:20-22). But those who are incorporated into Christ by faith become Christ’s “body” (Rom 12:4-5; 1 Cor 12:12-13, 27; Eph 1:22-23; Col 1:18); they are recreated in Christ’s image (Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 3:18); they become one “new man” (Eph 2:15; 4:24; Col 3:9-10, kjv<\/span>); and they partake of the new creation (2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The old barriers raised by Adam are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16). For Paul, the functional similarity of Adam and Christ as representatives meant that Christ had restored what Adam had lost.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Eve; Man, Old and New; New Creation, New Creature.<\/p>","summary_ro":"ADAM (Person) First man and father of the human race. Adam’s role in biblical history is important not only in OT considerations but also in understanding the meaning of salvation and the person and work of Jesus Christ. The creation of Adam and the first woman, Eve, is recited in two accounts in the book of Genesis. The intent of the first account (1:26-31) is to present the first pair in their relationship to God and to the rest of the created order. It teaches that with regard to God the f...","summary_en":"ADAM (Person) First man and father of the human race. Adam’s role in biblical history is important not only in OT considerations but also in understanding the meaning of salvation and the person and work of Jesus Christ. The creation of Adam and the first woman, Eve, is recited in two accounts in the book of Genesis. The intent of the first account (1:26-31) is to present the first pair in their relationship to God and to the rest of the created order. It teaches that with regard to God the f...","source":"Articles\/A.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":11315,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Eve","title_en":"Eve","content_ro":"<h3>EVE<\/h3>\nFirst woman, “the mother of all living” (Gn 3:20). The book of Genesis recounts that after God had finished his creation of Adam, he saw that it was not good for Adam to be alone. He decided to create “a helper fit for him” (2:18). The woman is called ezer<\/span> (in Hebrew lit. “help”), a word that appears elsewhere in the OT in reference to God as Israel’s help. Causing Adam to fall into a deep sleep, God took one of his ribs and used it to fashion Eve (vv 21-25).<\/p>\nEve was given two names by Adam. The first was “woman,” a generic designation with theological connotations that denote her relationship to man (Gn 2:23). The second, Eve (“life”), was given after the fall and refers to her role in the procreation of the human race (3:20).<\/p>\nAdam and Eve are pictured as living in Eden, serving God and fulfilling each other’s needs. Then evil entered when Eve was tempted by the serpent to disobey God’s command, which forbade their eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gn 2:17; 3:3). Tricked by the serpent’s subtle persuasion, Eve transgressed God’s will by eating the fruit. Adam did the same when she brought some to him, although he was not deceived as she had been. Both then recognized their nakedness and made garments of fig leaves.<\/p>\nWhen God came to commune with them, they hid from him. When he demanded an account, Adam blamed Eve, and Eve blamed the serpent. God told Eve that as a result of their sin, childbirth would be a painful experience and her husband would rule over her (Gn 3:16). Eve later became the mother of Cain, Abel, Seth, and other children (4:1-2, 25; 5:4).<\/p>\nEve is mentioned twice in the NT. In his letter to Timothy, the apostle Paul referred to her when discussing whether or not women could teach (1 Tm 2:13). He said that a woman could not teach or have authority over a man because of man’s priority in creation and Eve’s responsibility for the original transgression (see 2 Cor 11:3).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Adam (Person); Garden of Eden.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>EVE<\/h3>\nFirst woman, “the mother of all living” (Gn 3:20). The book of Genesis recounts that after God had finished his creation of Adam, he saw that it was not good for Adam to be alone. He decided to create “a helper fit for him” (2:18). The woman is called ezer<\/span> (in Hebrew lit. “help”), a word that appears elsewhere in the OT in reference to God as Israel’s help. Causing Adam to fall into a deep sleep, God took one of his ribs and used it to fashion Eve (vv 21-25).<\/p>\nEve was given two names by Adam. The first was “woman,” a generic designation with theological connotations that denote her relationship to man (Gn 2:23). The second, Eve (“life”), was given after the fall and refers to her role in the procreation of the human race (3:20).<\/p>\nAdam and Eve are pictured as living in Eden, serving God and fulfilling each other’s needs. Then evil entered when Eve was tempted by the serpent to disobey God’s command, which forbade their eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gn 2:17; 3:3). Tricked by the serpent’s subtle persuasion, Eve transgressed God’s will by eating the fruit. Adam did the same when she brought some to him, although he was not deceived as she had been. Both then recognized their nakedness and made garments of fig leaves.<\/p>\nWhen God came to commune with them, they hid from him. When he demanded an account, Adam blamed Eve, and Eve blamed the serpent. God told Eve that as a result of their sin, childbirth would be a painful experience and her husband would rule over her (Gn 3:16). Eve later became the mother of Cain, Abel, Seth, and other children (4:1-2, 25; 5:4).<\/p>\nEve is mentioned twice in the NT. In his letter to Timothy, the apostle Paul referred to her when discussing whether or not women could teach (1 Tm 2:13). He said that a woman could not teach or have authority over a man because of man’s priority in creation and Eve’s responsibility for the original transgression (see 2 Cor 11:3).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Adam (Person); Garden of Eden.<\/p>","summary_ro":"EVE First woman, “the mother of all living” (Gn 3:20). The book of Genesis recounts that after God had finished his creation of Adam, he saw that it was not good for Adam to be alone. He decided to create “a helper fit for him” (2:18). The woman is called ezer (in Hebrew lit. “help”), a word that appears elsewhere in the OT in reference to God as Israel’s help. Causing Adam to fall into a deep sleep, God took one of his ribs and used it to fashion Eve (vv 21-25). Eve was given two names by Ad...","summary_en":"EVE First woman, “the mother of all living” (Gn 3:20). The book of Genesis recounts that after God had finished his creation of Adam, he saw that it was not good for Adam to be alone. He decided to create “a helper fit for him” (2:18). The woman is called ezer (in Hebrew lit. “help”), a word that appears elsewhere in the OT in reference to God as Israel’s help. Causing Adam to fall into a deep sleep, God took one of his ribs and used it to fashion Eve (vv 21-25). Eve was given two names by Ad...","source":"Articles\/E.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":13528,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Book of Genesis","title_en":"Book of Genesis","content_ro":"<h3>GENESIS, Book of<\/h3>\nFirst book of the Bible.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Name<\/p>\n• Author<\/p>\n• Date<\/p>\n• Purpose<\/p>\n• Structure<\/p>\n• Content<\/p>\nName<\/p>\nThe name Genesis comes into English as a transliteration of the Greek word meaning “origin” or “beginning.” This name was given to the book in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, known as the Septuagint. Genesis reflects both the content of the book and the Hebrew name for it, which is taken from its first word, bere’shith<\/span>,<\/em> “in the beginning.”<\/p>\nAuthor<\/p>\nThe authorship of Genesis is closely related to the authorship of the entire Pentateuch (lit. “five-volumed,” the first five books of the Bible, which in Hebrew are called the Torah). It is clear that the Bible regards the human author of these books as Moses. On several occasions the Lord commanded Moses to write down various things: “in a book” (Ex 17:14) “write these words” (34:27). The Pentateuch reports that “Moses wrote all the words of the Lord<\/span>” (24:4); he wrote the itinerary of the exodus wanderings (Nm 33:2); “Moses wrote this law” (Dt 31:9). (Here it is not certain that all five books are meant, but it must refer to at least the greater part of Deuteronomy.) In Exodus 24:7 it is said that Moses read the Book of the Covenant, which he must have just completed.<\/p>\nThe rest of the OT bears witness to the writing of the Pentateuch by Moses. David referred to “the law of Moses” (1 Kgs 2:3). In the time of Josiah, there was found in the temple the “Book of the Law of the Lord<\/span> . . . given through Moses” (2 Chr 34:14, nlt<\/span>). Day by day Ezra read from “the Book of the Law of God” (Neh 8:18, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nIn the NT, Jesus refers to “the book of Moses” (Mk 12:26; Lk 20:37) and otherwise mentions the commands or statements of Moses (Mt 8:4; 19:8; Mk 7:10; cf. Lk 16:31; 24:44). The Jews also quoted from the Torah as coming from Moses, and Jesus did not contradict them.<\/p>\nOf Genesis in particular, it may be said that Moses had the opportunity and ability to write the book. He could have written it during his years in Egypt or while exiled with the Kenites. As the recognized leader of the Israelites, he would have had access to, or perhaps even custody of, the records that Jacob brought from Canaan. He was “instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians” (Acts 7:22) and probably could have written in several languages and in several scripts (hieroglyphic, cuneiform, Old Hebrew). Although Moses was admirably fitted for the task of writing, one must remember that he was not putting together a human composition but was writing under the inspiration of God (2 Pt 1:21). We may with confidence conclude that Moses was the human author of Genesis.<\/p>\nThe liberal view of the authorship of Genesis is that the book is an editorial composite—a view first put forward by a French physician, Jean Astruc, who suggested that the different names for God indicated different documents or sources for the writing of the book. The German higher critics expanded the view of the use of documents in the writing of Genesis and developed it into the Graf-Wellhausen-Kuenen, or Documentary, Hypothesis, which may also be called the JEDP theory of the authorship of the book. This view holds that there were four basic documents: (1) J, which uses the name YHWH (Jehovah or Yahweh) for God, dates from about the ninth century BC<\/span> and comes from Judah; (2) E uses the name Elohim, dates from the eighth century, and comes from the northern kingdom; (3) D is Deuteronomy and is supposed to come from the time of Josiah, about 621 BC<\/span>; and (4) P is the priestly element, which deals with matters of the priesthood and ritual, dating to the fifth century BC<\/span> or later. Some may date portions of Genesis as late as the Hellenistic period. According to this theory, the various documents were blended together by editors, so that there was a JE, JED, and so on.<\/p>\nThe science of archaeology discredited many of the extreme postulations of these critics, and the work of W. F. Albright and his followers did much to restore confidence in the historicity of Genesis. Within the last several decades, the patriarchal narratives and the account of Joseph have again come under strong attack, but these views are extreme, and much of the evidence adduced by Albright and earlier scholars like R. D. Wilson, W. H. Green, and others still has validity.<\/p>\nDate<\/p>\nThe date of the book is also a matter of debate. Even among those who accept Mosaic authorship there is debate as to when Moses lived. Based on the biblical data, Moses should have lived in the 15th century BC<\/span> (cf. Jgs 11:26; 1 Kgs 6:1), but many scholars incline toward a 13th-century date. As outlined above, the liberal view of the date of Genesis would be from the ninth to the fifth centuries BC<\/span>, with the final editing coming around the fifth century or perhaps even later.<\/p>\nPurpose<\/p>\nGenesis sketches the origin of many things: the universe, the earth, plants, animals, and mankind. It gives the beginnings of human institutions, professions, and crafts. It describes the origin of sin and death, and illustrates the insidious working of Satan in human life. Above all, Genesis relates the beginning of the history of redemption with the announcement of a Redeemer who was to come (Gn 3:15). It names the early progenitors in the lineage of the Messiah and the beginning of the Hebrew people through whom the Bible and the Savior came. Genesis also gives a selective history of people and events as viewed from the perspective of the purposes of God.<\/p>\nStructure<\/p>\nThe book is divided into 11 parts of uneven length, each set off by the expression “these are the generations [descendants, history] of” (2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1; 37:2). Only three times does the formula coincide with the first verse of a chapter. Usually called a heading or superscription, the expression serves as a kind of link between what precedes and what follows.<\/p>\n\nContent<\/p>\n<h5>The Creation (1:1–2:25)<\/h5>\nThese two chapters have been a scientific-theological battleground for many years, as researchers and students have tried to probe the origins of the universe and of life. Much of the evidence is not subject to scientific scrutiny, for science by definition requires that the evidence must be reproducible by experiment.<\/p>\nThe statement of Genesis 1:1 remains the grandest, most precise, and most accurate statement of origins: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” He did this ex nihilo<\/em> (“out of nothing”) by his word (Heb 11:3); he spoke the word of command and it was done (Gn 1:3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20; Ps 33:6, 9).<\/p>\nThe date of the beginning is unknown. Uniformitarian cosmogonists (students of the origins of the universe who believe that natural events have always followed a uniform pattern; cf. 2 Pt 3:3-7) have speculated that the beginning of the universe was billions of years ago. But some creationists posit a world thousands of years old.<\/p>\nTo accommodate geological ages and the existence of extinct animals, some interpreters have proposed a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, with Genesis 1:2–2:3 representing a second or new creation. But this is conjecture. So is the idea that each day represents a geological age.<\/p>\nAs the text stands, there is a correlation between the first three days and the second three days. Day one saw the creation of light; day four, the light bearers. Day two was the time of the creation of the firmament (better, “expanse”), which divided the waters; day five, birds and swarming water creatures. On day three, God made the dry land and plants; on day six he created the land animals and man. He made man in the image of God (Gn 1:26), “a little less than God” (Ps 8:5), and gave him dominion over the earth. He made everything “according to their kinds,” so that each kind is distinct and unique. The perfection of his work is affirmed in that “God saw that it was good” (Gn 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21; “very good,” v 31). The seventh day was a time of cessation from the activity of creating and served as a type for mankind’s day of rest (2:1-3).<\/p>\nCritical scholarship eyes 2:4-25 as a doublet in conflict with Genesis 1:1–2:3. To conservative scholars, the second chapter is the same account from a different perspective. Chapter 1 gives the Creation from the standpoint of sequence; chapter 2 shows it in view of the centrality of mankind in God’s creative work.<\/p>\nChapter 2 gives details of the creation of man of “dust from the ground” (v 7) and woman from a rib of the man (vv 21-22). She was created to be “a companion who will help him” (vv 18-20). They were created as mature adults, with the gift of speech and with great intelligence. Adam had imagination and vocabulary sufficient for naming all of the animal species (v 19).<\/p>\nThe location of the Garden of Eden is given (vv 10-14). Two of the four rivers, the Tigris and the Euphrates, can be identified with certainty. So man lived in this beautiful garden in the bliss of innocence.<\/p>\n<h5>The History of Humankind from Eden to Babel (3:1–11:26)<\/h5>\n<h6>The Fall<\/h6>\nThe loss of Eden and the break in fellowship with God is the saddest chapter in human history. The serpent, the devil, approached Eve with the same philosophy he always uses: doubt of God’s word (Gn 3:1), denial of death (v 4), and the suggestion of equality with God (v 5). He gained access to her will by deceiving her with the promise that the fruit would make her as wise as God is (Gn 3:5; cf. 1 Jn 2:16). Eve was deceived, but when she offered the fruit to Adam, he took it willingly, knowing what he was doing (Gn 3:6; cf. 1 Tm 2:14). Later, he tried to blame God for giving him the wife who gave him the fruit (Gn 3:12). Fellowship with God was broken (v 8), yet God came seeking Adam and found him.<\/p>\nWith sin came judgment, and the Lord pronounced righteous judgment on the serpent, the woman, and the man. The earth was also “subjected to frustration” and now groans as it awaits renewal (Rom 8:21-22). God gave hope to man and a promise of a Redeemer (Gn 3:15), who was to bruise the serpent’s head. Adam and Eve were forced out of the Garden, and it was made inaccessible to them.<\/p>\nThe impatience of humankind is shown in Eve’s expectation that her son Cain was the promised Deliverer. Instead, he developed a wrong-hearted attitude toward God and became so jealous of his younger brother that he murdered him. Apprehended by God and confronted with his crime, Cain showed only self-pity and went east from Eden, where he built a city (4:1-16). Chapter 4 closes with another contrast: the brazen Lamech, who called for vengeance, while others began to call upon the name of the Lord.<\/p>\n<h6>The Generations of Adam<\/h6>\nThis genealogical table (5:1-32) brings humankind to the time of Noah and the Flood. The longevity of the antediluvian patriarchs seems very striking to us, but one must remember that the earth had not yet been subjected to pollution and that the effects of sin on the human race were still nominal. The refrain “and he died” reminds us of man’s mortality. For Enoch, however, there was something better: “He enjoyed a close relationship with God throughout his life. Then, suddenly, he disappeared because God took him” (5:24, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h6>The Flood<\/h6>\nWith increased population came an eruption of sin (6:1-5). As men multiplied, so did their corruption. The universal condemnation of verse 5 shows a world ripe for judgment. Noah, however, “found favor with the Lord<\/span>,” for he was a righteous and blameless man who walked with God (6:8-9).<\/p>\nThe Lord planned to annihilate the human race, but he determined to save Noah and his family. Intending to flood the earth, God instructed Noah to build an ark. Noah was directed to take animals aboard the ark, two by two, male and female, for the preservation of each species. When all was in readiness, the Flood came: “the underground waters burst forth on the earth, and the rain fell in mighty torrents from the sky” (7:11, nlt<\/span>). It rained for 40 days and 40 nights. The highest mountains were covered, and life outside the ark perished. “But God remembered Noah” and sent a wind to evaporate the waters (8:1). Eventually the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat (v 4). Noah made a sacrifice to the Lord, and the Lord determined that he would never again bring such destruction upon the earth.<\/p>\nThe Flood is another of God’s acts that has been much debated. Many have argued for a local flood, which affected only part of Mesopotamia. Archaeologists have pointed to various flood strata in the excavation of Mesopotamian city-mounds as evidence for the account of the flood and have cited the various flood stories from that area as the source of the Genesis record. The epic of Gilgamesh gives an interesting tale of this hero, who went on a mission to visit Utnapishtim, the cuneiform Noah, in quest of eternal life. The flood story told by Utnapishtim has many parallels to Genesis, but there are greater contrasts, which demonstrate that the Bible preserves the true account.<\/p>\nBoth the Genesis account and the references to it in the NT (cf. 2 Pt 3:6) favor the view that the deluge was not a minor episode in the Tigris-Euphrates area but was an unprecedented worldwide catastrophe. Christian geologists affirm that the Flood had far-reaching effects on the earth itself. Flood stories are almost universally known, lending support to the conclusion that the Flood covered the whole earth. Following the Flood, God blessed Noah and his sons, Ham, Shem, and Japheth. God made a covenant with Noah, promising that he would never again send a worldwide flood. As a sign of this, he established the rainbow.<\/p>\nNoah was the first tiller of the soil, and he planted a vineyard (9:20). Noah became drunk from wine he made and lay uncovered in his tent. Ham saw him and reported this to his brothers, who discreetly covered him. Ham and his son Canaan were cursed; Shem and Japheth were blessed.<\/p>\n<h6>The History of the Nations<\/h6>\n“This is the history of the families of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, the three sons of Noah. Many children were born to them after the Flood” (10:1, nlt<\/span>). This chapter lists the descendants of Noah’s three sons, in the order of Japheth (vv 2-5), Ham (vv 6-20), and Shem (vv 21-31). Many of the names of their descendants are preserved in tribes and nations of the world.<\/p>\n<h6>The Tower of Babel<\/h6>\nThe building of the Tower of Babel (“Gate of God”) illustrates man’s perversity and his tendency to want independence from God. The desire of man to displace God follows the fateful example of Lucifer and is a basic tenet of many cults. God thwarted the designs of the builders of Babel by confusing their languages, so that the project came to a halt (11:1-9). The site of this tower is not known with certainty. Some associate it with Birs Nimrud, not far from the ruins of the city of Babylon. Genesis 11:10-25 picks up the line of Shem and carries it down to Terah, the father of Abram.<\/p>\n<h5>The History of Abraham (11:27–25:10) and Isaac (21:1–28:5)<\/h5>\nAbram came from Ur of the Chaldees, a prosperous city. The city had an imposing ziggurat (temple-tower), with many temples, storehouses, and residences. Abram and Sarai, his half sister and wife, went with his father to Haran in Syria, which like Ur was a center of the worship of the moon god, Sin (or Annar).<\/p>\n<h6>Abram’s Call<\/h6>\nThe call of God came to Abram directing him to leave his relatives and move to a land that the Lord would show him (12:1; cf. Acts 7:2-3). Abram obeyed. At the age of 75, he, Sarai, and his nephew Lot left Haran and went to Shechem, where the Lord appeared to him and promised that land to his descendants.<\/p>\nFamine drove Abram down to Egypt (Gn 12:10-20). Because of Sarai’s beauty, he feared that someone might kill him to get her, so he passed her off as his sister. She was taken into the pharaoh’s harem. When the Lord plagued Pharaoh because of this, Abram’s lie was discovered and Sarai was returned to him.<\/p>\n<h6>Abram and Lot<\/h6>\nAbram and Lot returned to Canaan, where strife broke out between Abram’s herdsmen and those of Lot. Abram suggested that they should separate, and he gave Lot the choice of territory. Lot chose the well-watered Jordan Valley and the cities of the plain, Sodom and Gomorrah (ch 13).<\/p>\n<h6>The Invasion of the Four Kings from the East<\/h6>\nThe four kings who invaded along the King’s Highway in Transjordan cannot be identified with certainty. Those kings were successful in their attack against the five cities of the plain, and they moved off with much booty and many captives, including Lot. Abram took 318 retainers, born in his household, and set off after them. By surprise attack, Abram recovered both Lot and the loot. On his return he was met by Melchizedek, king of Jerusalem, to whom Abram paid tithes (ch 14).<\/p>\n<h6>The Covenant<\/h6>\nThe Lord promised Abram a son as heir, and in an impressive nighttime ceremony, God made a covenant with Abram and promised him the land from the River of Egypt (Wadi el Arish) to the Euphrates (ch 15). Because of her own barrenness, Sarai gave her Egyptian maid, Hagar, to Abram. Hagar gave birth to Ishmael, the progenitor of the Arab peoples. When trouble arose between the women, Sarai sent Hagar away, which was her right according to Near Eastern customs (as illustrated by the Nuzi tablets). God showed mercy to Hagar and promised that she would have a great posterity (ch 16).<\/p>\nGod repeated his promise to Abram concerning his descendants and changed the names of Abram (“exalted father”) and Sarai to Abraham (“father of many”) and Sarah (“princess”). A covenant sign of circumcision was given to Abraham (ch 17). This operation had already been practiced among the Egyptians for several centuries.<\/p>\n<h6>The Destruction of the Cities of the Plain<\/h6>\nThe Lord and two angels appeared to Abraham and announced the birth of the promised heir within a year, as well as proclaimed the impending destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, concerning which Abraham bargained with God (18:22-33). Lot and his immediate family were rescued from Sodom, and the cities were destroyed by God with brimstone and fire (19:24-25). Lot’s two daughters, wishing to preserve their family line, got their father drunk and had sexual relations with him. Moab and Ammon, enemies of Israel in later times, were the result.<\/p>\nIn Genesis 20:1-18, Abraham again represented Sarah as his sister and got into trouble with Abimelech, king of Gerar.<\/p>\n<h6>Isaac<\/h6>\nWhen Isaac was born (21:1-3), trouble again broke out between Sarah and Hagar. Hagar was driven out a second time, and once more was befriended by the Lord.<\/p>\nA disagreement arose between Abraham and Abimelech concerning a well, but they made a covenant of peace at Beersheba (21:25-34).<\/p>\nGod tested Abraham’s faith by asking him to sacrifice Isaac on Mt Moriah, which probably is the same site David later bought from Araunah the Jebusite (2 Sm 24:16-25), the place where the temple was to stand. As Abraham was about to use the knife, God called to him and showed him a ram caught in a thicket. Isaac was freed and the animal was sacrificed in his stead.<\/p>\nSarah died at Hebron, and Abraham purchased the cave of Machpelah as a burial place from Ephron the Hittite (ch 23), in a transaction typical of Near Eastern business dealings. To find a wife for Isaac, Abraham sent his servant Eliezer back to the area of Haran, and the Lord directed Eliezer to Rebekah (ch 24).<\/p>\nChapter 25 records the marriage of Abraham to Keturah, who bore him a number of children. Abraham died at the age of 175 years and was buried in the cave of Machpelah by his two sons, Isaac and Ishmael.<\/p>\n<h5>The History of Jacob and Esau (25:19–37:1)<\/h5>\nRebekah gave birth to twin sons, Esau and Jacob. When the boys were grown, Esau sold his birthright to Jacob for a meal of red pottage (25:27-34).<\/p>\nWhen famine came to the land, Isaac went to Gerar, as his father had done (ch 20), and repeated his father’s lie by calling his wife his sister (26:1-11). Trouble arose with the Philistines over wells, but Isaac was a peaceable man and preferred digging new wells rather than fighting over old ones (vv 17-33).<\/p>\nIn Isaac’s old age, when his sight had failed, Rebekah connived with Jacob to trick Isaac into giving to Jacob the blessing of the firstborn, which was rightfully Esau’s. This oral blessing had legal validity and was irrevocable, according to the ancient Nuzi tablets. Fearing for Jacob’s life at the hands of Esau, Rebekah arranged to send Jacob to Haran to find a wife from among her own people. At Bethel, God appeared to Jacob in a dream of a ladder leading up to heaven; God renewed with Jacob the promise made to Abraham and Isaac (28:10-22).<\/p>\nJacob reached Haran, found his uncle Laban, and was employed by him (ch 29). His wages for seven years of labor were to be Laban’s younger daughter, Rachel, as his wife. But Laban substituted Leah, so that Jacob had to work another seven years for Rachel. The Lord prospered Jacob, but he continually had difficulties with Laban. The Lord directed Jacob back to Canaan (31:3), so he left secretly with his wives, children, and property. Laban pursued them because his household gods were missing (possession of these “gods” made the holder heir to the owner’s estate, according to Nuzi custom). Rachel had taken them but successfully concealed them from her father, and Laban went back to Haran.<\/p>\nFearing a meeting with Esau as they passed through Edom, Jacob sent gifts to his brother and divided his own party into two camps for security. On this return journey, Jacob had an unexpected wrestling bout with the Angel of the Lord, and he was left with a limp and a new name, Israel (ch 32).<\/p>\nThe meeting with Esau was friendly, and Jacob went on to Shechem (ch 33), where his sons killed the male Shechemites because of the rape of their sister Dinah (ch 34). God told Jacob to go to Bethel and build an altar to the Lord. All idols of foreign gods were buried (35:1-4). At Bethel, God reaffirmed his promise of a posterity and the land (vv 9-15). Rachel died on the way to Bethlehem, while giving birth to Benjamin, Jacob’s 12th and last son. Isaac died at Hebron at age 180 and was buried in the cave of Machpelah by Esau and Jacob.<\/p>\nGenesis 36 records “the generations of Esau” (v 1). Here Esau is also named Edom (“Red”; cf. 25:30).<\/p>\n<h5>The History of Joseph (37:2–50:26)<\/h5>\nJoseph was Jacob’s favorite son and thus incurred the jealousy of his brothers. This was heightened by Joseph’s dreams of lordship over them. Their resentment of Joseph came to a climax when Jacob gave Joseph a beautiful coat. The brothers determined to kill Joseph, but they compromised by selling him to a caravan of merchants, who took him to Egypt and sold him as a slave to Potiphar, an Egyptian captain of the guard (37:36; 39:1).<\/p>\nChapter 38 relates a historic case of levirate marriage. Judah failed to give his widowed daughter-in-law to his third son. She deceived him into fathering twin sons and forced him to acknowledge his faults. The elder son, Perez, is named in Luke’s genealogy of Jesus (Lk 3:33).<\/p>\nThe Lord blessed Joseph, who soon was put in charge of Potiphar’s household (Gn 39). The young man attracted the attention of Potiphar’s wife, who, after many attempts to seduce him, at last accused him of attempted rape. Sentenced on this charge, Joseph met with favor in prison, where he had opportunity to interpret dreams for two of the pharaoh’s servants (ch 40). When the king had dreams that his magicians and wise men could not interpret, Joseph was summoned from jail. Joseph told Pharaoh that the dreams meant seven years of plenty, followed by seven years of famine. Joseph was then exalted to the office of vizier, or prime minister, second only to the king, and put in charge of the administration of the land (41:37-44).<\/p>\nWhen the famine came to Palestine, Jacob sent his sons to Egypt to purchase grain. Joseph recognized his brothers but did not reveal his identity to them. Joseph put them to the test by accusing them of being spies (42:9), by keeping one of the brothers (Simeon) hostage (v 19), and by demanding that if they came to Egypt again, they must bring their youngest brother with them (42:20; 43:3). The famine became so severe in Canaan (43:1) that Jacob at last allowed Benjamin to go with his brothers to Egypt. The brothers were again set up by Joseph, who had his silver cup put into Benjamin’s grain sack and then had him apprehended as a thief (ch 44).<\/p>\nAt this point Joseph revealed his identity to his brothers (45:4-15) and there was much rejoicing. Joseph pointed out that it was God who had sent him to Egypt (vv 7-8), in order to preserve the lives of all the family. Jacob was then sent for (46:1), and Joseph met him in the land of Goshen (46:28-29). The Israelites were assigned land in the region of Goshen, where they prospered (47:27).<\/p>\nIn Jacob’s final illness, Joseph brought his two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, to his father for his blessing. Jacob gave the primary blessing to the second-born, Ephraim (48:13-20). Jacob blessed each of his own sons and then died at the age of at least 130 years. Joseph arranged for Jacob’s body to be prepared for burial according to Egyptian custom (50:2-3). After the burial of their father in the cave of Machpelah at Hebron, Joseph’s brothers worried about vengeance, but Joseph declared, “As far as I am concerned, God turned into good what you meant for evil. He brought me to the high position I have today so I could save the lives of many people” (v 20, nlt<\/span>). Joseph died at age 110 with the prophetic request that when the Israelites went up from Egypt they would take his bones with them (50:25; cf. Ex 13:19; Jos 24:32).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Abraham; Adam (Person); Covenant; Creation; Eve; Fall of Man; Flood, The; Isaac; Jacob #1; Joseph #1; Nations; Noah #1; Patriarchs, Period of the.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>GENESIS, Book of<\/h3>\nFirst book of the Bible.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Name<\/p>\n• Author<\/p>\n• Date<\/p>\n• Purpose<\/p>\n• Structure<\/p>\n• Content<\/p>\nName<\/p>\nThe name Genesis comes into English as a transliteration of the Greek word meaning “origin” or “beginning.” This name was given to the book in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, known as the Septuagint. Genesis reflects both the content of the book and the Hebrew name for it, which is taken from its first word, bere’shith<\/span>,<\/em> “in the beginning.”<\/p>\nAuthor<\/p>\nThe authorship of Genesis is closely related to the authorship of the entire Pentateuch (lit. “five-volumed,” the first five books of the Bible, which in Hebrew are called the Torah). It is clear that the Bible regards the human author of these books as Moses. On several occasions the Lord commanded Moses to write down various things: “in a book” (Ex 17:14) “write these words” (34:27). The Pentateuch reports that “Moses wrote all the words of the Lord<\/span>” (24:4); he wrote the itinerary of the exodus wanderings (Nm 33:2); “Moses wrote this law” (Dt 31:9). (Here it is not certain that all five books are meant, but it must refer to at least the greater part of Deuteronomy.) In Exodus 24:7 it is said that Moses read the Book of the Covenant, which he must have just completed.<\/p>\nThe rest of the OT bears witness to the writing of the Pentateuch by Moses. David referred to “the law of Moses” (1 Kgs 2:3). In the time of Josiah, there was found in the temple the “Book of the Law of the Lord<\/span> . . . given through Moses” (2 Chr 34:14, nlt<\/span>). Day by day Ezra read from “the Book of the Law of God” (Neh 8:18, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nIn the NT, Jesus refers to “the book of Moses” (Mk 12:26; Lk 20:37) and otherwise mentions the commands or statements of Moses (Mt 8:4; 19:8; Mk 7:10; cf. Lk 16:31; 24:44). The Jews also quoted from the Torah as coming from Moses, and Jesus did not contradict them.<\/p>\nOf Genesis in particular, it may be said that Moses had the opportunity and ability to write the book. He could have written it during his years in Egypt or while exiled with the Kenites. As the recognized leader of the Israelites, he would have had access to, or perhaps even custody of, the records that Jacob brought from Canaan. He was “instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians” (Acts 7:22) and probably could have written in several languages and in several scripts (hieroglyphic, cuneiform, Old Hebrew). Although Moses was admirably fitted for the task of writing, one must remember that he was not putting together a human composition but was writing under the inspiration of God (2 Pt 1:21). We may with confidence conclude that Moses was the human author of Genesis.<\/p>\nThe liberal view of the authorship of Genesis is that the book is an editorial composite—a view first put forward by a French physician, Jean Astruc, who suggested that the different names for God indicated different documents or sources for the writing of the book. The German higher critics expanded the view of the use of documents in the writing of Genesis and developed it into the Graf-Wellhausen-Kuenen, or Documentary, Hypothesis, which may also be called the JEDP theory of the authorship of the book. This view holds that there were four basic documents: (1) J, which uses the name YHWH (Jehovah or Yahweh) for God, dates from about the ninth century BC<\/span> and comes from Judah; (2) E uses the name Elohim, dates from the eighth century, and comes from the northern kingdom; (3) D is Deuteronomy and is supposed to come from the time of Josiah, about 621 BC<\/span>; and (4) P is the priestly element, which deals with matters of the priesthood and ritual, dating to the fifth century BC<\/span> or later. Some may date portions of Genesis as late as the Hellenistic period. According to this theory, the various documents were blended together by editors, so that there was a JE, JED, and so on.<\/p>\nThe science of archaeology discredited many of the extreme postulations of these critics, and the work of W. F. Albright and his followers did much to restore confidence in the historicity of Genesis. Within the last several decades, the patriarchal narratives and the account of Joseph have again come under strong attack, but these views are extreme, and much of the evidence adduced by Albright and earlier scholars like R. D. Wilson, W. H. Green, and others still has validity.<\/p>\nDate<\/p>\nThe date of the book is also a matter of debate. Even among those who accept Mosaic authorship there is debate as to when Moses lived. Based on the biblical data, Moses should have lived in the 15th century BC<\/span> (cf. Jgs 11:26; 1 Kgs 6:1), but many scholars incline toward a 13th-century date. As outlined above, the liberal view of the date of Genesis would be from the ninth to the fifth centuries BC<\/span>, with the final editing coming around the fifth century or perhaps even later.<\/p>\nPurpose<\/p>\nGenesis sketches the origin of many things: the universe, the earth, plants, animals, and mankind. It gives the beginnings of human institutions, professions, and crafts. It describes the origin of sin and death, and illustrates the insidious working of Satan in human life. Above all, Genesis relates the beginning of the history of redemption with the announcement of a Redeemer who was to come (Gn 3:15). It names the early progenitors in the lineage of the Messiah and the beginning of the Hebrew people through whom the Bible and the Savior came. Genesis also gives a selective history of people and events as viewed from the perspective of the purposes of God.<\/p>\nStructure<\/p>\nThe book is divided into 11 parts of uneven length, each set off by the expression “these are the generations [descendants, history] of” (2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1; 37:2). Only three times does the formula coincide with the first verse of a chapter. Usually called a heading or superscription, the expression serves as a kind of link between what precedes and what follows.<\/p>\n\nContent<\/p>\n<h5>The Creation (1:1–2:25)<\/h5>\nThese two chapters have been a scientific-theological battleground for many years, as researchers and students have tried to probe the origins of the universe and of life. Much of the evidence is not subject to scientific scrutiny, for science by definition requires that the evidence must be reproducible by experiment.<\/p>\nThe statement of Genesis 1:1 remains the grandest, most precise, and most accurate statement of origins: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” He did this ex nihilo<\/em> (“out of nothing”) by his word (Heb 11:3); he spoke the word of command and it was done (Gn 1:3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20; Ps 33:6, 9).<\/p>\nThe date of the beginning is unknown. Uniformitarian cosmogonists (students of the origins of the universe who believe that natural events have always followed a uniform pattern; cf. 2 Pt 3:3-7) have speculated that the beginning of the universe was billions of years ago. But some creationists posit a world thousands of years old.<\/p>\nTo accommodate geological ages and the existence of extinct animals, some interpreters have proposed a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, with Genesis 1:2–2:3 representing a second or new creation. But this is conjecture. So is the idea that each day represents a geological age.<\/p>\nAs the text stands, there is a correlation between the first three days and the second three days. Day one saw the creation of light; day four, the light bearers. Day two was the time of the creation of the firmament (better, “expanse”), which divided the waters; day five, birds and swarming water creatures. On day three, God made the dry land and plants; on day six he created the land animals and man. He made man in the image of God (Gn 1:26), “a little less than God” (Ps 8:5), and gave him dominion over the earth. He made everything “according to their kinds,” so that each kind is distinct and unique. The perfection of his work is affirmed in that “God saw that it was good” (Gn 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21; “very good,” v 31). The seventh day was a time of cessation from the activity of creating and served as a type for mankind’s day of rest (2:1-3).<\/p>\nCritical scholarship eyes 2:4-25 as a doublet in conflict with Genesis 1:1–2:3. To conservative scholars, the second chapter is the same account from a different perspective. Chapter 1 gives the Creation from the standpoint of sequence; chapter 2 shows it in view of the centrality of mankind in God’s creative work.<\/p>\nChapter 2 gives details of the creation of man of “dust from the ground” (v 7) and woman from a rib of the man (vv 21-22). She was created to be “a companion who will help him” (vv 18-20). They were created as mature adults, with the gift of speech and with great intelligence. Adam had imagination and vocabulary sufficient for naming all of the animal species (v 19).<\/p>\nThe location of the Garden of Eden is given (vv 10-14). Two of the four rivers, the Tigris and the Euphrates, can be identified with certainty. So man lived in this beautiful garden in the bliss of innocence.<\/p>\n<h5>The History of Humankind from Eden to Babel (3:1–11:26)<\/h5>\n<h6>The Fall<\/h6>\nThe loss of Eden and the break in fellowship with God is the saddest chapter in human history. The serpent, the devil, approached Eve with the same philosophy he always uses: doubt of God’s word (Gn 3:1), denial of death (v 4), and the suggestion of equality with God (v 5). He gained access to her will by deceiving her with the promise that the fruit would make her as wise as God is (Gn 3:5; cf. 1 Jn 2:16). Eve was deceived, but when she offered the fruit to Adam, he took it willingly, knowing what he was doing (Gn 3:6; cf. 1 Tm 2:14). Later, he tried to blame God for giving him the wife who gave him the fruit (Gn 3:12). Fellowship with God was broken (v 8), yet God came seeking Adam and found him.<\/p>\nWith sin came judgment, and the Lord pronounced righteous judgment on the serpent, the woman, and the man. The earth was also “subjected to frustration” and now groans as it awaits renewal (Rom 8:21-22). God gave hope to man and a promise of a Redeemer (Gn 3:15), who was to bruise the serpent’s head. Adam and Eve were forced out of the Garden, and it was made inaccessible to them.<\/p>\nThe impatience of humankind is shown in Eve’s expectation that her son Cain was the promised Deliverer. Instead, he developed a wrong-hearted attitude toward God and became so jealous of his younger brother that he murdered him. Apprehended by God and confronted with his crime, Cain showed only self-pity and went east from Eden, where he built a city (4:1-16). Chapter 4 closes with another contrast: the brazen Lamech, who called for vengeance, while others began to call upon the name of the Lord.<\/p>\n<h6>The Generations of Adam<\/h6>\nThis genealogical table (5:1-32) brings humankind to the time of Noah and the Flood. The longevity of the antediluvian patriarchs seems very striking to us, but one must remember that the earth had not yet been subjected to pollution and that the effects of sin on the human race were still nominal. The refrain “and he died” reminds us of man’s mortality. For Enoch, however, there was something better: “He enjoyed a close relationship with God throughout his life. Then, suddenly, he disappeared because God took him” (5:24, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h6>The Flood<\/h6>\nWith increased population came an eruption of sin (6:1-5). As men multiplied, so did their corruption. The universal condemnation of verse 5 shows a world ripe for judgment. Noah, however, “found favor with the Lord<\/span>,” for he was a righteous and blameless man who walked with God (6:8-9).<\/p>\nThe Lord planned to annihilate the human race, but he determined to save Noah and his family. Intending to flood the earth, God instructed Noah to build an ark. Noah was directed to take animals aboard the ark, two by two, male and female, for the preservation of each species. When all was in readiness, the Flood came: “the underground waters burst forth on the earth, and the rain fell in mighty torrents from the sky” (7:11, nlt<\/span>). It rained for 40 days and 40 nights. The highest mountains were covered, and life outside the ark perished. “But God remembered Noah” and sent a wind to evaporate the waters (8:1). Eventually the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat (v 4). Noah made a sacrifice to the Lord, and the Lord determined that he would never again bring such destruction upon the earth.<\/p>\nThe Flood is another of God’s acts that has been much debated. Many have argued for a local flood, which affected only part of Mesopotamia. Archaeologists have pointed to various flood strata in the excavation of Mesopotamian city-mounds as evidence for the account of the flood and have cited the various flood stories from that area as the source of the Genesis record. The epic of Gilgamesh gives an interesting tale of this hero, who went on a mission to visit Utnapishtim, the cuneiform Noah, in quest of eternal life. The flood story told by Utnapishtim has many parallels to Genesis, but there are greater contrasts, which demonstrate that the Bible preserves the true account.<\/p>\nBoth the Genesis account and the references to it in the NT (cf. 2 Pt 3:6) favor the view that the deluge was not a minor episode in the Tigris-Euphrates area but was an unprecedented worldwide catastrophe. Christian geologists affirm that the Flood had far-reaching effects on the earth itself. Flood stories are almost universally known, lending support to the conclusion that the Flood covered the whole earth. Following the Flood, God blessed Noah and his sons, Ham, Shem, and Japheth. God made a covenant with Noah, promising that he would never again send a worldwide flood. As a sign of this, he established the rainbow.<\/p>\nNoah was the first tiller of the soil, and he planted a vineyard (9:20). Noah became drunk from wine he made and lay uncovered in his tent. Ham saw him and reported this to his brothers, who discreetly covered him. Ham and his son Canaan were cursed; Shem and Japheth were blessed.<\/p>\n<h6>The History of the Nations<\/h6>\n“This is the history of the families of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, the three sons of Noah. Many children were born to them after the Flood” (10:1, nlt<\/span>). This chapter lists the descendants of Noah’s three sons, in the order of Japheth (vv 2-5), Ham (vv 6-20), and Shem (vv 21-31). Many of the names of their descendants are preserved in tribes and nations of the world.<\/p>\n<h6>The Tower of Babel<\/h6>\nThe building of the Tower of Babel (“Gate of God”) illustrates man’s perversity and his tendency to want independence from God. The desire of man to displace God follows the fateful example of Lucifer and is a basic tenet of many cults. God thwarted the designs of the builders of Babel by confusing their languages, so that the project came to a halt (11:1-9). The site of this tower is not known with certainty. Some associate it with Birs Nimrud, not far from the ruins of the city of Babylon. Genesis 11:10-25 picks up the line of Shem and carries it down to Terah, the father of Abram.<\/p>\n<h5>The History of Abraham (11:27–25:10) and Isaac (21:1–28:5)<\/h5>\nAbram came from Ur of the Chaldees, a prosperous city. The city had an imposing ziggurat (temple-tower), with many temples, storehouses, and residences. Abram and Sarai, his half sister and wife, went with his father to Haran in Syria, which like Ur was a center of the worship of the moon god, Sin (or Annar).<\/p>\n<h6>Abram’s Call<\/h6>\nThe call of God came to Abram directing him to leave his relatives and move to a land that the Lord would show him (12:1; cf. Acts 7:2-3). Abram obeyed. At the age of 75, he, Sarai, and his nephew Lot left Haran and went to Shechem, where the Lord appeared to him and promised that land to his descendants.<\/p>\nFamine drove Abram down to Egypt (Gn 12:10-20). Because of Sarai’s beauty, he feared that someone might kill him to get her, so he passed her off as his sister. She was taken into the pharaoh’s harem. When the Lord plagued Pharaoh because of this, Abram’s lie was discovered and Sarai was returned to him.<\/p>\n<h6>Abram and Lot<\/h6>\nAbram and Lot returned to Canaan, where strife broke out between Abram’s herdsmen and those of Lot. Abram suggested that they should separate, and he gave Lot the choice of territory. Lot chose the well-watered Jordan Valley and the cities of the plain, Sodom and Gomorrah (ch 13).<\/p>\n<h6>The Invasion of the Four Kings from the East<\/h6>\nThe four kings who invaded along the King’s Highway in Transjordan cannot be identified with certainty. Those kings were successful in their attack against the five cities of the plain, and they moved off with much booty and many captives, including Lot. Abram took 318 retainers, born in his household, and set off after them. By surprise attack, Abram recovered both Lot and the loot. On his return he was met by Melchizedek, king of Jerusalem, to whom Abram paid tithes (ch 14).<\/p>\n<h6>The Covenant<\/h6>\nThe Lord promised Abram a son as heir, and in an impressive nighttime ceremony, God made a covenant with Abram and promised him the land from the River of Egypt (Wadi el Arish) to the Euphrates (ch 15). Because of her own barrenness, Sarai gave her Egyptian maid, Hagar, to Abram. Hagar gave birth to Ishmael, the progenitor of the Arab peoples. When trouble arose between the women, Sarai sent Hagar away, which was her right according to Near Eastern customs (as illustrated by the Nuzi tablets). God showed mercy to Hagar and promised that she would have a great posterity (ch 16).<\/p>\nGod repeated his promise to Abram concerning his descendants and changed the names of Abram (“exalted father”) and Sarai to Abraham (“father of many”) and Sarah (“princess”). A covenant sign of circumcision was given to Abraham (ch 17). This operation had already been practiced among the Egyptians for several centuries.<\/p>\n<h6>The Destruction of the Cities of the Plain<\/h6>\nThe Lord and two angels appeared to Abraham and announced the birth of the promised heir within a year, as well as proclaimed the impending destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, concerning which Abraham bargained with God (18:22-33). Lot and his immediate family were rescued from Sodom, and the cities were destroyed by God with brimstone and fire (19:24-25). Lot’s two daughters, wishing to preserve their family line, got their father drunk and had sexual relations with him. Moab and Ammon, enemies of Israel in later times, were the result.<\/p>\nIn Genesis 20:1-18, Abraham again represented Sarah as his sister and got into trouble with Abimelech, king of Gerar.<\/p>\n<h6>Isaac<\/h6>\nWhen Isaac was born (21:1-3), trouble again broke out between Sarah and Hagar. Hagar was driven out a second time, and once more was befriended by the Lord.<\/p>\nA disagreement arose between Abraham and Abimelech concerning a well, but they made a covenant of peace at Beersheba (21:25-34).<\/p>\nGod tested Abraham’s faith by asking him to sacrifice Isaac on Mt Moriah, which probably is the same site David later bought from Araunah the Jebusite (2 Sm 24:16-25), the place where the temple was to stand. As Abraham was about to use the knife, God called to him and showed him a ram caught in a thicket. Isaac was freed and the animal was sacrificed in his stead.<\/p>\nSarah died at Hebron, and Abraham purchased the cave of Machpelah as a burial place from Ephron the Hittite (ch 23), in a transaction typical of Near Eastern business dealings. To find a wife for Isaac, Abraham sent his servant Eliezer back to the area of Haran, and the Lord directed Eliezer to Rebekah (ch 24).<\/p>\nChapter 25 records the marriage of Abraham to Keturah, who bore him a number of children. Abraham died at the age of 175 years and was buried in the cave of Machpelah by his two sons, Isaac and Ishmael.<\/p>\n<h5>The History of Jacob and Esau (25:19–37:1)<\/h5>\nRebekah gave birth to twin sons, Esau and Jacob. When the boys were grown, Esau sold his birthright to Jacob for a meal of red pottage (25:27-34).<\/p>\nWhen famine came to the land, Isaac went to Gerar, as his father had done (ch 20), and repeated his father’s lie by calling his wife his sister (26:1-11). Trouble arose with the Philistines over wells, but Isaac was a peaceable man and preferred digging new wells rather than fighting over old ones (vv 17-33).<\/p>\nIn Isaac’s old age, when his sight had failed, Rebekah connived with Jacob to trick Isaac into giving to Jacob the blessing of the firstborn, which was rightfully Esau’s. This oral blessing had legal validity and was irrevocable, according to the ancient Nuzi tablets. Fearing for Jacob’s life at the hands of Esau, Rebekah arranged to send Jacob to Haran to find a wife from among her own people. At Bethel, God appeared to Jacob in a dream of a ladder leading up to heaven; God renewed with Jacob the promise made to Abraham and Isaac (28:10-22).<\/p>\nJacob reached Haran, found his uncle Laban, and was employed by him (ch 29). His wages for seven years of labor were to be Laban’s younger daughter, Rachel, as his wife. But Laban substituted Leah, so that Jacob had to work another seven years for Rachel. The Lord prospered Jacob, but he continually had difficulties with Laban. The Lord directed Jacob back to Canaan (31:3), so he left secretly with his wives, children, and property. Laban pursued them because his household gods were missing (possession of these “gods” made the holder heir to the owner’s estate, according to Nuzi custom). Rachel had taken them but successfully concealed them from her father, and Laban went back to Haran.<\/p>\nFearing a meeting with Esau as they passed through Edom, Jacob sent gifts to his brother and divided his own party into two camps for security. On this return journey, Jacob had an unexpected wrestling bout with the Angel of the Lord, and he was left with a limp and a new name, Israel (ch 32).<\/p>\nThe meeting with Esau was friendly, and Jacob went on to Shechem (ch 33), where his sons killed the male Shechemites because of the rape of their sister Dinah (ch 34). God told Jacob to go to Bethel and build an altar to the Lord. All idols of foreign gods were buried (35:1-4). At Bethel, God reaffirmed his promise of a posterity and the land (vv 9-15). Rachel died on the way to Bethlehem, while giving birth to Benjamin, Jacob’s 12th and last son. Isaac died at Hebron at age 180 and was buried in the cave of Machpelah by Esau and Jacob.<\/p>\nGenesis 36 records “the generations of Esau” (v 1). Here Esau is also named Edom (“Red”; cf. 25:30).<\/p>\n<h5>The History of Joseph (37:2–50:26)<\/h5>\nJoseph was Jacob’s favorite son and thus incurred the jealousy of his brothers. This was heightened by Joseph’s dreams of lordship over them. Their resentment of Joseph came to a climax when Jacob gave Joseph a beautiful coat. The brothers determined to kill Joseph, but they compromised by selling him to a caravan of merchants, who took him to Egypt and sold him as a slave to Potiphar, an Egyptian captain of the guard (37:36; 39:1).<\/p>\nChapter 38 relates a historic case of levirate marriage. Judah failed to give his widowed daughter-in-law to his third son. She deceived him into fathering twin sons and forced him to acknowledge his faults. The elder son, Perez, is named in Luke’s genealogy of Jesus (Lk 3:33).<\/p>\nThe Lord blessed Joseph, who soon was put in charge of Potiphar’s household (Gn 39). The young man attracted the attention of Potiphar’s wife, who, after many attempts to seduce him, at last accused him of attempted rape. Sentenced on this charge, Joseph met with favor in prison, where he had opportunity to interpret dreams for two of the pharaoh’s servants (ch 40). When the king had dreams that his magicians and wise men could not interpret, Joseph was summoned from jail. Joseph told Pharaoh that the dreams meant seven years of plenty, followed by seven years of famine. Joseph was then exalted to the office of vizier, or prime minister, second only to the king, and put in charge of the administration of the land (41:37-44).<\/p>\nWhen the famine came to Palestine, Jacob sent his sons to Egypt to purchase grain. Joseph recognized his brothers but did not reveal his identity to them. Joseph put them to the test by accusing them of being spies (42:9), by keeping one of the brothers (Simeon) hostage (v 19), and by demanding that if they came to Egypt again, they must bring their youngest brother with them (42:20; 43:3). The famine became so severe in Canaan (43:1) that Jacob at last allowed Benjamin to go with his brothers to Egypt. The brothers were again set up by Joseph, who had his silver cup put into Benjamin’s grain sack and then had him apprehended as a thief (ch 44).<\/p>\nAt this point Joseph revealed his identity to his brothers (45:4-15) and there was much rejoicing. Joseph pointed out that it was God who had sent him to Egypt (vv 7-8), in order to preserve the lives of all the family. Jacob was then sent for (46:1), and Joseph met him in the land of Goshen (46:28-29). The Israelites were assigned land in the region of Goshen, where they prospered (47:27).<\/p>\nIn Jacob’s final illness, Joseph brought his two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, to his father for his blessing. Jacob gave the primary blessing to the second-born, Ephraim (48:13-20). Jacob blessed each of his own sons and then died at the age of at least 130 years. Joseph arranged for Jacob’s body to be prepared for burial according to Egyptian custom (50:2-3). After the burial of their father in the cave of Machpelah at Hebron, Joseph’s brothers worried about vengeance, but Joseph declared, “As far as I am concerned, God turned into good what you meant for evil. He brought me to the high position I have today so I could save the lives of many people” (v 20, nlt<\/span>). Joseph died at age 110 with the prophetic request that when the Israelites went up from Egypt they would take his bones with them (50:25; cf. Ex 13:19; Jos 24:32).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Abraham; Adam (Person); Covenant; Creation; Eve; Fall of Man; Flood, The; Isaac; Jacob #1; Joseph #1; Nations; Noah #1; Patriarchs, Period of the.<\/p>","summary_ro":"GENESIS, Book of First book of the Bible. Preview • Name • Author • Date • Purpose • Structure • Content Name The name Genesis comes into English as a transliteration of the Greek word meaning “origin” or “beginning.” This name was given to the book in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, known as the Septuagint. Genesis reflects both the content of the book and the Hebrew name for it, which is taken from its first word, bere’shith, “in the beginning.” Author The authorship of Gene...","summary_en":"GENESIS, Book of First book of the Bible. Preview • Name • Author • Date • Purpose • Structure • Content Name The name Genesis comes into English as a transliteration of the Greek word meaning “origin” or “beginning.” This name was given to the book in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, known as the Septuagint. Genesis reflects both the content of the book and the Hebrew name for it, which is taken from its first word, bere’shith, “in the beginning.” Author The authorship of Gene...","source":"Articles\/G.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":34529,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Sex, Sexuality*","title_en":"Sex, Sexuality*","content_ro":"<h3>SEX, SEXUALITY*<\/h3>\nUnlike some religious and philosophical systems, the Bible takes a positive view of human sexuality. According to the OT’s account of Creation, it was God himself who made people sexual beings. Being male or female is part of what it means to be created in the image of God (Gn 1:26-28). Above everything else, therefore, sexuality is a precious aspect of what a person is,<\/em> not merely a description of what he or she does.<\/em><\/p>\nIn line with this positive approach, the OT sees nothing embarrassing in the bodily differences between the sexes (Gn 2:25) and nothing shameful in physical expressions of lovemaking (Prv 5:18-19; Eccl 9:9). The Song of Songs, in particular, is a most beautiful love poem. Its powerful language should not be so spiritualized that the physical passion it describes is stripped of its delight and candor.<\/p>\nPaul strikes the same positive note in his letters to Corinth and to Timothy at Ephesus. Sexual vice was rampant in both these cities. Partly as a reaction to this, a negative, ascetic attitude was threatening to take control in the life of Christians. Marriage was being forbidden (1 Tm 4:3) and married couples were abstaining from sexual intercourse in the belief that this would help them to become more spiritually mature (cf. 1 Cor 7:5).<\/p>\nPaul had no hesitation in branding such attitudes as heretical. Recalling his readers to the message of Genesis, he encouraged them to receive God’s gifts thankfully (1 Tm 4:3-5). Husbands and wives, he writes, are mutually obliged to satisfy each other’s sexual needs (1 Cor 7:3-4).<\/p>\nMost obviously, God made sex for procreation (Gn 1:28). But sex is for relationship as well as procreation. Genesis 2 describes how God made woman to fill man’s relationship vacuum (2:18-24). The relational purpose of human sexuality embraces far more than physical intercourse. In this broad sense, being male or being female is a God-given aid to making all sorts of relationships, including some not normally thought of as sexual at all.<\/p>\nThe Bible does not, of course, ignore the darker side of human nature. Having described the goodness of sex in the Creator’s perfect plan, Genesis goes on to explain how man’s disobedience to God spoiled sex, just as it spoiled every other aspect of human life.<\/p>\nNudity became a matter of embarrassment and fear, as men and women eyed each other as sex objects instead of as people with physical differences (Gn 3:7-10). On the relational side, trust and tenderness gave way to betrayal and harshness. Here lies the root cause of all the discrimination and abuse that fuel modern feminist protests. And procreation was spoiled, too, as the marvelous experience of childbirth was marred by unnecessary pain and distress.<\/p>\nThis is the context in which the Bible’s ban on extramarital intercourse should be read; it prohibits adultery (Ex 20:14) and any kind of extramarital or premarital sex (1 Cor 6:18; 1 Thes 4:3). The Bible does not usually pause to back up its prohibitions with arguments, but on the rare occasions when it does expand its veto on extramarital intercourse, the reasons given are highly instructive. There is no appeal to consequences (these things are wrong because they result in disease and unwanted babies) or even to motives (these things are wrong if they are done in an unloving spirit). All extramarital sex is wrong in itself,<\/em> simply because the body is not meant for sexual immorality and those who commit sexual sins sin against their own bodies (1 Cor 6:13, 18). Sexual intercourse is a unique kind of body language that the Creator has designed to express and seal that special, exclusive, life-long relationship between a man and a woman which the Bible labels “marriage.”<\/p>\nThe Bible also prohibits homosexuality (Lv 18:22; Rom 1:26-27; 1 Cor 6:9-10; 1 Tm 1:9-10). The only verses that provide an explanation for this prohibition are Romans 1:24-27. Essentially, these verses indicate that God gave up on those who gave up on him when they turned from worshiping the Creator to worshiping things God made—that is, when they became idolaters. As such, God abandoned them, as they abandoned themselves to their own sinful and sexual desires, especially practicing homosexuality. Thus, homosexuality is seen as a violation of the natural created order and thereby an offense to God the Creator who created men and women, male and female, for procreation.<\/p>\nThe Bible’s advice to anyone caught up in sexual temptation is practical: flee from temptation. When Joseph was invited by another man’s wife to go to bed with her, he left his cloak in her hand and ran out of the house (Gn 39:12). And Paul tells his Christian readers to follow Joseph’s good example (1 Cor 6:18; 2 Tm 2:22). This is an acknowledgment of the power of the normal person’s sex drive, not a counsel of despair. The power of the Holy Spirit, Paul taught, gives any believer the strength to win the war against sexual temptation. He knew Christians who had found the Spirit’s power to gain self-control and conquer the most deeply ingrained habits (1 Cor 6:9-11; Gal 5:22-23; 2 Tm 1:7).<\/p>\nFinally, there is a strong hint in the NT that God is going to end human sexuality just as he began it. There will be no marriage, Jesus taught, in heaven (Mt 22:30). That is an unlikely but fitting climax to the Bible’s teaching on sex and sexuality. When there is no more death, the need to procreate will be over. And when relationships are perfectly loving, there will no longer be any need for a sexual prop to support them. So both of God’s main purposes for human sexuality will be perfectly fulfilled in eternity.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Divorce; Family Life and Relations; Man; Marriage, Marriage Customs; Virgin; Woman.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SEX, SEXUALITY*<\/h3>\nUnlike some religious and philosophical systems, the Bible takes a positive view of human sexuality. According to the OT’s account of Creation, it was God himself who made people sexual beings. Being male or female is part of what it means to be created in the image of God (Gn 1:26-28). Above everything else, therefore, sexuality is a precious aspect of what a person is,<\/em> not merely a description of what he or she does.<\/em><\/p>\nIn line with this positive approach, the OT sees nothing embarrassing in the bodily differences between the sexes (Gn 2:25) and nothing shameful in physical expressions of lovemaking (Prv 5:18-19; Eccl 9:9). The Song of Songs, in particular, is a most beautiful love poem. Its powerful language should not be so spiritualized that the physical passion it describes is stripped of its delight and candor.<\/p>\nPaul strikes the same positive note in his letters to Corinth and to Timothy at Ephesus. Sexual vice was rampant in both these cities. Partly as a reaction to this, a negative, ascetic attitude was threatening to take control in the life of Christians. Marriage was being forbidden (1 Tm 4:3) and married couples were abstaining from sexual intercourse in the belief that this would help them to become more spiritually mature (cf. 1 Cor 7:5).<\/p>\nPaul had no hesitation in branding such attitudes as heretical. Recalling his readers to the message of Genesis, he encouraged them to receive God’s gifts thankfully (1 Tm 4:3-5). Husbands and wives, he writes, are mutually obliged to satisfy each other’s sexual needs (1 Cor 7:3-4).<\/p>\nMost obviously, God made sex for procreation (Gn 1:28). But sex is for relationship as well as procreation. Genesis 2 describes how God made woman to fill man’s relationship vacuum (2:18-24). The relational purpose of human sexuality embraces far more than physical intercourse. In this broad sense, being male or being female is a God-given aid to making all sorts of relationships, including some not normally thought of as sexual at all.<\/p>\nThe Bible does not, of course, ignore the darker side of human nature. Having described the goodness of sex in the Creator’s perfect plan, Genesis goes on to explain how man’s disobedience to God spoiled sex, just as it spoiled every other aspect of human life.<\/p>\nNudity became a matter of embarrassment and fear, as men and women eyed each other as sex objects instead of as people with physical differences (Gn 3:7-10). On the relational side, trust and tenderness gave way to betrayal and harshness. Here lies the root cause of all the discrimination and abuse that fuel modern feminist protests. And procreation was spoiled, too, as the marvelous experience of childbirth was marred by unnecessary pain and distress.<\/p>\nThis is the context in which the Bible’s ban on extramarital intercourse should be read; it prohibits adultery (Ex 20:14) and any kind of extramarital or premarital sex (1 Cor 6:18; 1 Thes 4:3). The Bible does not usually pause to back up its prohibitions with arguments, but on the rare occasions when it does expand its veto on extramarital intercourse, the reasons given are highly instructive. There is no appeal to consequences (these things are wrong because they result in disease and unwanted babies) or even to motives (these things are wrong if they are done in an unloving spirit). All extramarital sex is wrong in itself,<\/em> simply because the body is not meant for sexual immorality and those who commit sexual sins sin against their own bodies (1 Cor 6:13, 18). Sexual intercourse is a unique kind of body language that the Creator has designed to express and seal that special, exclusive, life-long relationship between a man and a woman which the Bible labels “marriage.”<\/p>\nThe Bible also prohibits homosexuality (Lv 18:22; Rom 1:26-27; 1 Cor 6:9-10; 1 Tm 1:9-10). The only verses that provide an explanation for this prohibition are Romans 1:24-27. Essentially, these verses indicate that God gave up on those who gave up on him when they turned from worshiping the Creator to worshiping things God made—that is, when they became idolaters. As such, God abandoned them, as they abandoned themselves to their own sinful and sexual desires, especially practicing homosexuality. Thus, homosexuality is seen as a violation of the natural created order and thereby an offense to God the Creator who created men and women, male and female, for procreation.<\/p>\nThe Bible’s advice to anyone caught up in sexual temptation is practical: flee from temptation. When Joseph was invited by another man’s wife to go to bed with her, he left his cloak in her hand and ran out of the house (Gn 39:12). And Paul tells his Christian readers to follow Joseph’s good example (1 Cor 6:18; 2 Tm 2:22). This is an acknowledgment of the power of the normal person’s sex drive, not a counsel of despair. The power of the Holy Spirit, Paul taught, gives any believer the strength to win the war against sexual temptation. He knew Christians who had found the Spirit’s power to gain self-control and conquer the most deeply ingrained habits (1 Cor 6:9-11; Gal 5:22-23; 2 Tm 1:7).<\/p>\nFinally, there is a strong hint in the NT that God is going to end human sexuality just as he began it. There will be no marriage, Jesus taught, in heaven (Mt 22:30). That is an unlikely but fitting climax to the Bible’s teaching on sex and sexuality. When there is no more death, the need to procreate will be over. And when relationships are perfectly loving, there will no longer be any need for a sexual prop to support them. So both of God’s main purposes for human sexuality will be perfectly fulfilled in eternity.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Divorce; Family Life and Relations; Man; Marriage, Marriage Customs; Virgin; Woman.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SEX, SEXUALITY* Unlike some religious and philosophical systems, the Bible takes a positive view of human sexuality. According to the OT’s account of Creation, it was God himself who made people sexual beings. Being male or female is part of what it means to be created in the image of God (Gn 1:26-28). Above everything else, therefore, sexuality is a precious aspect of what a person is, not merely a description of what he or she does. In line with this positive approach, the OT sees nothing e...","summary_en":"SEX, SEXUALITY* Unlike some religious and philosophical systems, the Bible takes a positive view of human sexuality. According to the OT’s account of Creation, it was God himself who made people sexual beings. Being male or female is part of what it means to be created in the image of God (Gn 1:26-28). Above everything else, therefore, sexuality is a precious aspect of what a person is, not merely a description of what he or she does. In line with this positive approach, the OT sees nothing e...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":42854,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:18","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:18","content_ro":"2:18-23<\/strong> As human creation was the climax of ch 1, so human intimacy is the high point of ch 2. God’s concern for mutual human support and companionship finds no parallel in ancient Near Eastern literature.<\/p>","content_en":"2:18-23<\/strong> As human creation was the climax of ch 1, so human intimacy is the high point of ch 2. God’s concern for mutual human support and companionship finds no parallel in ancient Near Eastern literature.<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:18-23 As human creation was the climax of ch 1, so human intimacy is the high point of ch 2. God’s concern for mutual human support and companionship finds no parallel in ancient Near Eastern literature.","summary_en":"2:18-23 As human creation was the climax of ch 1, so human intimacy is the high point of ch 2. God’s concern for mutual human support and companionship finds no parallel in ancient Near Eastern literature.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":42855,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:18","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:18","content_ro":"2:18<\/strong> It is not good:<\/em> This is God’s first negative assessment of an otherwise excellent creation (1:31). The<\/em> Lord<\/span> God<\/em> is portrayed as a father who obtains a bride for his son (cp. ch 24). • The answer to the man’s need is a helper who is just right for him<\/em>; she is his perfect complement, made in the same image of God (1:26-27), given the same commission (1:28; 2:15), and obligated by the same prohibition (2:17). The man cannot fulfill his created purpose alone.<\/p>","content_en":"2:18<\/strong> It is not good:<\/em> This is God’s first negative assessment of an otherwise excellent creation (1:31). The<\/em> Lord<\/span> God<\/em> is portrayed as a father who obtains a bride for his son (cp. ch 24). • The answer to the man’s need is a helper who is just right for him<\/em>; she is his perfect complement, made in the same image of God (1:26-27), given the same commission (1:28; 2:15), and obligated by the same prohibition (2:17). The man cannot fulfill his created purpose alone.<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:18 It is not good: This is God’s first negative assessment of an otherwise excellent creation (1:31). The Lord God is portrayed as a father who obtains a bride for his son (cp. ch 24). • The answer to the man’s need is a helper who is just right for him; she is his perfect complement, made in the same image of God (1:26-27), given the same commission (1:28; 2:15), and obligated by the same prohibition (2:17). The man cannot fulfill his created purpose alone.","summary_en":"2:18 It is not good: This is God’s first negative assessment of an otherwise excellent creation (1:31). The Lord God is portrayed as a father who obtains a bride for his son (cp. ch 24). • The answer to the man’s need is a helper who is just right for him; she is his perfect complement, made in the same image of God (1:26-27), given the same commission (1:28; 2:15), and obligated by the same prohibition (2:17). The man cannot fulfill his created purpose alone.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":70480,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:18","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:18","content_ro":"2:18-23<\/strong> As human creation was the climax of ch 1, so human intimacy is the high point of ch 2. God’s concern for mutual human support and companionship finds no parallel in ancient Near Eastern literature.<\/p>","content_en":"2:18-23<\/strong> As human creation was the climax of ch 1, so human intimacy is the high point of ch 2. God’s concern for mutual human support and companionship finds no parallel in ancient Near Eastern literature.<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:18-23 As human creation was the climax of ch 1, so human intimacy is the high point of ch 2. God’s concern for mutual human support and companionship finds no parallel in ancient Near Eastern literature.","summary_en":"2:18-23 As human creation was the climax of ch 1, so human intimacy is the high point of ch 2. God’s concern for mutual human support and companionship finds no parallel in ancient Near Eastern literature.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":70481,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:18","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:18","content_ro":"2:18<\/strong> It is not good:<\/em> This is God’s first negative assessment of an otherwise excellent creation (1:31). The<\/em> Lord<\/span> God<\/em> is portrayed as a father who obtains a bride for his son (cp. ch 24). • The answer to the man’s need is a helper who is just right for him<\/em>; she is his perfect complement, made in the same image of God (1:26-27), given the same commission (1:28; 2:15), and obligated by the same prohibition (2:17). The man cannot fulfill his created purpose alone.<\/p>","content_en":"2:18<\/strong> It is not good:<\/em> This is God’s first negative assessment of an otherwise excellent creation (1:31). The<\/em> Lord<\/span> God<\/em> is portrayed as a father who obtains a bride for his son (cp. ch 24). • The answer to the man’s need is a helper who is just right for him<\/em>; she is his perfect complement, made in the same image of God (1:26-27), given the same commission (1:28; 2:15), and obligated by the same prohibition (2:17). The man cannot fulfill his created purpose alone.<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:18 It is not good: This is God’s first negative assessment of an otherwise excellent creation (1:31). The Lord God is portrayed as a father who obtains a bride for his son (cp. ch 24). • The answer to the man’s need is a helper who is just right for him; she is his perfect complement, made in the same image of God (1:26-27), given the same commission (1:28; 2:15), and obligated by the same prohibition (2:17). The man cannot fulfill his created purpose alone.","summary_en":"2:18 It is not good: This is God’s first negative assessment of an otherwise excellent creation (1:31). The Lord God is portrayed as a father who obtains a bride for his son (cp. ch 24). • The answer to the man’s need is a helper who is just right for him; she is his perfect complement, made in the same image of God (1:26-27), given the same commission (1:28; 2:15), and obligated by the same prohibition (2:17). The man cannot fulfill his created purpose alone.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":98106,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:18","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:18","content_ro":"2:18-23<\/strong> As human creation was the climax of ch 1, so human intimacy is the high point of ch 2. God’s concern for mutual human support and companionship finds no parallel in ancient Near Eastern literature.<\/p>","content_en":"2:18-23<\/strong> As human creation was the climax of ch 1, so human intimacy is the high point of ch 2. God’s concern for mutual human support and companionship finds no parallel in ancient Near Eastern literature.<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:18-23 As human creation was the climax of ch 1, so human intimacy is the high point of ch 2. God’s concern for mutual human support and companionship finds no parallel in ancient Near Eastern literature.","summary_en":"2:18-23 As human creation was the climax of ch 1, so human intimacy is the high point of ch 2. God’s concern for mutual human support and companionship finds no parallel in ancient Near Eastern literature.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":98107,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:18","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:18","content_ro":"2:18<\/strong> It is not good:<\/em> This is God’s first negative assessment of an otherwise excellent creation (1:31). The<\/em> Lord<\/span> God<\/em> is portrayed as a father who obtains a bride for his son (cp. ch 24). • The answer to the man’s need is a helper who is just right for him<\/em>; she is his perfect complement, made in the same image of God (1:26-27), given the same commission (1:28; 2:15), and obligated by the same prohibition (2:17). The man cannot fulfill his created purpose alone.<\/p>","content_en":"2:18<\/strong> It is not good:<\/em> This is God’s first negative assessment of an otherwise excellent creation (1:31). The<\/em> Lord<\/span> God<\/em> is portrayed as a father who obtains a bride for his son (cp. ch 24). • The answer to the man’s need is a helper who is just right for him<\/em>; she is his perfect complement, made in the same image of God (1:26-27), given the same commission (1:28; 2:15), and obligated by the same prohibition (2:17). The man cannot fulfill his created purpose alone.<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:18 It is not good: This is God’s first negative assessment of an otherwise excellent creation (1:31). The Lord God is portrayed as a father who obtains a bride for his son (cp. ch 24). • The answer to the man’s need is a helper who is just right for him; she is his perfect complement, made in the same image of God (1:26-27), given the same commission (1:28; 2:15), and obligated by the same prohibition (2:17). The man cannot fulfill his created purpose alone.","summary_en":"2:18 It is not good: This is God’s first negative assessment of an otherwise excellent creation (1:31). The Lord God is portrayed as a father who obtains a bride for his son (cp. ch 24). • The answer to the man’s need is a helper who is just right for him; she is his perfect complement, made in the same image of God (1:26-27), given the same commission (1:28; 2:15), and obligated by the same prohibition (2:17). The man cannot fulfill his created purpose alone.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":125732,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:18","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:18","content_ro":"2:18-23<\/strong> As human creation was the climax of ch 1, so human intimacy is the high point of ch 2. God’s concern for mutual human support and companionship finds no parallel in ancient Near Eastern literature.<\/p>","content_en":"2:18-23<\/strong> As human creation was the climax of ch 1, so human intimacy is the high point of ch 2. God’s concern for mutual human support and companionship finds no parallel in ancient Near Eastern literature.<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:18-23 As human creation was the climax of ch 1, so human intimacy is the high point of ch 2. God’s concern for mutual human support and companionship finds no parallel in ancient Near Eastern literature.","summary_en":"2:18-23 As human creation was the climax of ch 1, so human intimacy is the high point of ch 2. God’s concern for mutual human support and companionship finds no parallel in ancient Near Eastern literature.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":125733,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:18","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:18","content_ro":"2:18<\/strong> It is not good:<\/em> This is God’s first negative assessment of an otherwise excellent creation (1:31). The<\/em> Lord<\/span> God<\/em> is portrayed as a father who obtains a bride for his son (cp. ch 24). • The answer to the man’s need is a helper who is just right for him<\/em>; she is his perfect complement, made in the same image of God (1:26-27), given the same commission (1:28; 2:15), and obligated by the same prohibition (2:17). The man cannot fulfill his created purpose alone.<\/p>","content_en":"2:18<\/strong> It is not good:<\/em> This is God’s first negative assessment of an otherwise excellent creation (1:31). The<\/em> Lord<\/span> God<\/em> is portrayed as a father who obtains a bride for his son (cp. ch 24). • The answer to the man’s need is a helper who is just right for him<\/em>; she is his perfect complement, made in the same image of God (1:26-27), given the same commission (1:28; 2:15), and obligated by the same prohibition (2:17). The man cannot fulfill his created purpose alone.<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:18 It is not good: This is God’s first negative assessment of an otherwise excellent creation (1:31). The Lord God is portrayed as a father who obtains a bride for his son (cp. ch 24). • The answer to the man’s need is a helper who is just right for him; she is his perfect complement, made in the same image of God (1:26-27), given the same commission (1:28; 2:15), and obligated by the same prohibition (2:17). The man cannot fulfill his created purpose alone.","summary_en":"2:18 It is not good: This is God’s first negative assessment of an otherwise excellent creation (1:31). The Lord God is portrayed as a father who obtains a bride for his son (cp. ch 24). • The answer to the man’s need is a helper who is just right for him; she is his perfect complement, made in the same image of God (1:26-27), given the same commission (1:28; 2:15), and obligated by the same prohibition (2:17). The man cannot fulfill his created purpose alone.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":59676,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Human Sexuality","title_en":"Human Sexuality","content_ro":"<h3>Human Sexuality<\/h3>\nWhen God created the first human beings in his own image, he created them as sexual beings, male and female (Gen 1:27). Through their sexuality, they were to fill and govern the world (1:28) and provide intimate companionship for one another in marriage (2:18-25). Male and female sexuality is central to what it means to be human and is included in God’s declaration of creation as “very good” (1:31).<\/p>\nSexual intimacy united the first man and woman as one, an effect that sexual intimacy continues to have. Since biblical sexuality is not just physical but has the total person in view, it validates sexual relations only as part of the partners’ permanent mutual commitment to each other’s ultimate good. The Bible speaks of engaging in sexual intercourse as literally “knowing” another person intimately (see study note on Gen 4:1). Since Creation, God’s intended context for sexual activity has been the intimate union of marriage—namely, a permanent and loving heterosexual commitment (Gen 1:27-28; 2:23-24). The sexual relationship cements the marriage bond in an intimacy that may result in reproduction and can continue even when reproduction is no longer possible.<\/p>\nAlthough sexuality was created before sin, it did not emerge unscathed from human rebellion. Sexuality is a powerful force that is easily corrupted if not carefully channeled (see Lev 18; 1 Thes 4:3-8). Sexual intimacy apart from marital commitment perverts the order that God intended for creation. Incest, for example, violates sexual boundaries (see Lev 18:7-18), collapses family structures (see Gen 19:30-38), and fragments the community. Whereas perverted sexuality causes much harm, tears the community down (see Gen 38:1-30; 39:7-9; Judg 19–20), and exalts the individual (see 2 Sam 13:11-14), biblical sexuality builds up the sexual partners and the community.<\/p>\nHuman sexuality has been damaged through our fall into sin (Gen 3), but God has redeemed it through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (see 1 Cor 6:12-20; Eph 5:31-33). He restores sexual wholeness in those who trust his work in their lives by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:9-11, 15-20; 1 Thes 4:1-8). Those who commit their sexuality to Christ’s work in their lives can serve as a testament to others of God’s love for his people (Eph 5:25-33).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:27-28; 2:18-25; Lev 18:1-30; Deut 22:13-29; Ruth 4:11-13; 2 Sam 11:2-27; Ps 127:3-5; Eccl 2:8-11; Song 1:8–8:14; Mal 2:15-16; Matt 19:3-12; 1 Cor 6:12–7:40; Eph 5:31-33; 1 Thes 4:3-8<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Human Sexuality<\/h3>\nWhen God created the first human beings in his own image, he created them as sexual beings, male and female (Gen 1:27). Through their sexuality, they were to fill and govern the world (1:28) and provide intimate companionship for one another in marriage (2:18-25). Male and female sexuality is central to what it means to be human and is included in God’s declaration of creation as “very good” (1:31).<\/p>\nSexual intimacy united the first man and woman as one, an effect that sexual intimacy continues to have. Since biblical sexuality is not just physical but has the total person in view, it validates sexual relations only as part of the partners’ permanent mutual commitment to each other’s ultimate good. The Bible speaks of engaging in sexual intercourse as literally “knowing” another person intimately (see study note on Gen 4:1). Since Creation, God’s intended context for sexual activity has been the intimate union of marriage—namely, a permanent and loving heterosexual commitment (Gen 1:27-28; 2:23-24). The sexual relationship cements the marriage bond in an intimacy that may result in reproduction and can continue even when reproduction is no longer possible.<\/p>\nAlthough sexuality was created before sin, it did not emerge unscathed from human rebellion. Sexuality is a powerful force that is easily corrupted if not carefully channeled (see Lev 18; 1 Thes 4:3-8). Sexual intimacy apart from marital commitment perverts the order that God intended for creation. Incest, for example, violates sexual boundaries (see Lev 18:7-18), collapses family structures (see Gen 19:30-38), and fragments the community. Whereas perverted sexuality causes much harm, tears the community down (see Gen 38:1-30; 39:7-9; Judg 19–20), and exalts the individual (see 2 Sam 13:11-14), biblical sexuality builds up the sexual partners and the community.<\/p>\nHuman sexuality has been damaged through our fall into sin (Gen 3), but God has redeemed it through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (see 1 Cor 6:12-20; Eph 5:31-33). He restores sexual wholeness in those who trust his work in their lives by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:9-11, 15-20; 1 Thes 4:1-8). Those who commit their sexuality to Christ’s work in their lives can serve as a testament to others of God’s love for his people (Eph 5:25-33).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:27-28; 2:18-25; Lev 18:1-30; Deut 22:13-29; Ruth 4:11-13; 2 Sam 11:2-27; Ps 127:3-5; Eccl 2:8-11; Song 1:8–8:14; Mal 2:15-16; Matt 19:3-12; 1 Cor 6:12–7:40; Eph 5:31-33; 1 Thes 4:3-8<\/p>","summary_ro":"Human Sexuality When God created the first human beings in his own image, he created them as sexual beings, male and female (Gen 1:27). Through their sexuality, they were to fill and govern the world (1:28) and provide intimate companionship for one another in marriage (2:18-25). Male and female sexuality is central to what it means to be human and is included in God’s declaration of creation as “very good” (1:31). Sexual intimacy united the first man and woman as one, an effect that sexual i...","summary_en":"Human Sexuality When God created the first human beings in his own image, he created them as sexual beings, male and female (Gen 1:27). Through their sexuality, they were to fill and govern the world (1:28) and provide intimate companionship for one another in marriage (2:18-25). Male and female sexuality is central to what it means to be human and is included in God’s declaration of creation as “very good” (1:31). Sexual intimacy united the first man and woman as one, an effect that sexual i...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":59702,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Biblical Marriage","title_en":"Biblical Marriage","content_ro":"<h3>Biblical Marriage<\/h3>\nAt the first wedding, God the Father gave the bride away to the groom and witnessed the couple’s interaction in his sanctuary-garden (Gen 2:18-25). Biblical marriage is a binding covenant commitment before God. Breaching that covenant (e.g., through adultery) is a sin against people and against God, who is a divine witness to and guarantor of the marriage covenant (see Mal 2:10-16; cp. Gen 39:6-9; Jer 3:1; 1 Cor 6:9-10; Heb 13:4). Although marriage is exclusive, it is not private. It is legally declared in public, with community recognition, witnesses, and accountability (see Lev 20:10-12; Deut 22:22; Jer 29:20-23).<\/p>\nMarriage is also a metaphor of the Lord’s relationship with his people, first with Israel (see Exod 19:3-6; 20:2-6; 34:14; Isa 54:5; Ezek 16; Hos 2:19-20), and then with the church (see 2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:21-33). A marriage points to something greater than itself—God’s people (Christ’s “bride”) await the return of Christ (the “groom”). Married Christians are called to live in unity and dignity as they anticipate the wedding feast of the Lamb (Rev 19:6-9). Christ will live forever with his faithful people in glory (Rev 19:7; 21:2, 9).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:18-25; 24:65-67; Ps 45:8-15; Isa 54:5; Hos 2:19-20; Mal 2:10-16; 1 Cor 7:1-40; 2 Cor 6:14-16; Eph 5:21-33; Heb 13:4; 1 Pet 3:1-7<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Biblical Marriage<\/h3>\nAt the first wedding, God the Father gave the bride away to the groom and witnessed the couple’s interaction in his sanctuary-garden (Gen 2:18-25). Biblical marriage is a binding covenant commitment before God. Breaching that covenant (e.g., through adultery) is a sin against people and against God, who is a divine witness to and guarantor of the marriage covenant (see Mal 2:10-16; cp. Gen 39:6-9; Jer 3:1; 1 Cor 6:9-10; Heb 13:4). Although marriage is exclusive, it is not private. It is legally declared in public, with community recognition, witnesses, and accountability (see Lev 20:10-12; Deut 22:22; Jer 29:20-23).<\/p>\nMarriage is also a metaphor of the Lord’s relationship with his people, first with Israel (see Exod 19:3-6; 20:2-6; 34:14; Isa 54:5; Ezek 16; Hos 2:19-20), and then with the church (see 2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:21-33). A marriage points to something greater than itself—God’s people (Christ’s “bride”) await the return of Christ (the “groom”). Married Christians are called to live in unity and dignity as they anticipate the wedding feast of the Lamb (Rev 19:6-9). Christ will live forever with his faithful people in glory (Rev 19:7; 21:2, 9).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:18-25; 24:65-67; Ps 45:8-15; Isa 54:5; Hos 2:19-20; Mal 2:10-16; 1 Cor 7:1-40; 2 Cor 6:14-16; Eph 5:21-33; Heb 13:4; 1 Pet 3:1-7<\/p>","summary_ro":"Biblical Marriage At the first wedding, God the Father gave the bride away to the groom and witnessed the couple’s interaction in his sanctuary-garden (Gen 2:18-25). Biblical marriage is a binding covenant commitment before God. Breaching that covenant (e.g., through adultery) is a sin against people and against God, who is a divine witness to and guarantor of the marriage covenant (see Mal 2:10-16; cp. Gen 39:6-9; Jer 3:1; 1 Cor 6:9-10; Heb 13:4). Although marriage is exclusive, it is not pr...","summary_en":"Biblical Marriage At the first wedding, God the Father gave the bride away to the groom and witnessed the couple’s interaction in his sanctuary-garden (Gen 2:18-25). Biblical marriage is a binding covenant commitment before God. Breaching that covenant (e.g., through adultery) is a sin against people and against God, who is a divine witness to and guarantor of the marriage covenant (see Mal 2:10-16; cp. Gen 39:6-9; Jer 3:1; 1 Cor 6:9-10; Heb 13:4). Although marriage is exclusive, it is not pr...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":63465,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Marriage and Sexuality","title_en":"Marriage and Sexuality","content_ro":"<h3>Marriage and Sexuality<\/h3>\nFrom the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame.<\/p>\nIn Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young men to avoid the temptations of sexual expression outside of marriage (Prov 2:16-22; 5:1-23; 6:20–7:27). While a young man might find other women physically attractive and seductive, the consequences of acting on these temptations are dire: His family and professional aspirations might be destroyed. Proverbs teaches young men to cultivate a strong relationship with their own wives. They are counseled to have healthy marital sex rather than sleeping with other women (5:15-20).<\/p>\nAlthough this section of Proverbs was originally written to instruct young men, all readers can reflect on these issues of marriage and sexuality. Proverbs urges men and women to recognize the sanctity and beauty of marital love as God, the wise Creator, intended it.<\/p>\nThe New Testament reaffirms the sacredness of sexuality and its proper expression in marriage. Jesus appeals to the creation narrative in Genesis as a way of highlighting the intended permanency of the marriage relationship. After quoting Genesis 2:24, he states, “Since they are no longer two but one, let no one split apart what God has joined together” (Matt 19:3-6). Paul discusses the importance of maintaining sexual intimacy in marriage, lest Satan be afforded an opportunity to tempt (1 Cor 7:3-5). God’s desire is that those who join in marriage would remain faithful to one another, avoiding sexual activity that is destructive to the sacred relationship they have entered (see Heb 13:4).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:18-25; Prov 2:16-22; 5:15-20; 6:20-35; 7:1-27; Jer 5:7-11; Hos 2:20; Mal 2:14-16; Matt 19:4-6; 22:30; 1 Cor 6:15-20; Heb 13:4<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Marriage and Sexuality<\/h3>\nFrom the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame.<\/p>\nIn Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young men to avoid the temptations of sexual expression outside of marriage (Prov 2:16-22; 5:1-23; 6:20–7:27). While a young man might find other women physically attractive and seductive, the consequences of acting on these temptations are dire: His family and professional aspirations might be destroyed. Proverbs teaches young men to cultivate a strong relationship with their own wives. They are counseled to have healthy marital sex rather than sleeping with other women (5:15-20).<\/p>\nAlthough this section of Proverbs was originally written to instruct young men, all readers can reflect on these issues of marriage and sexuality. Proverbs urges men and women to recognize the sanctity and beauty of marital love as God, the wise Creator, intended it.<\/p>\nThe New Testament reaffirms the sacredness of sexuality and its proper expression in marriage. Jesus appeals to the creation narrative in Genesis as a way of highlighting the intended permanency of the marriage relationship. After quoting Genesis 2:24, he states, “Since they are no longer two but one, let no one split apart what God has joined together” (Matt 19:3-6). Paul discusses the importance of maintaining sexual intimacy in marriage, lest Satan be afforded an opportunity to tempt (1 Cor 7:3-5). God’s desire is that those who join in marriage would remain faithful to one another, avoiding sexual activity that is destructive to the sacred relationship they have entered (see Heb 13:4).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:18-25; Prov 2:16-22; 5:15-20; 6:20-35; 7:1-27; Jer 5:7-11; Hos 2:20; Mal 2:14-16; Matt 19:4-6; 22:30; 1 Cor 6:15-20; Heb 13:4<\/p>","summary_ro":"Marriage and Sexuality From the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame. In Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young ...","summary_en":"Marriage and Sexuality From the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame. In Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":66951,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Holiness and Sexual Purity","title_en":"Holiness and Sexual Purity","content_ro":"<h3>Holiness and Sexual Purity<\/h3>\nThe Bible emphasizes the importance of being holy in our sexual relations. God created humanity as sexual beings, and the first command that he gave Adam and Eve was to “be fruitful and multiply” (Gen 1:28). But after sin entered the world, the good that God had created—including sex—became prone to distortion, and the pages of Scripture are filled with examples of sexual sin. God’s people were called to holiness, and the Israelites were given numerous commands that connected sexuality to their holiness (see, e.g., Lev 18:1-30). The sexual purity of God’s people would be seriously tested in the land of Canaan where illicit sexual practice abounded. Over and over again, the Israelites would fail to live up to God’s standards for sexual purity.<\/p>\nThe believers to whom Paul wrote likewise found themselves living in environments where illicit sexual activity was commonplace. In contrast to the so-called sexual freedom of the Greco-Roman world, the sexual life of God’s people was to be characterized by faithfulness and purity (1 Thes 4:3-8). Sexual relationships are to be restricted to marriage alone (1 Cor 7:1-9, 36-37).<\/p>\nGod has made Christians holy by the work of his Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:11; 2 Thes 2:13). They are therefore called to live as his own holy people (1 Cor 1:2). God has given them everything they need to live a holy life in this world (2 Pet 1:3-4). As a result, their way of life is to be distinctly different from that of the unholy world around them. Every part of their life is to reflect the transforming work of the Holy Spirit (Rom 12:2).<\/p>\nIt is inappropriate for anyone who is united to Christ to have sexual relations with anyone outside of marriage. Such relations violate the Christian’s body, which has become a sanctuary of the living God and therefore belongs to God (1 Cor 6:12-20).<\/p>\nThough homosexual activity was accepted in Greco-Roman culture, it is condemned throughout the Bible. In both the Old Testament and the New Testament, homosexual activity is viewed as a perversion of God’s intentions for men and women (Lev 18:22; 20:13; Rom 1:25-27; 1 Cor 6:9-11; 1 Tim 1:8-11).<\/p>\nPaul strongly warns that those who freely give themselves to illicit sexual relations, whether homosexual or heterosexual, will not inherit the Kingdom of God but will suffer God’s judgment (1 Cor 6:9-10; Gal 5:19-21; Col 3:5-6; see also 2 Pet 2:1–3:13). As with all sin, though, forgiveness and cleansing are available for those who turn to Christ with faith and repentance (Acts 2:38; Rom 3:21-26; see 1 Cor 6:11). In every way, God’s people are to live in holiness and godliness (see 2 Pet 3:11-13), in accord with the desires of their Creator and Judge.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:18-25; Lev 18:1-30; 20:10-24; Rom 12:1-2; 1 Cor 1:2; 6:9-20; 7:1-9, 14; Gal 5:16-24; Col 3:1-6; 1 Thes 4:3-8; 1 Pet 1:13-16; 2 Pet 1:3-4<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Holiness and Sexual Purity<\/h3>\nThe Bible emphasizes the importance of being holy in our sexual relations. God created humanity as sexual beings, and the first command that he gave Adam and Eve was to “be fruitful and multiply” (Gen 1:28). But after sin entered the world, the good that God had created—including sex—became prone to distortion, and the pages of Scripture are filled with examples of sexual sin. God’s people were called to holiness, and the Israelites were given numerous commands that connected sexuality to their holiness (see, e.g., Lev 18:1-30). The sexual purity of God’s people would be seriously tested in the land of Canaan where illicit sexual practice abounded. Over and over again, the Israelites would fail to live up to God’s standards for sexual purity.<\/p>\nThe believers to whom Paul wrote likewise found themselves living in environments where illicit sexual activity was commonplace. In contrast to the so-called sexual freedom of the Greco-Roman world, the sexual life of God’s people was to be characterized by faithfulness and purity (1 Thes 4:3-8). Sexual relationships are to be restricted to marriage alone (1 Cor 7:1-9, 36-37).<\/p>\nGod has made Christians holy by the work of his Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:11; 2 Thes 2:13). They are therefore called to live as his own holy people (1 Cor 1:2). God has given them everything they need to live a holy life in this world (2 Pet 1:3-4). As a result, their way of life is to be distinctly different from that of the unholy world around them. Every part of their life is to reflect the transforming work of the Holy Spirit (Rom 12:2).<\/p>\nIt is inappropriate for anyone who is united to Christ to have sexual relations with anyone outside of marriage. Such relations violate the Christian’s body, which has become a sanctuary of the living God and therefore belongs to God (1 Cor 6:12-20).<\/p>\nThough homosexual activity was accepted in Greco-Roman culture, it is condemned throughout the Bible. In both the Old Testament and the New Testament, homosexual activity is viewed as a perversion of God’s intentions for men and women (Lev 18:22; 20:13; Rom 1:25-27; 1 Cor 6:9-11; 1 Tim 1:8-11).<\/p>\nPaul strongly warns that those who freely give themselves to illicit sexual relations, whether homosexual or heterosexual, will not inherit the Kingdom of God but will suffer God’s judgment (1 Cor 6:9-10; Gal 5:19-21; Col 3:5-6; see also 2 Pet 2:1–3:13). As with all sin, though, forgiveness and cleansing are available for those who turn to Christ with faith and repentance (Acts 2:38; Rom 3:21-26; see 1 Cor 6:11). In every way, God’s people are to live in holiness and godliness (see 2 Pet 3:11-13), in accord with the desires of their Creator and Judge.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:18-25; Lev 18:1-30; 20:10-24; Rom 12:1-2; 1 Cor 1:2; 6:9-20; 7:1-9, 14; Gal 5:16-24; Col 3:1-6; 1 Thes 4:3-8; 1 Pet 1:13-16; 2 Pet 1:3-4<\/p>","summary_ro":"Holiness and Sexual Purity The Bible emphasizes the importance of being holy in our sexual relations. God created humanity as sexual beings, and the first command that he gave Adam and Eve was to “be fruitful and multiply” (Gen 1:28). But after sin entered the world, the good that God had created—including sex—became prone to distortion, and the pages of Scripture are filled with examples of sexual sin. God’s people were called to holiness, and the Israelites were given numerous commands that...","summary_en":"Holiness and Sexual Purity The Bible emphasizes the importance of being holy in our sexual relations. God created humanity as sexual beings, and the first command that he gave Adam and Eve was to “be fruitful and multiply” (Gen 1:28). But after sin entered the world, the good that God had created—including sex—became prone to distortion, and the pages of Scripture are filled with examples of sexual sin. God’s people were called to holiness, and the Israelites were given numerous commands that...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":87302,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Human Sexuality","title_en":"Human Sexuality","content_ro":"<h3>Human Sexuality<\/h3>\nWhen God created the first human beings in his own image, he created them as sexual beings, male and female (Gen 1:27). Through their sexuality, they were to fill and govern the world (1:28) and provide intimate companionship for one another in marriage (2:18-25). Male and female sexuality is central to what it means to be human and is included in God’s declaration of creation as “very good” (1:31).<\/p>\nSexual intimacy united the first man and woman as one, an effect that sexual intimacy continues to have. Since biblical sexuality is not just physical but has the total person in view, it validates sexual relations only as part of the partners’ permanent mutual commitment to each other’s ultimate good. The Bible speaks of engaging in sexual intercourse as literally “knowing” another person intimately (see study note on Gen 4:1). Since Creation, God’s intended context for sexual activity has been the intimate union of marriage—namely, a permanent and loving heterosexual commitment (Gen 1:27-28; 2:23-24). The sexual relationship cements the marriage bond in an intimacy that may result in reproduction and can continue even when reproduction is no longer possible.<\/p>\nAlthough sexuality was created before sin, it did not emerge unscathed from human rebellion. Sexuality is a powerful force that is easily corrupted if not carefully channeled (see Lev 18; 1 Thes 4:3-8). Sexual intimacy apart from marital commitment perverts the order that God intended for creation. Incest, for example, violates sexual boundaries (see Lev 18:7-18), collapses family structures (see Gen 19:30-38), and fragments the community. Whereas perverted sexuality causes much harm, tears the community down (see Gen 38:1-30; 39:7-9; Judg 19–20), and exalts the individual (see 2 Sam 13:11-14), biblical sexuality builds up the sexual partners and the community.<\/p>\nHuman sexuality has been damaged through our fall into sin (Gen 3), but God has redeemed it through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (see 1 Cor 6:12-20; Eph 5:31-33). He restores sexual wholeness in those who trust his work in their lives by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:9-11, 15-20; 1 Thes 4:1-8). Those who commit their sexuality to Christ’s work in their lives can serve as a testament to others of God’s love for his people (Eph 5:25-33).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:27-28; 2:18-25; Lev 18:1-30; Deut 22:13-29; Ruth 4:11-13; 2 Sam 11:2-27; Ps 127:3-5; Eccl 2:8-11; Song 1:8–8:14; Mal 2:15-16; Matt 19:3-12; 1 Cor 6:12–7:40; Eph 5:31-33; 1 Thes 4:3-8<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Human Sexuality<\/h3>\nWhen God created the first human beings in his own image, he created them as sexual beings, male and female (Gen 1:27). Through their sexuality, they were to fill and govern the world (1:28) and provide intimate companionship for one another in marriage (2:18-25). Male and female sexuality is central to what it means to be human and is included in God’s declaration of creation as “very good” (1:31).<\/p>\nSexual intimacy united the first man and woman as one, an effect that sexual intimacy continues to have. Since biblical sexuality is not just physical but has the total person in view, it validates sexual relations only as part of the partners’ permanent mutual commitment to each other’s ultimate good. The Bible speaks of engaging in sexual intercourse as literally “knowing” another person intimately (see study note on Gen 4:1). Since Creation, God’s intended context for sexual activity has been the intimate union of marriage—namely, a permanent and loving heterosexual commitment (Gen 1:27-28; 2:23-24). The sexual relationship cements the marriage bond in an intimacy that may result in reproduction and can continue even when reproduction is no longer possible.<\/p>\nAlthough sexuality was created before sin, it did not emerge unscathed from human rebellion. Sexuality is a powerful force that is easily corrupted if not carefully channeled (see Lev 18; 1 Thes 4:3-8). Sexual intimacy apart from marital commitment perverts the order that God intended for creation. Incest, for example, violates sexual boundaries (see Lev 18:7-18), collapses family structures (see Gen 19:30-38), and fragments the community. Whereas perverted sexuality causes much harm, tears the community down (see Gen 38:1-30; 39:7-9; Judg 19–20), and exalts the individual (see 2 Sam 13:11-14), biblical sexuality builds up the sexual partners and the community.<\/p>\nHuman sexuality has been damaged through our fall into sin (Gen 3), but God has redeemed it through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (see 1 Cor 6:12-20; Eph 5:31-33). He restores sexual wholeness in those who trust his work in their lives by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:9-11, 15-20; 1 Thes 4:1-8). Those who commit their sexuality to Christ’s work in their lives can serve as a testament to others of God’s love for his people (Eph 5:25-33).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:27-28; 2:18-25; Lev 18:1-30; Deut 22:13-29; Ruth 4:11-13; 2 Sam 11:2-27; Ps 127:3-5; Eccl 2:8-11; Song 1:8–8:14; Mal 2:15-16; Matt 19:3-12; 1 Cor 6:12–7:40; Eph 5:31-33; 1 Thes 4:3-8<\/p>","summary_ro":"Human Sexuality When God created the first human beings in his own image, he created them as sexual beings, male and female (Gen 1:27). Through their sexuality, they were to fill and govern the world (1:28) and provide intimate companionship for one another in marriage (2:18-25). Male and female sexuality is central to what it means to be human and is included in God’s declaration of creation as “very good” (1:31). Sexual intimacy united the first man and woman as one, an effect that sexual i...","summary_en":"Human Sexuality When God created the first human beings in his own image, he created them as sexual beings, male and female (Gen 1:27). Through their sexuality, they were to fill and govern the world (1:28) and provide intimate companionship for one another in marriage (2:18-25). Male and female sexuality is central to what it means to be human and is included in God’s declaration of creation as “very good” (1:31). Sexual intimacy united the first man and woman as one, an effect that sexual i...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":87328,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Biblical Marriage","title_en":"Biblical Marriage","content_ro":"<h3>Biblical Marriage<\/h3>\nAt the first wedding, God the Father gave the bride away to the groom and witnessed the couple’s interaction in his sanctuary-garden (Gen 2:18-25). Biblical marriage is a binding covenant commitment before God. Breaching that covenant (e.g., through adultery) is a sin against people and against God, who is a divine witness to and guarantor of the marriage covenant (see Mal 2:10-16; cp. Gen 39:6-9; Jer 3:1; 1 Cor 6:9-10; Heb 13:4). Although marriage is exclusive, it is not private. It is legally declared in public, with community recognition, witnesses, and accountability (see Lev 20:10-12; Deut 22:22; Jer 29:20-23).<\/p>\nMarriage is also a metaphor of the Lord’s relationship with his people, first with Israel (see Exod 19:3-6; 20:2-6; 34:14; Isa 54:5; Ezek 16; Hos 2:19-20), and then with the church (see 2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:21-33). A marriage points to something greater than itself—God’s people (Christ’s “bride”) await the return of Christ (the “groom”). Married Christians are called to live in unity and dignity as they anticipate the wedding feast of the Lamb (Rev 19:6-9). Christ will live forever with his faithful people in glory (Rev 19:7; 21:2, 9).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:18-25; 24:65-67; Ps 45:8-15; Isa 54:5; Hos 2:19-20; Mal 2:10-16; 1 Cor 7:1-40; 2 Cor 6:14-16; Eph 5:21-33; Heb 13:4; 1 Pet 3:1-7<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Biblical Marriage<\/h3>\nAt the first wedding, God the Father gave the bride away to the groom and witnessed the couple’s interaction in his sanctuary-garden (Gen 2:18-25). Biblical marriage is a binding covenant commitment before God. Breaching that covenant (e.g., through adultery) is a sin against people and against God, who is a divine witness to and guarantor of the marriage covenant (see Mal 2:10-16; cp. Gen 39:6-9; Jer 3:1; 1 Cor 6:9-10; Heb 13:4). Although marriage is exclusive, it is not private. It is legally declared in public, with community recognition, witnesses, and accountability (see Lev 20:10-12; Deut 22:22; Jer 29:20-23).<\/p>\nMarriage is also a metaphor of the Lord’s relationship with his people, first with Israel (see Exod 19:3-6; 20:2-6; 34:14; Isa 54:5; Ezek 16; Hos 2:19-20), and then with the church (see 2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:21-33). A marriage points to something greater than itself—God’s people (Christ’s “bride”) await the return of Christ (the “groom”). Married Christians are called to live in unity and dignity as they anticipate the wedding feast of the Lamb (Rev 19:6-9). Christ will live forever with his faithful people in glory (Rev 19:7; 21:2, 9).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:18-25; 24:65-67; Ps 45:8-15; Isa 54:5; Hos 2:19-20; Mal 2:10-16; 1 Cor 7:1-40; 2 Cor 6:14-16; Eph 5:21-33; Heb 13:4; 1 Pet 3:1-7<\/p>","summary_ro":"Biblical Marriage At the first wedding, God the Father gave the bride away to the groom and witnessed the couple’s interaction in his sanctuary-garden (Gen 2:18-25). Biblical marriage is a binding covenant commitment before God. Breaching that covenant (e.g., through adultery) is a sin against people and against God, who is a divine witness to and guarantor of the marriage covenant (see Mal 2:10-16; cp. Gen 39:6-9; Jer 3:1; 1 Cor 6:9-10; Heb 13:4). Although marriage is exclusive, it is not pr...","summary_en":"Biblical Marriage At the first wedding, God the Father gave the bride away to the groom and witnessed the couple’s interaction in his sanctuary-garden (Gen 2:18-25). Biblical marriage is a binding covenant commitment before God. Breaching that covenant (e.g., through adultery) is a sin against people and against God, who is a divine witness to and guarantor of the marriage covenant (see Mal 2:10-16; cp. Gen 39:6-9; Jer 3:1; 1 Cor 6:9-10; Heb 13:4). Although marriage is exclusive, it is not pr...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":91091,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Marriage and Sexuality","title_en":"Marriage and Sexuality","content_ro":"<h3>Marriage and Sexuality<\/h3>\nFrom the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame.<\/p>\nIn Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young men to avoid the temptations of sexual expression outside of marriage (Prov 2:16-22; 5:1-23; 6:20–7:27). While a young man might find other women physically attractive and seductive, the consequences of acting on these temptations are dire: His family and professional aspirations might be destroyed. Proverbs teaches young men to cultivate a strong relationship with their own wives. They are counseled to have healthy marital sex rather than sleeping with other women (5:15-20).<\/p>\nAlthough this section of Proverbs was originally written to instruct young men, all readers can reflect on these issues of marriage and sexuality. Proverbs urges men and women to recognize the sanctity and beauty of marital love as God, the wise Creator, intended it.<\/p>\nThe New Testament reaffirms the sacredness of sexuality and its proper expression in marriage. Jesus appeals to the creation narrative in Genesis as a way of highlighting the intended permanency of the marriage relationship. After quoting Genesis 2:24, he states, “Since they are no longer two but one, let no one split apart what God has joined together” (Matt 19:3-6). Paul discusses the importance of maintaining sexual intimacy in marriage, lest Satan be afforded an opportunity to tempt (1 Cor 7:3-5). God’s desire is that those who join in marriage would remain faithful to one another, avoiding sexual activity that is destructive to the sacred relationship they have entered (see Heb 13:4).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:18-25; Prov 2:16-22; 5:15-20; 6:20-35; 7:1-27; Jer 5:7-11; Hos 2:20; Mal 2:14-16; Matt 19:4-6; 22:30; 1 Cor 6:15-20; Heb 13:4<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Marriage and Sexuality<\/h3>\nFrom the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame.<\/p>\nIn Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young men to avoid the temptations of sexual expression outside of marriage (Prov 2:16-22; 5:1-23; 6:20–7:27). While a young man might find other women physically attractive and seductive, the consequences of acting on these temptations are dire: His family and professional aspirations might be destroyed. Proverbs teaches young men to cultivate a strong relationship with their own wives. They are counseled to have healthy marital sex rather than sleeping with other women (5:15-20).<\/p>\nAlthough this section of Proverbs was originally written to instruct young men, all readers can reflect on these issues of marriage and sexuality. Proverbs urges men and women to recognize the sanctity and beauty of marital love as God, the wise Creator, intended it.<\/p>\nThe New Testament reaffirms the sacredness of sexuality and its proper expression in marriage. Jesus appeals to the creation narrative in Genesis as a way of highlighting the intended permanency of the marriage relationship. After quoting Genesis 2:24, he states, “Since they are no longer two but one, let no one split apart what God has joined together” (Matt 19:3-6). Paul discusses the importance of maintaining sexual intimacy in marriage, lest Satan be afforded an opportunity to tempt (1 Cor 7:3-5). God’s desire is that those who join in marriage would remain faithful to one another, avoiding sexual activity that is destructive to the sacred relationship they have entered (see Heb 13:4).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:18-25; Prov 2:16-22; 5:15-20; 6:20-35; 7:1-27; Jer 5:7-11; Hos 2:20; Mal 2:14-16; Matt 19:4-6; 22:30; 1 Cor 6:15-20; Heb 13:4<\/p>","summary_ro":"Marriage and Sexuality From the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame. In Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young ...","summary_en":"Marriage and Sexuality From the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame. In Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":94577,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Holiness and Sexual Purity","title_en":"Holiness and Sexual Purity","content_ro":"<h3>Holiness and Sexual Purity<\/h3>\nThe Bible emphasizes the importance of being holy in our sexual relations. God created humanity as sexual beings, and the first command that he gave Adam and Eve was to “be fruitful and multiply” (Gen 1:28). But after sin entered the world, the good that God had created—including sex—became prone to distortion, and the pages of Scripture are filled with examples of sexual sin. God’s people were called to holiness, and the Israelites were given numerous commands that connected sexuality to their holiness (see, e.g., Lev 18:1-30). The sexual purity of God’s people would be seriously tested in the land of Canaan where illicit sexual practice abounded. Over and over again, the Israelites would fail to live up to God’s standards for sexual purity.<\/p>\nThe believers to whom Paul wrote likewise found themselves living in environments where illicit sexual activity was commonplace. In contrast to the so-called sexual freedom of the Greco-Roman world, the sexual life of God’s people was to be characterized by faithfulness and purity (1 Thes 4:3-8). Sexual relationships are to be restricted to marriage alone (1 Cor 7:1-9, 36-37).<\/p>\nGod has made Christians holy by the work of his Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:11; 2 Thes 2:13). They are therefore called to live as his own holy people (1 Cor 1:2). God has given them everything they need to live a holy life in this world (2 Pet 1:3-4). As a result, their way of life is to be distinctly different from that of the unholy world around them. Every part of their life is to reflect the transforming work of the Holy Spirit (Rom 12:2).<\/p>\nIt is inappropriate for anyone who is united to Christ to have sexual relations with anyone outside of marriage. Such relations violate the Christian’s body, which has become a sanctuary of the living God and therefore belongs to God (1 Cor 6:12-20).<\/p>\nThough homosexual activity was accepted in Greco-Roman culture, it is condemned throughout the Bible. In both the Old Testament and the New Testament, homosexual activity is viewed as a perversion of God’s intentions for men and women (Lev 18:22; 20:13; Rom 1:25-27; 1 Cor 6:9-11; 1 Tim 1:8-11).<\/p>\nPaul strongly warns that those who freely give themselves to illicit sexual relations, whether homosexual or heterosexual, will not inherit the Kingdom of God but will suffer God’s judgment (1 Cor 6:9-10; Gal 5:19-21; Col 3:5-6; see also 2 Pet 2:1–3:13). As with all sin, though, forgiveness and cleansing are available for those who turn to Christ with faith and repentance (Acts 2:38; Rom 3:21-26; see 1 Cor 6:11). In every way, God’s people are to live in holiness and godliness (see 2 Pet 3:11-13), in accord with the desires of their Creator and Judge.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:18-25; Lev 18:1-30; 20:10-24; Rom 12:1-2; 1 Cor 1:2; 6:9-20; 7:1-9, 14; Gal 5:16-24; Col 3:1-6; 1 Thes 4:3-8; 1 Pet 1:13-16; 2 Pet 1:3-4<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Holiness and Sexual Purity<\/h3>\nThe Bible emphasizes the importance of being holy in our sexual relations. God created humanity as sexual beings, and the first command that he gave Adam and Eve was to “be fruitful and multiply” (Gen 1:28). But after sin entered the world, the good that God had created—including sex—became prone to distortion, and the pages of Scripture are filled with examples of sexual sin. God’s people were called to holiness, and the Israelites were given numerous commands that connected sexuality to their holiness (see, e.g., Lev 18:1-30). The sexual purity of God’s people would be seriously tested in the land of Canaan where illicit sexual practice abounded. Over and over again, the Israelites would fail to live up to God’s standards for sexual purity.<\/p>\nThe believers to whom Paul wrote likewise found themselves living in environments where illicit sexual activity was commonplace. In contrast to the so-called sexual freedom of the Greco-Roman world, the sexual life of God’s people was to be characterized by faithfulness and purity (1 Thes 4:3-8). Sexual relationships are to be restricted to marriage alone (1 Cor 7:1-9, 36-37).<\/p>\nGod has made Christians holy by the work of his Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:11; 2 Thes 2:13). They are therefore called to live as his own holy people (1 Cor 1:2). God has given them everything they need to live a holy life in this world (2 Pet 1:3-4). As a result, their way of life is to be distinctly different from that of the unholy world around them. Every part of their life is to reflect the transforming work of the Holy Spirit (Rom 12:2).<\/p>\nIt is inappropriate for anyone who is united to Christ to have sexual relations with anyone outside of marriage. Such relations violate the Christian’s body, which has become a sanctuary of the living God and therefore belongs to God (1 Cor 6:12-20).<\/p>\nThough homosexual activity was accepted in Greco-Roman culture, it is condemned throughout the Bible. In both the Old Testament and the New Testament, homosexual activity is viewed as a perversion of God’s intentions for men and women (Lev 18:22; 20:13; Rom 1:25-27; 1 Cor 6:9-11; 1 Tim 1:8-11).<\/p>\nPaul strongly warns that those who freely give themselves to illicit sexual relations, whether homosexual or heterosexual, will not inherit the Kingdom of God but will suffer God’s judgment (1 Cor 6:9-10; Gal 5:19-21; Col 3:5-6; see also 2 Pet 2:1–3:13). As with all sin, though, forgiveness and cleansing are available for those who turn to Christ with faith and repentance (Acts 2:38; Rom 3:21-26; see 1 Cor 6:11). In every way, God’s people are to live in holiness and godliness (see 2 Pet 3:11-13), in accord with the desires of their Creator and Judge.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:18-25; Lev 18:1-30; 20:10-24; Rom 12:1-2; 1 Cor 1:2; 6:9-20; 7:1-9, 14; Gal 5:16-24; Col 3:1-6; 1 Thes 4:3-8; 1 Pet 1:13-16; 2 Pet 1:3-4<\/p>","summary_ro":"Holiness and Sexual Purity The Bible emphasizes the importance of being holy in our sexual relations. God created humanity as sexual beings, and the first command that he gave Adam and Eve was to “be fruitful and multiply” (Gen 1:28). But after sin entered the world, the good that God had created—including sex—became prone to distortion, and the pages of Scripture are filled with examples of sexual sin. God’s people were called to holiness, and the Israelites were given numerous commands that...","summary_en":"Holiness and Sexual Purity The Bible emphasizes the importance of being holy in our sexual relations. God created humanity as sexual beings, and the first command that he gave Adam and Eve was to “be fruitful and multiply” (Gen 1:28). But after sin entered the world, the good that God had created—including sex—became prone to distortion, and the pages of Scripture are filled with examples of sexual sin. God’s people were called to holiness, and the Israelites were given numerous commands that...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":114928,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Human Sexuality","title_en":"Human Sexuality","content_ro":"<h3>Human Sexuality<\/h3>\nWhen God created the first human beings in his own image, he created them as sexual beings, male and female (Gen 1:27). Through their sexuality, they were to fill and govern the world (1:28) and provide intimate companionship for one another in marriage (2:18-25). Male and female sexuality is central to what it means to be human and is included in God’s declaration of creation as “very good” (1:31).<\/p>\nSexual intimacy united the first man and woman as one, an effect that sexual intimacy continues to have. Since biblical sexuality is not just physical but has the total person in view, it validates sexual relations only as part of the partners’ permanent mutual commitment to each other’s ultimate good. The Bible speaks of engaging in sexual intercourse as literally “knowing” another person intimately (see study note on Gen 4:1). Since Creation, God’s intended context for sexual activity has been the intimate union of marriage—namely, a permanent and loving heterosexual commitment (Gen 1:27-28; 2:23-24). The sexual relationship cements the marriage bond in an intimacy that may result in reproduction and can continue even when reproduction is no longer possible.<\/p>\nAlthough sexuality was created before sin, it did not emerge unscathed from human rebellion. Sexuality is a powerful force that is easily corrupted if not carefully channeled (see Lev 18; 1 Thes 4:3-8). Sexual intimacy apart from marital commitment perverts the order that God intended for creation. Incest, for example, violates sexual boundaries (see Lev 18:7-18), collapses family structures (see Gen 19:30-38), and fragments the community. Whereas perverted sexuality causes much harm, tears the community down (see Gen 38:1-30; 39:7-9; Judg 19–20), and exalts the individual (see 2 Sam 13:11-14), biblical sexuality builds up the sexual partners and the community.<\/p>\nHuman sexuality has been damaged through our fall into sin (Gen 3), but God has redeemed it through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (see 1 Cor 6:12-20; Eph 5:31-33). He restores sexual wholeness in those who trust his work in their lives by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:9-11, 15-20; 1 Thes 4:1-8). Those who commit their sexuality to Christ’s work in their lives can serve as a testament to others of God’s love for his people (Eph 5:25-33).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:27-28; 2:18-25; Lev 18:1-30; Deut 22:13-29; Ruth 4:11-13; 2 Sam 11:2-27; Ps 127:3-5; Eccl 2:8-11; Song 1:8–8:14; Mal 2:15-16; Matt 19:3-12; 1 Cor 6:12–7:40; Eph 5:31-33; 1 Thes 4:3-8<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Human Sexuality<\/h3>\nWhen God created the first human beings in his own image, he created them as sexual beings, male and female (Gen 1:27). Through their sexuality, they were to fill and govern the world (1:28) and provide intimate companionship for one another in marriage (2:18-25). Male and female sexuality is central to what it means to be human and is included in God’s declaration of creation as “very good” (1:31).<\/p>\nSexual intimacy united the first man and woman as one, an effect that sexual intimacy continues to have. Since biblical sexuality is not just physical but has the total person in view, it validates sexual relations only as part of the partners’ permanent mutual commitment to each other’s ultimate good. The Bible speaks of engaging in sexual intercourse as literally “knowing” another person intimately (see study note on Gen 4:1). Since Creation, God’s intended context for sexual activity has been the intimate union of marriage—namely, a permanent and loving heterosexual commitment (Gen 1:27-28; 2:23-24). The sexual relationship cements the marriage bond in an intimacy that may result in reproduction and can continue even when reproduction is no longer possible.<\/p>\nAlthough sexuality was created before sin, it did not emerge unscathed from human rebellion. Sexuality is a powerful force that is easily corrupted if not carefully channeled (see Lev 18; 1 Thes 4:3-8). Sexual intimacy apart from marital commitment perverts the order that God intended for creation. Incest, for example, violates sexual boundaries (see Lev 18:7-18), collapses family structures (see Gen 19:30-38), and fragments the community. Whereas perverted sexuality causes much harm, tears the community down (see Gen 38:1-30; 39:7-9; Judg 19–20), and exalts the individual (see 2 Sam 13:11-14), biblical sexuality builds up the sexual partners and the community.<\/p>\nHuman sexuality has been damaged through our fall into sin (Gen 3), but God has redeemed it through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (see 1 Cor 6:12-20; Eph 5:31-33). He restores sexual wholeness in those who trust his work in their lives by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:9-11, 15-20; 1 Thes 4:1-8). Those who commit their sexuality to Christ’s work in their lives can serve as a testament to others of God’s love for his people (Eph 5:25-33).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:27-28; 2:18-25; Lev 18:1-30; Deut 22:13-29; Ruth 4:11-13; 2 Sam 11:2-27; Ps 127:3-5; Eccl 2:8-11; Song 1:8–8:14; Mal 2:15-16; Matt 19:3-12; 1 Cor 6:12–7:40; Eph 5:31-33; 1 Thes 4:3-8<\/p>","summary_ro":"Human Sexuality When God created the first human beings in his own image, he created them as sexual beings, male and female (Gen 1:27). Through their sexuality, they were to fill and govern the world (1:28) and provide intimate companionship for one another in marriage (2:18-25). Male and female sexuality is central to what it means to be human and is included in God’s declaration of creation as “very good” (1:31). Sexual intimacy united the first man and woman as one, an effect that sexual i...","summary_en":"Human Sexuality When God created the first human beings in his own image, he created them as sexual beings, male and female (Gen 1:27). Through their sexuality, they were to fill and govern the world (1:28) and provide intimate companionship for one another in marriage (2:18-25). Male and female sexuality is central to what it means to be human and is included in God’s declaration of creation as “very good” (1:31). Sexual intimacy united the first man and woman as one, an effect that sexual i...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":114954,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Biblical Marriage","title_en":"Biblical Marriage","content_ro":"<h3>Biblical Marriage<\/h3>\nAt the first wedding, God the Father gave the bride away to the groom and witnessed the couple’s interaction in his sanctuary-garden (Gen 2:18-25). Biblical marriage is a binding covenant commitment before God. Breaching that covenant (e.g., through adultery) is a sin against people and against God, who is a divine witness to and guarantor of the marriage covenant (see Mal 2:10-16; cp. Gen 39:6-9; Jer 3:1; 1 Cor 6:9-10; Heb 13:4). Although marriage is exclusive, it is not private. It is legally declared in public, with community recognition, witnesses, and accountability (see Lev 20:10-12; Deut 22:22; Jer 29:20-23).<\/p>\nMarriage is also a metaphor of the Lord’s relationship with his people, first with Israel (see Exod 19:3-6; 20:2-6; 34:14; Isa 54:5; Ezek 16; Hos 2:19-20), and then with the church (see 2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:21-33). A marriage points to something greater than itself—God’s people (Christ’s “bride”) await the return of Christ (the “groom”). Married Christians are called to live in unity and dignity as they anticipate the wedding feast of the Lamb (Rev 19:6-9). Christ will live forever with his faithful people in glory (Rev 19:7; 21:2, 9).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:18-25; 24:65-67; Ps 45:8-15; Isa 54:5; Hos 2:19-20; Mal 2:10-16; 1 Cor 7:1-40; 2 Cor 6:14-16; Eph 5:21-33; Heb 13:4; 1 Pet 3:1-7<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Biblical Marriage<\/h3>\nAt the first wedding, God the Father gave the bride away to the groom and witnessed the couple’s interaction in his sanctuary-garden (Gen 2:18-25). Biblical marriage is a binding covenant commitment before God. Breaching that covenant (e.g., through adultery) is a sin against people and against God, who is a divine witness to and guarantor of the marriage covenant (see Mal 2:10-16; cp. Gen 39:6-9; Jer 3:1; 1 Cor 6:9-10; Heb 13:4). Although marriage is exclusive, it is not private. It is legally declared in public, with community recognition, witnesses, and accountability (see Lev 20:10-12; Deut 22:22; Jer 29:20-23).<\/p>\nMarriage is also a metaphor of the Lord’s relationship with his people, first with Israel (see Exod 19:3-6; 20:2-6; 34:14; Isa 54:5; Ezek 16; Hos 2:19-20), and then with the church (see 2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:21-33). A marriage points to something greater than itself—God’s people (Christ’s “bride”) await the return of Christ (the “groom”). Married Christians are called to live in unity and dignity as they anticipate the wedding feast of the Lamb (Rev 19:6-9). Christ will live forever with his faithful people in glory (Rev 19:7; 21:2, 9).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:18-25; 24:65-67; Ps 45:8-15; Isa 54:5; Hos 2:19-20; Mal 2:10-16; 1 Cor 7:1-40; 2 Cor 6:14-16; Eph 5:21-33; Heb 13:4; 1 Pet 3:1-7<\/p>","summary_ro":"Biblical Marriage At the first wedding, God the Father gave the bride away to the groom and witnessed the couple’s interaction in his sanctuary-garden (Gen 2:18-25). Biblical marriage is a binding covenant commitment before God. Breaching that covenant (e.g., through adultery) is a sin against people and against God, who is a divine witness to and guarantor of the marriage covenant (see Mal 2:10-16; cp. Gen 39:6-9; Jer 3:1; 1 Cor 6:9-10; Heb 13:4). Although marriage is exclusive, it is not pr...","summary_en":"Biblical Marriage At the first wedding, God the Father gave the bride away to the groom and witnessed the couple’s interaction in his sanctuary-garden (Gen 2:18-25). Biblical marriage is a binding covenant commitment before God. Breaching that covenant (e.g., through adultery) is a sin against people and against God, who is a divine witness to and guarantor of the marriage covenant (see Mal 2:10-16; cp. Gen 39:6-9; Jer 3:1; 1 Cor 6:9-10; Heb 13:4). Although marriage is exclusive, it is not pr...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":118717,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Marriage and Sexuality","title_en":"Marriage and Sexuality","content_ro":"<h3>Marriage and Sexuality<\/h3>\nFrom the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame.<\/p>\nIn Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young men to avoid the temptations of sexual expression outside of marriage (Prov 2:16-22; 5:1-23; 6:20–7:27). While a young man might find other women physically attractive and seductive, the consequences of acting on these temptations are dire: His family and professional aspirations might be destroyed. Proverbs teaches young men to cultivate a strong relationship with their own wives. They are counseled to have healthy marital sex rather than sleeping with other women (5:15-20).<\/p>\nAlthough this section of Proverbs was originally written to instruct young men, all readers can reflect on these issues of marriage and sexuality. Proverbs urges men and women to recognize the sanctity and beauty of marital love as God, the wise Creator, intended it.<\/p>\nThe New Testament reaffirms the sacredness of sexuality and its proper expression in marriage. Jesus appeals to the creation narrative in Genesis as a way of highlighting the intended permanency of the marriage relationship. After quoting Genesis 2:24, he states, “Since they are no longer two but one, let no one split apart what God has joined together” (Matt 19:3-6). Paul discusses the importance of maintaining sexual intimacy in marriage, lest Satan be afforded an opportunity to tempt (1 Cor 7:3-5). God’s desire is that those who join in marriage would remain faithful to one another, avoiding sexual activity that is destructive to the sacred relationship they have entered (see Heb 13:4).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:18-25; Prov 2:16-22; 5:15-20; 6:20-35; 7:1-27; Jer 5:7-11; Hos 2:20; Mal 2:14-16; Matt 19:4-6; 22:30; 1 Cor 6:15-20; Heb 13:4<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Marriage and Sexuality<\/h3>\nFrom the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame.<\/p>\nIn Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young men to avoid the temptations of sexual expression outside of marriage (Prov 2:16-22; 5:1-23; 6:20–7:27). While a young man might find other women physically attractive and seductive, the consequences of acting on these temptations are dire: His family and professional aspirations might be destroyed. Proverbs teaches young men to cultivate a strong relationship with their own wives. They are counseled to have healthy marital sex rather than sleeping with other women (5:15-20).<\/p>\nAlthough this section of Proverbs was originally written to instruct young men, all readers can reflect on these issues of marriage and sexuality. Proverbs urges men and women to recognize the sanctity and beauty of marital love as God, the wise Creator, intended it.<\/p>\nThe New Testament reaffirms the sacredness of sexuality and its proper expression in marriage. Jesus appeals to the creation narrative in Genesis as a way of highlighting the intended permanency of the marriage relationship. After quoting Genesis 2:24, he states, “Since they are no longer two but one, let no one split apart what God has joined together” (Matt 19:3-6). Paul discusses the importance of maintaining sexual intimacy in marriage, lest Satan be afforded an opportunity to tempt (1 Cor 7:3-5). God’s desire is that those who join in marriage would remain faithful to one another, avoiding sexual activity that is destructive to the sacred relationship they have entered (see Heb 13:4).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:18-25; Prov 2:16-22; 5:15-20; 6:20-35; 7:1-27; Jer 5:7-11; Hos 2:20; Mal 2:14-16; Matt 19:4-6; 22:30; 1 Cor 6:15-20; Heb 13:4<\/p>","summary_ro":"Marriage and Sexuality From the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame. In Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young ...","summary_en":"Marriage and Sexuality From the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame. In Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":122203,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Holiness and Sexual Purity","title_en":"Holiness and Sexual Purity","content_ro":"<h3>Holiness and Sexual Purity<\/h3>\nThe Bible emphasizes the importance of being holy in our sexual relations. God created humanity as sexual beings, and the first command that he gave Adam and Eve was to “be fruitful and multiply” (Gen 1:28). But after sin entered the world, the good that God had created—including sex—became prone to distortion, and the pages of Scripture are filled with examples of sexual sin. God’s people were called to holiness, and the Israelites were given numerous commands that connected sexuality to their holiness (see, e.g., Lev 18:1-30). The sexual purity of God’s people would be seriously tested in the land of Canaan where illicit sexual practice abounded. Over and over again, the Israelites would fail to live up to God’s standards for sexual purity.<\/p>\nThe believers to whom Paul wrote likewise found themselves living in environments where illicit sexual activity was commonplace. In contrast to the so-called sexual freedom of the Greco-Roman world, the sexual life of God’s people was to be characterized by faithfulness and purity (1 Thes 4:3-8). Sexual relationships are to be restricted to marriage alone (1 Cor 7:1-9, 36-37).<\/p>\nGod has made Christians holy by the work of his Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:11; 2 Thes 2:13). They are therefore called to live as his own holy people (1 Cor 1:2). God has given them everything they need to live a holy life in this world (2 Pet 1:3-4). As a result, their way of life is to be distinctly different from that of the unholy world around them. Every part of their life is to reflect the transforming work of the Holy Spirit (Rom 12:2).<\/p>\nIt is inappropriate for anyone who is united to Christ to have sexual relations with anyone outside of marriage. Such relations violate the Christian’s body, which has become a sanctuary of the living God and therefore belongs to God (1 Cor 6:12-20).<\/p>\nThough homosexual activity was accepted in Greco-Roman culture, it is condemned throughout the Bible. In both the Old Testament and the New Testament, homosexual activity is viewed as a perversion of God’s intentions for men and women (Lev 18:22; 20:13; Rom 1:25-27; 1 Cor 6:9-11; 1 Tim 1:8-11).<\/p>\nPaul strongly warns that those who freely give themselves to illicit sexual relations, whether homosexual or heterosexual, will not inherit the Kingdom of God but will suffer God’s judgment (1 Cor 6:9-10; Gal 5:19-21; Col 3:5-6; see also 2 Pet 2:1–3:13). As with all sin, though, forgiveness and cleansing are available for those who turn to Christ with faith and repentance (Acts 2:38; Rom 3:21-26; see 1 Cor 6:11). In every way, God’s people are to live in holiness and godliness (see 2 Pet 3:11-13), in accord with the desires of their Creator and Judge.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:18-25; Lev 18:1-30; 20:10-24; Rom 12:1-2; 1 Cor 1:2; 6:9-20; 7:1-9, 14; Gal 5:16-24; Col 3:1-6; 1 Thes 4:3-8; 1 Pet 1:13-16; 2 Pet 1:3-4<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Holiness and Sexual Purity<\/h3>\nThe Bible emphasizes the importance of being holy in our sexual relations. God created humanity as sexual beings, and the first command that he gave Adam and Eve was to “be fruitful and multiply” (Gen 1:28). But after sin entered the world, the good that God had created—including sex—became prone to distortion, and the pages of Scripture are filled with examples of sexual sin. God’s people were called to holiness, and the Israelites were given numerous commands that connected sexuality to their holiness (see, e.g., Lev 18:1-30). The sexual purity of God’s people would be seriously tested in the land of Canaan where illicit sexual practice abounded. Over and over again, the Israelites would fail to live up to God’s standards for sexual purity.<\/p>\nThe believers to whom Paul wrote likewise found themselves living in environments where illicit sexual activity was commonplace. In contrast to the so-called sexual freedom of the Greco-Roman world, the sexual life of God’s people was to be characterized by faithfulness and purity (1 Thes 4:3-8). Sexual relationships are to be restricted to marriage alone (1 Cor 7:1-9, 36-37).<\/p>\nGod has made Christians holy by the work of his Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:11; 2 Thes 2:13). They are therefore called to live as his own holy people (1 Cor 1:2). God has given them everything they need to live a holy life in this world (2 Pet 1:3-4). As a result, their way of life is to be distinctly different from that of the unholy world around them. Every part of their life is to reflect the transforming work of the Holy Spirit (Rom 12:2).<\/p>\nIt is inappropriate for anyone who is united to Christ to have sexual relations with anyone outside of marriage. Such relations violate the Christian’s body, which has become a sanctuary of the living God and therefore belongs to God (1 Cor 6:12-20).<\/p>\nThough homosexual activity was accepted in Greco-Roman culture, it is condemned throughout the Bible. In both the Old Testament and the New Testament, homosexual activity is viewed as a perversion of God’s intentions for men and women (Lev 18:22; 20:13; Rom 1:25-27; 1 Cor 6:9-11; 1 Tim 1:8-11).<\/p>\nPaul strongly warns that those who freely give themselves to illicit sexual relations, whether homosexual or heterosexual, will not inherit the Kingdom of God but will suffer God’s judgment (1 Cor 6:9-10; Gal 5:19-21; Col 3:5-6; see also 2 Pet 2:1–3:13). As with all sin, though, forgiveness and cleansing are available for those who turn to Christ with faith and repentance (Acts 2:38; Rom 3:21-26; see 1 Cor 6:11). In every way, God’s people are to live in holiness and godliness (see 2 Pet 3:11-13), in accord with the desires of their Creator and Judge.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:18-25; Lev 18:1-30; 20:10-24; Rom 12:1-2; 1 Cor 1:2; 6:9-20; 7:1-9, 14; Gal 5:16-24; Col 3:1-6; 1 Thes 4:3-8; 1 Pet 1:13-16; 2 Pet 1:3-4<\/p>","summary_ro":"Holiness and Sexual Purity The Bible emphasizes the importance of being holy in our sexual relations. God created humanity as sexual beings, and the first command that he gave Adam and Eve was to “be fruitful and multiply” (Gen 1:28). But after sin entered the world, the good that God had created—including sex—became prone to distortion, and the pages of Scripture are filled with examples of sexual sin. God’s people were called to holiness, and the Israelites were given numerous commands that...","summary_en":"Holiness and Sexual Purity The Bible emphasizes the importance of being holy in our sexual relations. God created humanity as sexual beings, and the first command that he gave Adam and Eve was to “be fruitful and multiply” (Gen 1:28). But after sin entered the world, the good that God had created—including sex—became prone to distortion, and the pages of Scripture are filled with examples of sexual sin. God’s people were called to holiness, and the Israelites were given numerous commands that...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":142554,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Human Sexuality","title_en":"Human Sexuality","content_ro":"<h3>Human Sexuality<\/h3>\nWhen God created the first human beings in his own image, he created them as sexual beings, male and female (Gen 1:27). Through their sexuality, they were to fill and govern the world (1:28) and provide intimate companionship for one another in marriage (2:18-25). Male and female sexuality is central to what it means to be human and is included in God’s declaration of creation as “very good” (1:31).<\/p>\nSexual intimacy united the first man and woman as one, an effect that sexual intimacy continues to have. Since biblical sexuality is not just physical but has the total person in view, it validates sexual relations only as part of the partners’ permanent mutual commitment to each other’s ultimate good. The Bible speaks of engaging in sexual intercourse as literally “knowing” another person intimately (see study note on Gen 4:1). Since Creation, God’s intended context for sexual activity has been the intimate union of marriage—namely, a permanent and loving heterosexual commitment (Gen 1:27-28; 2:23-24). The sexual relationship cements the marriage bond in an intimacy that may result in reproduction and can continue even when reproduction is no longer possible.<\/p>\nAlthough sexuality was created before sin, it did not emerge unscathed from human rebellion. Sexuality is a powerful force that is easily corrupted if not carefully channeled (see Lev 18; 1 Thes 4:3-8). Sexual intimacy apart from marital commitment perverts the order that God intended for creation. Incest, for example, violates sexual boundaries (see Lev 18:7-18), collapses family structures (see Gen 19:30-38), and fragments the community. Whereas perverted sexuality causes much harm, tears the community down (see Gen 38:1-30; 39:7-9; Judg 19–20), and exalts the individual (see 2 Sam 13:11-14), biblical sexuality builds up the sexual partners and the community.<\/p>\nHuman sexuality has been damaged through our fall into sin (Gen 3), but God has redeemed it through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (see 1 Cor 6:12-20; Eph 5:31-33). He restores sexual wholeness in those who trust his work in their lives by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:9-11, 15-20; 1 Thes 4:1-8). Those who commit their sexuality to Christ’s work in their lives can serve as a testament to others of God’s love for his people (Eph 5:25-33).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:27-28; 2:18-25; Lev 18:1-30; Deut 22:13-29; Ruth 4:11-13; 2 Sam 11:2-27; Ps 127:3-5; Eccl 2:8-11; Song 1:8–8:14; Mal 2:15-16; Matt 19:3-12; 1 Cor 6:12–7:40; Eph 5:31-33; 1 Thes 4:3-8<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Human Sexuality<\/h3>\nWhen God created the first human beings in his own image, he created them as sexual beings, male and female (Gen 1:27). Through their sexuality, they were to fill and govern the world (1:28) and provide intimate companionship for one another in marriage (2:18-25). Male and female sexuality is central to what it means to be human and is included in God’s declaration of creation as “very good” (1:31).<\/p>\nSexual intimacy united the first man and woman as one, an effect that sexual intimacy continues to have. Since biblical sexuality is not just physical but has the total person in view, it validates sexual relations only as part of the partners’ permanent mutual commitment to each other’s ultimate good. The Bible speaks of engaging in sexual intercourse as literally “knowing” another person intimately (see study note on Gen 4:1). Since Creation, God’s intended context for sexual activity has been the intimate union of marriage—namely, a permanent and loving heterosexual commitment (Gen 1:27-28; 2:23-24). The sexual relationship cements the marriage bond in an intimacy that may result in reproduction and can continue even when reproduction is no longer possible.<\/p>\nAlthough sexuality was created before sin, it did not emerge unscathed from human rebellion. Sexuality is a powerful force that is easily corrupted if not carefully channeled (see Lev 18; 1 Thes 4:3-8). Sexual intimacy apart from marital commitment perverts the order that God intended for creation. Incest, for example, violates sexual boundaries (see Lev 18:7-18), collapses family structures (see Gen 19:30-38), and fragments the community. Whereas perverted sexuality causes much harm, tears the community down (see Gen 38:1-30; 39:7-9; Judg 19–20), and exalts the individual (see 2 Sam 13:11-14), biblical sexuality builds up the sexual partners and the community.<\/p>\nHuman sexuality has been damaged through our fall into sin (Gen 3), but God has redeemed it through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (see 1 Cor 6:12-20; Eph 5:31-33). He restores sexual wholeness in those who trust his work in their lives by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:9-11, 15-20; 1 Thes 4:1-8). Those who commit their sexuality to Christ’s work in their lives can serve as a testament to others of God’s love for his people (Eph 5:25-33).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:27-28; 2:18-25; Lev 18:1-30; Deut 22:13-29; Ruth 4:11-13; 2 Sam 11:2-27; Ps 127:3-5; Eccl 2:8-11; Song 1:8–8:14; Mal 2:15-16; Matt 19:3-12; 1 Cor 6:12–7:40; Eph 5:31-33; 1 Thes 4:3-8<\/p>","summary_ro":"Human Sexuality When God created the first human beings in his own image, he created them as sexual beings, male and female (Gen 1:27). Through their sexuality, they were to fill and govern the world (1:28) and provide intimate companionship for one another in marriage (2:18-25). Male and female sexuality is central to what it means to be human and is included in God’s declaration of creation as “very good” (1:31). Sexual intimacy united the first man and woman as one, an effect that sexual i...","summary_en":"Human Sexuality When God created the first human beings in his own image, he created them as sexual beings, male and female (Gen 1:27). Through their sexuality, they were to fill and govern the world (1:28) and provide intimate companionship for one another in marriage (2:18-25). Male and female sexuality is central to what it means to be human and is included in God’s declaration of creation as “very good” (1:31). Sexual intimacy united the first man and woman as one, an effect that sexual i...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":142580,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Biblical Marriage","title_en":"Biblical Marriage","content_ro":"<h3>Biblical Marriage<\/h3>\nAt the first wedding, God the Father gave the bride away to the groom and witnessed the couple’s interaction in his sanctuary-garden (Gen 2:18-25). Biblical marriage is a binding covenant commitment before God. Breaching that covenant (e.g., through adultery) is a sin against people and against God, who is a divine witness to and guarantor of the marriage covenant (see Mal 2:10-16; cp. Gen 39:6-9; Jer 3:1; 1 Cor 6:9-10; Heb 13:4). Although marriage is exclusive, it is not private. It is legally declared in public, with community recognition, witnesses, and accountability (see Lev 20:10-12; Deut 22:22; Jer 29:20-23).<\/p>\nMarriage is also a metaphor of the Lord’s relationship with his people, first with Israel (see Exod 19:3-6; 20:2-6; 34:14; Isa 54:5; Ezek 16; Hos 2:19-20), and then with the church (see 2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:21-33). A marriage points to something greater than itself—God’s people (Christ’s “bride”) await the return of Christ (the “groom”). Married Christians are called to live in unity and dignity as they anticipate the wedding feast of the Lamb (Rev 19:6-9). Christ will live forever with his faithful people in glory (Rev 19:7; 21:2, 9).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:18-25; 24:65-67; Ps 45:8-15; Isa 54:5; Hos 2:19-20; Mal 2:10-16; 1 Cor 7:1-40; 2 Cor 6:14-16; Eph 5:21-33; Heb 13:4; 1 Pet 3:1-7<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Biblical Marriage<\/h3>\nAt the first wedding, God the Father gave the bride away to the groom and witnessed the couple’s interaction in his sanctuary-garden (Gen 2:18-25). Biblical marriage is a binding covenant commitment before God. Breaching that covenant (e.g., through adultery) is a sin against people and against God, who is a divine witness to and guarantor of the marriage covenant (see Mal 2:10-16; cp. Gen 39:6-9; Jer 3:1; 1 Cor 6:9-10; Heb 13:4). Although marriage is exclusive, it is not private. It is legally declared in public, with community recognition, witnesses, and accountability (see Lev 20:10-12; Deut 22:22; Jer 29:20-23).<\/p>\nMarriage is also a metaphor of the Lord’s relationship with his people, first with Israel (see Exod 19:3-6; 20:2-6; 34:14; Isa 54:5; Ezek 16; Hos 2:19-20), and then with the church (see 2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:21-33). A marriage points to something greater than itself—God’s people (Christ’s “bride”) await the return of Christ (the “groom”). Married Christians are called to live in unity and dignity as they anticipate the wedding feast of the Lamb (Rev 19:6-9). Christ will live forever with his faithful people in glory (Rev 19:7; 21:2, 9).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:18-25; 24:65-67; Ps 45:8-15; Isa 54:5; Hos 2:19-20; Mal 2:10-16; 1 Cor 7:1-40; 2 Cor 6:14-16; Eph 5:21-33; Heb 13:4; 1 Pet 3:1-7<\/p>","summary_ro":"Biblical Marriage At the first wedding, God the Father gave the bride away to the groom and witnessed the couple’s interaction in his sanctuary-garden (Gen 2:18-25). Biblical marriage is a binding covenant commitment before God. Breaching that covenant (e.g., through adultery) is a sin against people and against God, who is a divine witness to and guarantor of the marriage covenant (see Mal 2:10-16; cp. Gen 39:6-9; Jer 3:1; 1 Cor 6:9-10; Heb 13:4). Although marriage is exclusive, it is not pr...","summary_en":"Biblical Marriage At the first wedding, God the Father gave the bride away to the groom and witnessed the couple’s interaction in his sanctuary-garden (Gen 2:18-25). Biblical marriage is a binding covenant commitment before God. Breaching that covenant (e.g., through adultery) is a sin against people and against God, who is a divine witness to and guarantor of the marriage covenant (see Mal 2:10-16; cp. Gen 39:6-9; Jer 3:1; 1 Cor 6:9-10; Heb 13:4). Although marriage is exclusive, it is not pr...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":146343,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Marriage and Sexuality","title_en":"Marriage and Sexuality","content_ro":"<h3>Marriage and Sexuality<\/h3>\nFrom the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame.<\/p>\nIn Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young men to avoid the temptations of sexual expression outside of marriage (Prov 2:16-22; 5:1-23; 6:20–7:27). While a young man might find other women physically attractive and seductive, the consequences of acting on these temptations are dire: His family and professional aspirations might be destroyed. Proverbs teaches young men to cultivate a strong relationship with their own wives. They are counseled to have healthy marital sex rather than sleeping with other women (5:15-20).<\/p>\nAlthough this section of Proverbs was originally written to instruct young men, all readers can reflect on these issues of marriage and sexuality. Proverbs urges men and women to recognize the sanctity and beauty of marital love as God, the wise Creator, intended it.<\/p>\nThe New Testament reaffirms the sacredness of sexuality and its proper expression in marriage. Jesus appeals to the creation narrative in Genesis as a way of highlighting the intended permanency of the marriage relationship. After quoting Genesis 2:24, he states, “Since they are no longer two but one, let no one split apart what God has joined together” (Matt 19:3-6). Paul discusses the importance of maintaining sexual intimacy in marriage, lest Satan be afforded an opportunity to tempt (1 Cor 7:3-5). God’s desire is that those who join in marriage would remain faithful to one another, avoiding sexual activity that is destructive to the sacred relationship they have entered (see Heb 13:4).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:18-25; Prov 2:16-22; 5:15-20; 6:20-35; 7:1-27; Jer 5:7-11; Hos 2:20; Mal 2:14-16; Matt 19:4-6; 22:30; 1 Cor 6:15-20; Heb 13:4<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Marriage and Sexuality<\/h3>\nFrom the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame.<\/p>\nIn Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young men to avoid the temptations of sexual expression outside of marriage (Prov 2:16-22; 5:1-23; 6:20–7:27). While a young man might find other women physically attractive and seductive, the consequences of acting on these temptations are dire: His family and professional aspirations might be destroyed. Proverbs teaches young men to cultivate a strong relationship with their own wives. They are counseled to have healthy marital sex rather than sleeping with other women (5:15-20).<\/p>\nAlthough this section of Proverbs was originally written to instruct young men, all readers can reflect on these issues of marriage and sexuality. Proverbs urges men and women to recognize the sanctity and beauty of marital love as God, the wise Creator, intended it.<\/p>\nThe New Testament reaffirms the sacredness of sexuality and its proper expression in marriage. Jesus appeals to the creation narrative in Genesis as a way of highlighting the intended permanency of the marriage relationship. After quoting Genesis 2:24, he states, “Since they are no longer two but one, let no one split apart what God has joined together” (Matt 19:3-6). Paul discusses the importance of maintaining sexual intimacy in marriage, lest Satan be afforded an opportunity to tempt (1 Cor 7:3-5). God’s desire is that those who join in marriage would remain faithful to one another, avoiding sexual activity that is destructive to the sacred relationship they have entered (see Heb 13:4).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:18-25; Prov 2:16-22; 5:15-20; 6:20-35; 7:1-27; Jer 5:7-11; Hos 2:20; Mal 2:14-16; Matt 19:4-6; 22:30; 1 Cor 6:15-20; Heb 13:4<\/p>","summary_ro":"Marriage and Sexuality From the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame. In Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young ...","summary_en":"Marriage and Sexuality From the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame. In Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":149829,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Holiness and Sexual Purity","title_en":"Holiness and Sexual Purity","content_ro":"<h3>Holiness and Sexual Purity<\/h3>\nThe Bible emphasizes the importance of being holy in our sexual relations. God created humanity as sexual beings, and the first command that he gave Adam and Eve was to “be fruitful and multiply” (Gen 1:28). But after sin entered the world, the good that God had created—including sex—became prone to distortion, and the pages of Scripture are filled with examples of sexual sin. God’s people were called to holiness, and the Israelites were given numerous commands that connected sexuality to their holiness (see, e.g., Lev 18:1-30). The sexual purity of God’s people would be seriously tested in the land of Canaan where illicit sexual practice abounded. Over and over again, the Israelites would fail to live up to God’s standards for sexual purity.<\/p>\nThe believers to whom Paul wrote likewise found themselves living in environments where illicit sexual activity was commonplace. In contrast to the so-called sexual freedom of the Greco-Roman world, the sexual life of God’s people was to be characterized by faithfulness and purity (1 Thes 4:3-8). Sexual relationships are to be restricted to marriage alone (1 Cor 7:1-9, 36-37).<\/p>\nGod has made Christians holy by the work of his Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:11; 2 Thes 2:13). They are therefore called to live as his own holy people (1 Cor 1:2). God has given them everything they need to live a holy life in this world (2 Pet 1:3-4). As a result, their way of life is to be distinctly different from that of the unholy world around them. Every part of their life is to reflect the transforming work of the Holy Spirit (Rom 12:2).<\/p>\nIt is inappropriate for anyone who is united to Christ to have sexual relations with anyone outside of marriage. Such relations violate the Christian’s body, which has become a sanctuary of the living God and therefore belongs to God (1 Cor 6:12-20).<\/p>\nThough homosexual activity was accepted in Greco-Roman culture, it is condemned throughout the Bible. In both the Old Testament and the New Testament, homosexual activity is viewed as a perversion of God’s intentions for men and women (Lev 18:22; 20:13; Rom 1:25-27; 1 Cor 6:9-11; 1 Tim 1:8-11).<\/p>\nPaul strongly warns that those who freely give themselves to illicit sexual relations, whether homosexual or heterosexual, will not inherit the Kingdom of God but will suffer God’s judgment (1 Cor 6:9-10; Gal 5:19-21; Col 3:5-6; see also 2 Pet 2:1–3:13). As with all sin, though, forgiveness and cleansing are available for those who turn to Christ with faith and repentance (Acts 2:38; Rom 3:21-26; see 1 Cor 6:11). In every way, God’s people are to live in holiness and godliness (see 2 Pet 3:11-13), in accord with the desires of their Creator and Judge.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:18-25; Lev 18:1-30; 20:10-24; Rom 12:1-2; 1 Cor 1:2; 6:9-20; 7:1-9, 14; Gal 5:16-24; Col 3:1-6; 1 Thes 4:3-8; 1 Pet 1:13-16; 2 Pet 1:3-4<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Holiness and Sexual Purity<\/h3>\nThe Bible emphasizes the importance of being holy in our sexual relations. God created humanity as sexual beings, and the first command that he gave Adam and Eve was to “be fruitful and multiply” (Gen 1:28). But after sin entered the world, the good that God had created—including sex—became prone to distortion, and the pages of Scripture are filled with examples of sexual sin. God’s people were called to holiness, and the Israelites were given numerous commands that connected sexuality to their holiness (see, e.g., Lev 18:1-30). The sexual purity of God’s people would be seriously tested in the land of Canaan where illicit sexual practice abounded. Over and over again, the Israelites would fail to live up to God’s standards for sexual purity.<\/p>\nThe believers to whom Paul wrote likewise found themselves living in environments where illicit sexual activity was commonplace. In contrast to the so-called sexual freedom of the Greco-Roman world, the sexual life of God’s people was to be characterized by faithfulness and purity (1 Thes 4:3-8). Sexual relationships are to be restricted to marriage alone (1 Cor 7:1-9, 36-37).<\/p>\nGod has made Christians holy by the work of his Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:11; 2 Thes 2:13). They are therefore called to live as his own holy people (1 Cor 1:2). God has given them everything they need to live a holy life in this world (2 Pet 1:3-4). As a result, their way of life is to be distinctly different from that of the unholy world around them. Every part of their life is to reflect the transforming work of the Holy Spirit (Rom 12:2).<\/p>\nIt is inappropriate for anyone who is united to Christ to have sexual relations with anyone outside of marriage. Such relations violate the Christian’s body, which has become a sanctuary of the living God and therefore belongs to God (1 Cor 6:12-20).<\/p>\nThough homosexual activity was accepted in Greco-Roman culture, it is condemned throughout the Bible. In both the Old Testament and the New Testament, homosexual activity is viewed as a perversion of God’s intentions for men and women (Lev 18:22; 20:13; Rom 1:25-27; 1 Cor 6:9-11; 1 Tim 1:8-11).<\/p>\nPaul strongly warns that those who freely give themselves to illicit sexual relations, whether homosexual or heterosexual, will not inherit the Kingdom of God but will suffer God’s judgment (1 Cor 6:9-10; Gal 5:19-21; Col 3:5-6; see also 2 Pet 2:1–3:13). As with all sin, though, forgiveness and cleansing are available for those who turn to Christ with faith and repentance (Acts 2:38; Rom 3:21-26; see 1 Cor 6:11). In every way, God’s people are to live in holiness and godliness (see 2 Pet 3:11-13), in accord with the desires of their Creator and Judge.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:18-25; Lev 18:1-30; 20:10-24; Rom 12:1-2; 1 Cor 1:2; 6:9-20; 7:1-9, 14; Gal 5:16-24; Col 3:1-6; 1 Thes 4:3-8; 1 Pet 1:13-16; 2 Pet 1:3-4<\/p>","summary_ro":"Holiness and Sexual Purity The Bible emphasizes the importance of being holy in our sexual relations. God created humanity as sexual beings, and the first command that he gave Adam and Eve was to “be fruitful and multiply” (Gen 1:28). But after sin entered the world, the good that God had created—including sex—became prone to distortion, and the pages of Scripture are filled with examples of sexual sin. God’s people were called to holiness, and the Israelites were given numerous commands that...","summary_en":"Holiness and Sexual Purity The Bible emphasizes the importance of being holy in our sexual relations. God created humanity as sexual beings, and the first command that he gave Adam and Eve was to “be fruitful and multiply” (Gen 1:28). But after sin entered the world, the good that God had created—including sex—became prone to distortion, and the pages of Scripture are filled with examples of sexual sin. God’s people were called to holiness, and the Israelites were given numerous commands that...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"19":[{"id":40451,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Adam and Eve","title_en":"Adam and Eve","content_ro":"<h3>Adam and Eve<\/h3>\nAdam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17).<\/p>\nGod created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity that God intended for man and woman in marriage (2:23-25). She is honored as “the mother of all who live” (3:20).<\/p>\nAfter the serpent deceived Eve into rejecting God’s rule, Adam also rebelled (3:1-6). Their willful disobedience disrupted their relationship (3:7) and separated them from God. God looked for Adam after his rebellion; he and Eve were hiding among the trees, already aware of the alienation (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam blamed Eve and, by implication, God (3:12). Their rebellion brought pain, strained relationships, hardship in governing the earth, and death—physical and spiritual (3:16-19, 22-24). Nonetheless, God provided animal skins to cover Adam and Eve (3:21), and promised that Eve’s offspring would defeat Satan (3:15; see Rom 16:20; Rev 12:1-9; 20:1-10).<\/p>\nAdam was a historical individual (Gen 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tim 2:13-14; Jude 1:14) who also represents humanity as a whole. God’s mandates (Gen 1:26-30) and curses (3:16-19) affected not only Adam and Eve, but the entire human race. Adam represents separation from God, which all humanity experiences.<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul contrasted those represented by Adam, the first man, with those who follow Christ, the “last Adam” (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:45-50; see also Rom 8:5-11, 20-22). Those represented by Adam live only after his example—they partake of his sin, his alienation from God and God’s creation, and his spiritual death. By contrast, those who follow Christ live by faith in him. They are recreated in Christ’s image and become “new people” who partake of a new creation (see Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The barriers Adam and Eve raised are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16); Christ restores what they lost.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:26-31; 2:4–3:24; 4:25–5:5; Hos 6:6-7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:22, 45-49; 1 Tim 2:13-14<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Adam and Eve<\/h3>\nAdam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17).<\/p>\nGod created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity that God intended for man and woman in marriage (2:23-25). She is honored as “the mother of all who live” (3:20).<\/p>\nAfter the serpent deceived Eve into rejecting God’s rule, Adam also rebelled (3:1-6). Their willful disobedience disrupted their relationship (3:7) and separated them from God. God looked for Adam after his rebellion; he and Eve were hiding among the trees, already aware of the alienation (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam blamed Eve and, by implication, God (3:12). Their rebellion brought pain, strained relationships, hardship in governing the earth, and death—physical and spiritual (3:16-19, 22-24). Nonetheless, God provided animal skins to cover Adam and Eve (3:21), and promised that Eve’s offspring would defeat Satan (3:15; see Rom 16:20; Rev 12:1-9; 20:1-10).<\/p>\nAdam was a historical individual (Gen 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tim 2:13-14; Jude 1:14) who also represents humanity as a whole. God’s mandates (Gen 1:26-30) and curses (3:16-19) affected not only Adam and Eve, but the entire human race. Adam represents separation from God, which all humanity experiences.<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul contrasted those represented by Adam, the first man, with those who follow Christ, the “last Adam” (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:45-50; see also Rom 8:5-11, 20-22). Those represented by Adam live only after his example—they partake of his sin, his alienation from God and God’s creation, and his spiritual death. By contrast, those who follow Christ live by faith in him. They are recreated in Christ’s image and become “new people” who partake of a new creation (see Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The barriers Adam and Eve raised are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16); Christ restores what they lost.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:26-31; 2:4–3:24; 4:25–5:5; Hos 6:6-7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:22, 45-49; 1 Tim 2:13-14<\/p>","summary_ro":"Adam and Eve Adam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17). God created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity...","summary_en":"Adam and Eve Adam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17). God created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":68077,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Adam and Eve","title_en":"Adam and Eve","content_ro":"<h3>Adam and Eve<\/h3>\nAdam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17).<\/p>\nGod created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity that God intended for man and woman in marriage (2:23-25). She is honored as “the mother of all who live” (3:20).<\/p>\nAfter the serpent deceived Eve into rejecting God’s rule, Adam also rebelled (3:1-6). Their willful disobedience disrupted their relationship (3:7) and separated them from God. God looked for Adam after his rebellion; he and Eve were hiding among the trees, already aware of the alienation (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam blamed Eve and, by implication, God (3:12). Their rebellion brought pain, strained relationships, hardship in governing the earth, and death—physical and spiritual (3:16-19, 22-24). Nonetheless, God provided animal skins to cover Adam and Eve (3:21), and promised that Eve’s offspring would defeat Satan (3:15; see Rom 16:20; Rev 12:1-9; 20:1-10).<\/p>\nAdam was a historical individual (Gen 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tim 2:13-14; Jude 1:14) who also represents humanity as a whole. God’s mandates (Gen 1:26-30) and curses (3:16-19) affected not only Adam and Eve, but the entire human race. Adam represents separation from God, which all humanity experiences.<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul contrasted those represented by Adam, the first man, with those who follow Christ, the “last Adam” (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:45-50; see also Rom 8:5-11, 20-22). Those represented by Adam live only after his example—they partake of his sin, his alienation from God and God’s creation, and his spiritual death. By contrast, those who follow Christ live by faith in him. They are recreated in Christ’s image and become “new people” who partake of a new creation (see Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The barriers Adam and Eve raised are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16); Christ restores what they lost.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:26-31; 2:4–3:24; 4:25–5:5; Hos 6:6-7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:22, 45-49; 1 Tim 2:13-14<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Adam and Eve<\/h3>\nAdam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17).<\/p>\nGod created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity that God intended for man and woman in marriage (2:23-25). She is honored as “the mother of all who live” (3:20).<\/p>\nAfter the serpent deceived Eve into rejecting God’s rule, Adam also rebelled (3:1-6). Their willful disobedience disrupted their relationship (3:7) and separated them from God. God looked for Adam after his rebellion; he and Eve were hiding among the trees, already aware of the alienation (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam blamed Eve and, by implication, God (3:12). Their rebellion brought pain, strained relationships, hardship in governing the earth, and death—physical and spiritual (3:16-19, 22-24). Nonetheless, God provided animal skins to cover Adam and Eve (3:21), and promised that Eve’s offspring would defeat Satan (3:15; see Rom 16:20; Rev 12:1-9; 20:1-10).<\/p>\nAdam was a historical individual (Gen 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tim 2:13-14; Jude 1:14) who also represents humanity as a whole. God’s mandates (Gen 1:26-30) and curses (3:16-19) affected not only Adam and Eve, but the entire human race. Adam represents separation from God, which all humanity experiences.<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul contrasted those represented by Adam, the first man, with those who follow Christ, the “last Adam” (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:45-50; see also Rom 8:5-11, 20-22). Those represented by Adam live only after his example—they partake of his sin, his alienation from God and God’s creation, and his spiritual death. By contrast, those who follow Christ live by faith in him. They are recreated in Christ’s image and become “new people” who partake of a new creation (see Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The barriers Adam and Eve raised are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16); Christ restores what they lost.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:26-31; 2:4–3:24; 4:25–5:5; Hos 6:6-7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:22, 45-49; 1 Tim 2:13-14<\/p>","summary_ro":"Adam and Eve Adam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17). God created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity...","summary_en":"Adam and Eve Adam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17). God created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":95703,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Adam and Eve","title_en":"Adam and Eve","content_ro":"<h3>Adam and Eve<\/h3>\nAdam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17).<\/p>\nGod created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity that God intended for man and woman in marriage (2:23-25). She is honored as “the mother of all who live” (3:20).<\/p>\nAfter the serpent deceived Eve into rejecting God’s rule, Adam also rebelled (3:1-6). Their willful disobedience disrupted their relationship (3:7) and separated them from God. God looked for Adam after his rebellion; he and Eve were hiding among the trees, already aware of the alienation (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam blamed Eve and, by implication, God (3:12). Their rebellion brought pain, strained relationships, hardship in governing the earth, and death—physical and spiritual (3:16-19, 22-24). Nonetheless, God provided animal skins to cover Adam and Eve (3:21), and promised that Eve’s offspring would defeat Satan (3:15; see Rom 16:20; Rev 12:1-9; 20:1-10).<\/p>\nAdam was a historical individual (Gen 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tim 2:13-14; Jude 1:14) who also represents humanity as a whole. God’s mandates (Gen 1:26-30) and curses (3:16-19) affected not only Adam and Eve, but the entire human race. Adam represents separation from God, which all humanity experiences.<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul contrasted those represented by Adam, the first man, with those who follow Christ, the “last Adam” (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:45-50; see also Rom 8:5-11, 20-22). Those represented by Adam live only after his example—they partake of his sin, his alienation from God and God’s creation, and his spiritual death. By contrast, those who follow Christ live by faith in him. They are recreated in Christ’s image and become “new people” who partake of a new creation (see Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The barriers Adam and Eve raised are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16); Christ restores what they lost.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:26-31; 2:4–3:24; 4:25–5:5; Hos 6:6-7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:22, 45-49; 1 Tim 2:13-14<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Adam and Eve<\/h3>\nAdam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17).<\/p>\nGod created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity that God intended for man and woman in marriage (2:23-25). She is honored as “the mother of all who live” (3:20).<\/p>\nAfter the serpent deceived Eve into rejecting God’s rule, Adam also rebelled (3:1-6). Their willful disobedience disrupted their relationship (3:7) and separated them from God. God looked for Adam after his rebellion; he and Eve were hiding among the trees, already aware of the alienation (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam blamed Eve and, by implication, God (3:12). Their rebellion brought pain, strained relationships, hardship in governing the earth, and death—physical and spiritual (3:16-19, 22-24). Nonetheless, God provided animal skins to cover Adam and Eve (3:21), and promised that Eve’s offspring would defeat Satan (3:15; see Rom 16:20; Rev 12:1-9; 20:1-10).<\/p>\nAdam was a historical individual (Gen 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tim 2:13-14; Jude 1:14) who also represents humanity as a whole. God’s mandates (Gen 1:26-30) and curses (3:16-19) affected not only Adam and Eve, but the entire human race. Adam represents separation from God, which all humanity experiences.<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul contrasted those represented by Adam, the first man, with those who follow Christ, the “last Adam” (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:45-50; see also Rom 8:5-11, 20-22). Those represented by Adam live only after his example—they partake of his sin, his alienation from God and God’s creation, and his spiritual death. By contrast, those who follow Christ live by faith in him. They are recreated in Christ’s image and become “new people” who partake of a new creation (see Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The barriers Adam and Eve raised are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16); Christ restores what they lost.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:26-31; 2:4–3:24; 4:25–5:5; Hos 6:6-7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:22, 45-49; 1 Tim 2:13-14<\/p>","summary_ro":"Adam and Eve Adam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17). God created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity...","summary_en":"Adam and Eve Adam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17). God created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":123329,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Adam and Eve","title_en":"Adam and Eve","content_ro":"<h3>Adam and Eve<\/h3>\nAdam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17).<\/p>\nGod created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity that God intended for man and woman in marriage (2:23-25). She is honored as “the mother of all who live” (3:20).<\/p>\nAfter the serpent deceived Eve into rejecting God’s rule, Adam also rebelled (3:1-6). Their willful disobedience disrupted their relationship (3:7) and separated them from God. God looked for Adam after his rebellion; he and Eve were hiding among the trees, already aware of the alienation (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam blamed Eve and, by implication, God (3:12). Their rebellion brought pain, strained relationships, hardship in governing the earth, and death—physical and spiritual (3:16-19, 22-24). Nonetheless, God provided animal skins to cover Adam and Eve (3:21), and promised that Eve’s offspring would defeat Satan (3:15; see Rom 16:20; Rev 12:1-9; 20:1-10).<\/p>\nAdam was a historical individual (Gen 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tim 2:13-14; Jude 1:14) who also represents humanity as a whole. God’s mandates (Gen 1:26-30) and curses (3:16-19) affected not only Adam and Eve, but the entire human race. Adam represents separation from God, which all humanity experiences.<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul contrasted those represented by Adam, the first man, with those who follow Christ, the “last Adam” (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:45-50; see also Rom 8:5-11, 20-22). Those represented by Adam live only after his example—they partake of his sin, his alienation from God and God’s creation, and his spiritual death. By contrast, those who follow Christ live by faith in him. They are recreated in Christ’s image and become “new people” who partake of a new creation (see Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The barriers Adam and Eve raised are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16); Christ restores what they lost.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:26-31; 2:4–3:24; 4:25–5:5; Hos 6:6-7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:22, 45-49; 1 Tim 2:13-14<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Adam and Eve<\/h3>\nAdam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17).<\/p>\nGod created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity that God intended for man and woman in marriage (2:23-25). She is honored as “the mother of all who live” (3:20).<\/p>\nAfter the serpent deceived Eve into rejecting God’s rule, Adam also rebelled (3:1-6). Their willful disobedience disrupted their relationship (3:7) and separated them from God. God looked for Adam after his rebellion; he and Eve were hiding among the trees, already aware of the alienation (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam blamed Eve and, by implication, God (3:12). Their rebellion brought pain, strained relationships, hardship in governing the earth, and death—physical and spiritual (3:16-19, 22-24). Nonetheless, God provided animal skins to cover Adam and Eve (3:21), and promised that Eve’s offspring would defeat Satan (3:15; see Rom 16:20; Rev 12:1-9; 20:1-10).<\/p>\nAdam was a historical individual (Gen 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tim 2:13-14; Jude 1:14) who also represents humanity as a whole. God’s mandates (Gen 1:26-30) and curses (3:16-19) affected not only Adam and Eve, but the entire human race. Adam represents separation from God, which all humanity experiences.<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul contrasted those represented by Adam, the first man, with those who follow Christ, the “last Adam” (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:45-50; see also Rom 8:5-11, 20-22). Those represented by Adam live only after his example—they partake of his sin, his alienation from God and God’s creation, and his spiritual death. By contrast, those who follow Christ live by faith in him. They are recreated in Christ’s image and become “new people” who partake of a new creation (see Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The barriers Adam and Eve raised are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16); Christ restores what they lost.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:26-31; 2:4–3:24; 4:25–5:5; Hos 6:6-7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:22, 45-49; 1 Tim 2:13-14<\/p>","summary_ro":"Adam and Eve Adam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17). God created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity...","summary_en":"Adam and Eve Adam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17). God created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":13529,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Book of Genesis","title_en":"Book of Genesis","content_ro":"<h3>GENESIS, Book of<\/h3>\nFirst book of the Bible.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Name<\/p>\n• Author<\/p>\n• Date<\/p>\n• Purpose<\/p>\n• Structure<\/p>\n• Content<\/p>\nName<\/p>\nThe name Genesis comes into English as a transliteration of the Greek word meaning “origin” or “beginning.” This name was given to the book in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, known as the Septuagint. Genesis reflects both the content of the book and the Hebrew name for it, which is taken from its first word, bere’shith<\/span>,<\/em> “in the beginning.”<\/p>\nAuthor<\/p>\nThe authorship of Genesis is closely related to the authorship of the entire Pentateuch (lit. “five-volumed,” the first five books of the Bible, which in Hebrew are called the Torah). It is clear that the Bible regards the human author of these books as Moses. On several occasions the Lord commanded Moses to write down various things: “in a book” (Ex 17:14) “write these words” (34:27). The Pentateuch reports that “Moses wrote all the words of the Lord<\/span>” (24:4); he wrote the itinerary of the exodus wanderings (Nm 33:2); “Moses wrote this law” (Dt 31:9). (Here it is not certain that all five books are meant, but it must refer to at least the greater part of Deuteronomy.) In Exodus 24:7 it is said that Moses read the Book of the Covenant, which he must have just completed.<\/p>\nThe rest of the OT bears witness to the writing of the Pentateuch by Moses. David referred to “the law of Moses” (1 Kgs 2:3). In the time of Josiah, there was found in the temple the “Book of the Law of the Lord<\/span> . . . given through Moses” (2 Chr 34:14, nlt<\/span>). Day by day Ezra read from “the Book of the Law of God” (Neh 8:18, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nIn the NT, Jesus refers to “the book of Moses” (Mk 12:26; Lk 20:37) and otherwise mentions the commands or statements of Moses (Mt 8:4; 19:8; Mk 7:10; cf. Lk 16:31; 24:44). The Jews also quoted from the Torah as coming from Moses, and Jesus did not contradict them.<\/p>\nOf Genesis in particular, it may be said that Moses had the opportunity and ability to write the book. He could have written it during his years in Egypt or while exiled with the Kenites. As the recognized leader of the Israelites, he would have had access to, or perhaps even custody of, the records that Jacob brought from Canaan. He was “instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians” (Acts 7:22) and probably could have written in several languages and in several scripts (hieroglyphic, cuneiform, Old Hebrew). Although Moses was admirably fitted for the task of writing, one must remember that he was not putting together a human composition but was writing under the inspiration of God (2 Pt 1:21). We may with confidence conclude that Moses was the human author of Genesis.<\/p>\nThe liberal view of the authorship of Genesis is that the book is an editorial composite—a view first put forward by a French physician, Jean Astruc, who suggested that the different names for God indicated different documents or sources for the writing of the book. The German higher critics expanded the view of the use of documents in the writing of Genesis and developed it into the Graf-Wellhausen-Kuenen, or Documentary, Hypothesis, which may also be called the JEDP theory of the authorship of the book. This view holds that there were four basic documents: (1) J, which uses the name YHWH (Jehovah or Yahweh) for God, dates from about the ninth century BC<\/span> and comes from Judah; (2) E uses the name Elohim, dates from the eighth century, and comes from the northern kingdom; (3) D is Deuteronomy and is supposed to come from the time of Josiah, about 621 BC<\/span>; and (4) P is the priestly element, which deals with matters of the priesthood and ritual, dating to the fifth century BC<\/span> or later. Some may date portions of Genesis as late as the Hellenistic period. According to this theory, the various documents were blended together by editors, so that there was a JE, JED, and so on.<\/p>\nThe science of archaeology discredited many of the extreme postulations of these critics, and the work of W. F. Albright and his followers did much to restore confidence in the historicity of Genesis. Within the last several decades, the patriarchal narratives and the account of Joseph have again come under strong attack, but these views are extreme, and much of the evidence adduced by Albright and earlier scholars like R. D. Wilson, W. H. Green, and others still has validity.<\/p>\nDate<\/p>\nThe date of the book is also a matter of debate. Even among those who accept Mosaic authorship there is debate as to when Moses lived. Based on the biblical data, Moses should have lived in the 15th century BC<\/span> (cf. Jgs 11:26; 1 Kgs 6:1), but many scholars incline toward a 13th-century date. As outlined above, the liberal view of the date of Genesis would be from the ninth to the fifth centuries BC<\/span>, with the final editing coming around the fifth century or perhaps even later.<\/p>\nPurpose<\/p>\nGenesis sketches the origin of many things: the universe, the earth, plants, animals, and mankind. It gives the beginnings of human institutions, professions, and crafts. It describes the origin of sin and death, and illustrates the insidious working of Satan in human life. Above all, Genesis relates the beginning of the history of redemption with the announcement of a Redeemer who was to come (Gn 3:15). It names the early progenitors in the lineage of the Messiah and the beginning of the Hebrew people through whom the Bible and the Savior came. Genesis also gives a selective history of people and events as viewed from the perspective of the purposes of God.<\/p>\nStructure<\/p>\nThe book is divided into 11 parts of uneven length, each set off by the expression “these are the generations [descendants, history] of” (2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1; 37:2). Only three times does the formula coincide with the first verse of a chapter. Usually called a heading or superscription, the expression serves as a kind of link between what precedes and what follows.<\/p>\n\nContent<\/p>\n<h5>The Creation (1:1–2:25)<\/h5>\nThese two chapters have been a scientific-theological battleground for many years, as researchers and students have tried to probe the origins of the universe and of life. Much of the evidence is not subject to scientific scrutiny, for science by definition requires that the evidence must be reproducible by experiment.<\/p>\nThe statement of Genesis 1:1 remains the grandest, most precise, and most accurate statement of origins: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” He did this ex nihilo<\/em> (“out of nothing”) by his word (Heb 11:3); he spoke the word of command and it was done (Gn 1:3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20; Ps 33:6, 9).<\/p>\nThe date of the beginning is unknown. Uniformitarian cosmogonists (students of the origins of the universe who believe that natural events have always followed a uniform pattern; cf. 2 Pt 3:3-7) have speculated that the beginning of the universe was billions of years ago. But some creationists posit a world thousands of years old.<\/p>\nTo accommodate geological ages and the existence of extinct animals, some interpreters have proposed a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, with Genesis 1:2–2:3 representing a second or new creation. But this is conjecture. So is the idea that each day represents a geological age.<\/p>\nAs the text stands, there is a correlation between the first three days and the second three days. Day one saw the creation of light; day four, the light bearers. Day two was the time of the creation of the firmament (better, “expanse”), which divided the waters; day five, birds and swarming water creatures. On day three, God made the dry land and plants; on day six he created the land animals and man. He made man in the image of God (Gn 1:26), “a little less than God” (Ps 8:5), and gave him dominion over the earth. He made everything “according to their kinds,” so that each kind is distinct and unique. The perfection of his work is affirmed in that “God saw that it was good” (Gn 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21; “very good,” v 31). The seventh day was a time of cessation from the activity of creating and served as a type for mankind’s day of rest (2:1-3).<\/p>\nCritical scholarship eyes 2:4-25 as a doublet in conflict with Genesis 1:1–2:3. To conservative scholars, the second chapter is the same account from a different perspective. Chapter 1 gives the Creation from the standpoint of sequence; chapter 2 shows it in view of the centrality of mankind in God’s creative work.<\/p>\nChapter 2 gives details of the creation of man of “dust from the ground” (v 7) and woman from a rib of the man (vv 21-22). She was created to be “a companion who will help him” (vv 18-20). They were created as mature adults, with the gift of speech and with great intelligence. Adam had imagination and vocabulary sufficient for naming all of the animal species (v 19).<\/p>\nThe location of the Garden of Eden is given (vv 10-14). Two of the four rivers, the Tigris and the Euphrates, can be identified with certainty. So man lived in this beautiful garden in the bliss of innocence.<\/p>\n<h5>The History of Humankind from Eden to Babel (3:1–11:26)<\/h5>\n<h6>The Fall<\/h6>\nThe loss of Eden and the break in fellowship with God is the saddest chapter in human history. The serpent, the devil, approached Eve with the same philosophy he always uses: doubt of God’s word (Gn 3:1), denial of death (v 4), and the suggestion of equality with God (v 5). He gained access to her will by deceiving her with the promise that the fruit would make her as wise as God is (Gn 3:5; cf. 1 Jn 2:16). Eve was deceived, but when she offered the fruit to Adam, he took it willingly, knowing what he was doing (Gn 3:6; cf. 1 Tm 2:14). Later, he tried to blame God for giving him the wife who gave him the fruit (Gn 3:12). Fellowship with God was broken (v 8), yet God came seeking Adam and found him.<\/p>\nWith sin came judgment, and the Lord pronounced righteous judgment on the serpent, the woman, and the man. The earth was also “subjected to frustration” and now groans as it awaits renewal (Rom 8:21-22). God gave hope to man and a promise of a Redeemer (Gn 3:15), who was to bruise the serpent’s head. Adam and Eve were forced out of the Garden, and it was made inaccessible to them.<\/p>\nThe impatience of humankind is shown in Eve’s expectation that her son Cain was the promised Deliverer. Instead, he developed a wrong-hearted attitude toward God and became so jealous of his younger brother that he murdered him. Apprehended by God and confronted with his crime, Cain showed only self-pity and went east from Eden, where he built a city (4:1-16). Chapter 4 closes with another contrast: the brazen Lamech, who called for vengeance, while others began to call upon the name of the Lord.<\/p>\n<h6>The Generations of Adam<\/h6>\nThis genealogical table (5:1-32) brings humankind to the time of Noah and the Flood. The longevity of the antediluvian patriarchs seems very striking to us, but one must remember that the earth had not yet been subjected to pollution and that the effects of sin on the human race were still nominal. The refrain “and he died” reminds us of man’s mortality. For Enoch, however, there was something better: “He enjoyed a close relationship with God throughout his life. Then, suddenly, he disappeared because God took him” (5:24, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h6>The Flood<\/h6>\nWith increased population came an eruption of sin (6:1-5). As men multiplied, so did their corruption. The universal condemnation of verse 5 shows a world ripe for judgment. Noah, however, “found favor with the Lord<\/span>,” for he was a righteous and blameless man who walked with God (6:8-9).<\/p>\nThe Lord planned to annihilate the human race, but he determined to save Noah and his family. Intending to flood the earth, God instructed Noah to build an ark. Noah was directed to take animals aboard the ark, two by two, male and female, for the preservation of each species. When all was in readiness, the Flood came: “the underground waters burst forth on the earth, and the rain fell in mighty torrents from the sky” (7:11, nlt<\/span>). It rained for 40 days and 40 nights. The highest mountains were covered, and life outside the ark perished. “But God remembered Noah” and sent a wind to evaporate the waters (8:1). Eventually the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat (v 4). Noah made a sacrifice to the Lord, and the Lord determined that he would never again bring such destruction upon the earth.<\/p>\nThe Flood is another of God’s acts that has been much debated. Many have argued for a local flood, which affected only part of Mesopotamia. Archaeologists have pointed to various flood strata in the excavation of Mesopotamian city-mounds as evidence for the account of the flood and have cited the various flood stories from that area as the source of the Genesis record. The epic of Gilgamesh gives an interesting tale of this hero, who went on a mission to visit Utnapishtim, the cuneiform Noah, in quest of eternal life. The flood story told by Utnapishtim has many parallels to Genesis, but there are greater contrasts, which demonstrate that the Bible preserves the true account.<\/p>\nBoth the Genesis account and the references to it in the NT (cf. 2 Pt 3:6) favor the view that the deluge was not a minor episode in the Tigris-Euphrates area but was an unprecedented worldwide catastrophe. Christian geologists affirm that the Flood had far-reaching effects on the earth itself. Flood stories are almost universally known, lending support to the conclusion that the Flood covered the whole earth. Following the Flood, God blessed Noah and his sons, Ham, Shem, and Japheth. God made a covenant with Noah, promising that he would never again send a worldwide flood. As a sign of this, he established the rainbow.<\/p>\nNoah was the first tiller of the soil, and he planted a vineyard (9:20). Noah became drunk from wine he made and lay uncovered in his tent. Ham saw him and reported this to his brothers, who discreetly covered him. Ham and his son Canaan were cursed; Shem and Japheth were blessed.<\/p>\n<h6>The History of the Nations<\/h6>\n“This is the history of the families of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, the three sons of Noah. Many children were born to them after the Flood” (10:1, nlt<\/span>). This chapter lists the descendants of Noah’s three sons, in the order of Japheth (vv 2-5), Ham (vv 6-20), and Shem (vv 21-31). Many of the names of their descendants are preserved in tribes and nations of the world.<\/p>\n<h6>The Tower of Babel<\/h6>\nThe building of the Tower of Babel (“Gate of God”) illustrates man’s perversity and his tendency to want independence from God. The desire of man to displace God follows the fateful example of Lucifer and is a basic tenet of many cults. God thwarted the designs of the builders of Babel by confusing their languages, so that the project came to a halt (11:1-9). The site of this tower is not known with certainty. Some associate it with Birs Nimrud, not far from the ruins of the city of Babylon. Genesis 11:10-25 picks up the line of Shem and carries it down to Terah, the father of Abram.<\/p>\n<h5>The History of Abraham (11:27–25:10) and Isaac (21:1–28:5)<\/h5>\nAbram came from Ur of the Chaldees, a prosperous city. The city had an imposing ziggurat (temple-tower), with many temples, storehouses, and residences. Abram and Sarai, his half sister and wife, went with his father to Haran in Syria, which like Ur was a center of the worship of the moon god, Sin (or Annar).<\/p>\n<h6>Abram’s Call<\/h6>\nThe call of God came to Abram directing him to leave his relatives and move to a land that the Lord would show him (12:1; cf. Acts 7:2-3). Abram obeyed. At the age of 75, he, Sarai, and his nephew Lot left Haran and went to Shechem, where the Lord appeared to him and promised that land to his descendants.<\/p>\nFamine drove Abram down to Egypt (Gn 12:10-20). Because of Sarai’s beauty, he feared that someone might kill him to get her, so he passed her off as his sister. She was taken into the pharaoh’s harem. When the Lord plagued Pharaoh because of this, Abram’s lie was discovered and Sarai was returned to him.<\/p>\n<h6>Abram and Lot<\/h6>\nAbram and Lot returned to Canaan, where strife broke out between Abram’s herdsmen and those of Lot. Abram suggested that they should separate, and he gave Lot the choice of territory. Lot chose the well-watered Jordan Valley and the cities of the plain, Sodom and Gomorrah (ch 13).<\/p>\n<h6>The Invasion of the Four Kings from the East<\/h6>\nThe four kings who invaded along the King’s Highway in Transjordan cannot be identified with certainty. Those kings were successful in their attack against the five cities of the plain, and they moved off with much booty and many captives, including Lot. Abram took 318 retainers, born in his household, and set off after them. By surprise attack, Abram recovered both Lot and the loot. On his return he was met by Melchizedek, king of Jerusalem, to whom Abram paid tithes (ch 14).<\/p>\n<h6>The Covenant<\/h6>\nThe Lord promised Abram a son as heir, and in an impressive nighttime ceremony, God made a covenant with Abram and promised him the land from the River of Egypt (Wadi el Arish) to the Euphrates (ch 15). Because of her own barrenness, Sarai gave her Egyptian maid, Hagar, to Abram. Hagar gave birth to Ishmael, the progenitor of the Arab peoples. When trouble arose between the women, Sarai sent Hagar away, which was her right according to Near Eastern customs (as illustrated by the Nuzi tablets). God showed mercy to Hagar and promised that she would have a great posterity (ch 16).<\/p>\nGod repeated his promise to Abram concerning his descendants and changed the names of Abram (“exalted father”) and Sarai to Abraham (“father of many”) and Sarah (“princess”). A covenant sign of circumcision was given to Abraham (ch 17). This operation had already been practiced among the Egyptians for several centuries.<\/p>\n<h6>The Destruction of the Cities of the Plain<\/h6>\nThe Lord and two angels appeared to Abraham and announced the birth of the promised heir within a year, as well as proclaimed the impending destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, concerning which Abraham bargained with God (18:22-33). Lot and his immediate family were rescued from Sodom, and the cities were destroyed by God with brimstone and fire (19:24-25). Lot’s two daughters, wishing to preserve their family line, got their father drunk and had sexual relations with him. Moab and Ammon, enemies of Israel in later times, were the result.<\/p>\nIn Genesis 20:1-18, Abraham again represented Sarah as his sister and got into trouble with Abimelech, king of Gerar.<\/p>\n<h6>Isaac<\/h6>\nWhen Isaac was born (21:1-3), trouble again broke out between Sarah and Hagar. Hagar was driven out a second time, and once more was befriended by the Lord.<\/p>\nA disagreement arose between Abraham and Abimelech concerning a well, but they made a covenant of peace at Beersheba (21:25-34).<\/p>\nGod tested Abraham’s faith by asking him to sacrifice Isaac on Mt Moriah, which probably is the same site David later bought from Araunah the Jebusite (2 Sm 24:16-25), the place where the temple was to stand. As Abraham was about to use the knife, God called to him and showed him a ram caught in a thicket. Isaac was freed and the animal was sacrificed in his stead.<\/p>\nSarah died at Hebron, and Abraham purchased the cave of Machpelah as a burial place from Ephron the Hittite (ch 23), in a transaction typical of Near Eastern business dealings. To find a wife for Isaac, Abraham sent his servant Eliezer back to the area of Haran, and the Lord directed Eliezer to Rebekah (ch 24).<\/p>\nChapter 25 records the marriage of Abraham to Keturah, who bore him a number of children. Abraham died at the age of 175 years and was buried in the cave of Machpelah by his two sons, Isaac and Ishmael.<\/p>\n<h5>The History of Jacob and Esau (25:19–37:1)<\/h5>\nRebekah gave birth to twin sons, Esau and Jacob. When the boys were grown, Esau sold his birthright to Jacob for a meal of red pottage (25:27-34).<\/p>\nWhen famine came to the land, Isaac went to Gerar, as his father had done (ch 20), and repeated his father’s lie by calling his wife his sister (26:1-11). Trouble arose with the Philistines over wells, but Isaac was a peaceable man and preferred digging new wells rather than fighting over old ones (vv 17-33).<\/p>\nIn Isaac’s old age, when his sight had failed, Rebekah connived with Jacob to trick Isaac into giving to Jacob the blessing of the firstborn, which was rightfully Esau’s. This oral blessing had legal validity and was irrevocable, according to the ancient Nuzi tablets. Fearing for Jacob’s life at the hands of Esau, Rebekah arranged to send Jacob to Haran to find a wife from among her own people. At Bethel, God appeared to Jacob in a dream of a ladder leading up to heaven; God renewed with Jacob the promise made to Abraham and Isaac (28:10-22).<\/p>\nJacob reached Haran, found his uncle Laban, and was employed by him (ch 29). His wages for seven years of labor were to be Laban’s younger daughter, Rachel, as his wife. But Laban substituted Leah, so that Jacob had to work another seven years for Rachel. The Lord prospered Jacob, but he continually had difficulties with Laban. The Lord directed Jacob back to Canaan (31:3), so he left secretly with his wives, children, and property. Laban pursued them because his household gods were missing (possession of these “gods” made the holder heir to the owner’s estate, according to Nuzi custom). Rachel had taken them but successfully concealed them from her father, and Laban went back to Haran.<\/p>\nFearing a meeting with Esau as they passed through Edom, Jacob sent gifts to his brother and divided his own party into two camps for security. On this return journey, Jacob had an unexpected wrestling bout with the Angel of the Lord, and he was left with a limp and a new name, Israel (ch 32).<\/p>\nThe meeting with Esau was friendly, and Jacob went on to Shechem (ch 33), where his sons killed the male Shechemites because of the rape of their sister Dinah (ch 34). God told Jacob to go to Bethel and build an altar to the Lord. All idols of foreign gods were buried (35:1-4). At Bethel, God reaffirmed his promise of a posterity and the land (vv 9-15). Rachel died on the way to Bethlehem, while giving birth to Benjamin, Jacob’s 12th and last son. Isaac died at Hebron at age 180 and was buried in the cave of Machpelah by Esau and Jacob.<\/p>\nGenesis 36 records “the generations of Esau” (v 1). Here Esau is also named Edom (“Red”; cf. 25:30).<\/p>\n<h5>The History of Joseph (37:2–50:26)<\/h5>\nJoseph was Jacob’s favorite son and thus incurred the jealousy of his brothers. This was heightened by Joseph’s dreams of lordship over them. Their resentment of Joseph came to a climax when Jacob gave Joseph a beautiful coat. The brothers determined to kill Joseph, but they compromised by selling him to a caravan of merchants, who took him to Egypt and sold him as a slave to Potiphar, an Egyptian captain of the guard (37:36; 39:1).<\/p>\nChapter 38 relates a historic case of levirate marriage. Judah failed to give his widowed daughter-in-law to his third son. She deceived him into fathering twin sons and forced him to acknowledge his faults. The elder son, Perez, is named in Luke’s genealogy of Jesus (Lk 3:33).<\/p>\nThe Lord blessed Joseph, who soon was put in charge of Potiphar’s household (Gn 39). The young man attracted the attention of Potiphar’s wife, who, after many attempts to seduce him, at last accused him of attempted rape. Sentenced on this charge, Joseph met with favor in prison, where he had opportunity to interpret dreams for two of the pharaoh’s servants (ch 40). When the king had dreams that his magicians and wise men could not interpret, Joseph was summoned from jail. Joseph told Pharaoh that the dreams meant seven years of plenty, followed by seven years of famine. Joseph was then exalted to the office of vizier, or prime minister, second only to the king, and put in charge of the administration of the land (41:37-44).<\/p>\nWhen the famine came to Palestine, Jacob sent his sons to Egypt to purchase grain. Joseph recognized his brothers but did not reveal his identity to them. Joseph put them to the test by accusing them of being spies (42:9), by keeping one of the brothers (Simeon) hostage (v 19), and by demanding that if they came to Egypt again, they must bring their youngest brother with them (42:20; 43:3). The famine became so severe in Canaan (43:1) that Jacob at last allowed Benjamin to go with his brothers to Egypt. The brothers were again set up by Joseph, who had his silver cup put into Benjamin’s grain sack and then had him apprehended as a thief (ch 44).<\/p>\nAt this point Joseph revealed his identity to his brothers (45:4-15) and there was much rejoicing. Joseph pointed out that it was God who had sent him to Egypt (vv 7-8), in order to preserve the lives of all the family. Jacob was then sent for (46:1), and Joseph met him in the land of Goshen (46:28-29). The Israelites were assigned land in the region of Goshen, where they prospered (47:27).<\/p>\nIn Jacob’s final illness, Joseph brought his two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, to his father for his blessing. Jacob gave the primary blessing to the second-born, Ephraim (48:13-20). Jacob blessed each of his own sons and then died at the age of at least 130 years. Joseph arranged for Jacob’s body to be prepared for burial according to Egyptian custom (50:2-3). After the burial of their father in the cave of Machpelah at Hebron, Joseph’s brothers worried about vengeance, but Joseph declared, “As far as I am concerned, God turned into good what you meant for evil. He brought me to the high position I have today so I could save the lives of many people” (v 20, nlt<\/span>). Joseph died at age 110 with the prophetic request that when the Israelites went up from Egypt they would take his bones with them (50:25; cf. Ex 13:19; Jos 24:32).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Abraham; Adam (Person); Covenant; Creation; Eve; Fall of Man; Flood, The; Isaac; Jacob #1; Joseph #1; Nations; Noah #1; Patriarchs, Period of the.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>GENESIS, Book of<\/h3>\nFirst book of the Bible.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Name<\/p>\n• Author<\/p>\n• Date<\/p>\n• Purpose<\/p>\n• Structure<\/p>\n• Content<\/p>\nName<\/p>\nThe name Genesis comes into English as a transliteration of the Greek word meaning “origin” or “beginning.” This name was given to the book in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, known as the Septuagint. Genesis reflects both the content of the book and the Hebrew name for it, which is taken from its first word, bere’shith<\/span>,<\/em> “in the beginning.”<\/p>\nAuthor<\/p>\nThe authorship of Genesis is closely related to the authorship of the entire Pentateuch (lit. “five-volumed,” the first five books of the Bible, which in Hebrew are called the Torah). It is clear that the Bible regards the human author of these books as Moses. On several occasions the Lord commanded Moses to write down various things: “in a book” (Ex 17:14) “write these words” (34:27). The Pentateuch reports that “Moses wrote all the words of the Lord<\/span>” (24:4); he wrote the itinerary of the exodus wanderings (Nm 33:2); “Moses wrote this law” (Dt 31:9). (Here it is not certain that all five books are meant, but it must refer to at least the greater part of Deuteronomy.) In Exodus 24:7 it is said that Moses read the Book of the Covenant, which he must have just completed.<\/p>\nThe rest of the OT bears witness to the writing of the Pentateuch by Moses. David referred to “the law of Moses” (1 Kgs 2:3). In the time of Josiah, there was found in the temple the “Book of the Law of the Lord<\/span> . . . given through Moses” (2 Chr 34:14, nlt<\/span>). Day by day Ezra read from “the Book of the Law of God” (Neh 8:18, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nIn the NT, Jesus refers to “the book of Moses” (Mk 12:26; Lk 20:37) and otherwise mentions the commands or statements of Moses (Mt 8:4; 19:8; Mk 7:10; cf. Lk 16:31; 24:44). The Jews also quoted from the Torah as coming from Moses, and Jesus did not contradict them.<\/p>\nOf Genesis in particular, it may be said that Moses had the opportunity and ability to write the book. He could have written it during his years in Egypt or while exiled with the Kenites. As the recognized leader of the Israelites, he would have had access to, or perhaps even custody of, the records that Jacob brought from Canaan. He was “instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians” (Acts 7:22) and probably could have written in several languages and in several scripts (hieroglyphic, cuneiform, Old Hebrew). Although Moses was admirably fitted for the task of writing, one must remember that he was not putting together a human composition but was writing under the inspiration of God (2 Pt 1:21). We may with confidence conclude that Moses was the human author of Genesis.<\/p>\nThe liberal view of the authorship of Genesis is that the book is an editorial composite—a view first put forward by a French physician, Jean Astruc, who suggested that the different names for God indicated different documents or sources for the writing of the book. The German higher critics expanded the view of the use of documents in the writing of Genesis and developed it into the Graf-Wellhausen-Kuenen, or Documentary, Hypothesis, which may also be called the JEDP theory of the authorship of the book. This view holds that there were four basic documents: (1) J, which uses the name YHWH (Jehovah or Yahweh) for God, dates from about the ninth century BC<\/span> and comes from Judah; (2) E uses the name Elohim, dates from the eighth century, and comes from the northern kingdom; (3) D is Deuteronomy and is supposed to come from the time of Josiah, about 621 BC<\/span>; and (4) P is the priestly element, which deals with matters of the priesthood and ritual, dating to the fifth century BC<\/span> or later. Some may date portions of Genesis as late as the Hellenistic period. According to this theory, the various documents were blended together by editors, so that there was a JE, JED, and so on.<\/p>\nThe science of archaeology discredited many of the extreme postulations of these critics, and the work of W. F. Albright and his followers did much to restore confidence in the historicity of Genesis. Within the last several decades, the patriarchal narratives and the account of Joseph have again come under strong attack, but these views are extreme, and much of the evidence adduced by Albright and earlier scholars like R. D. Wilson, W. H. Green, and others still has validity.<\/p>\nDate<\/p>\nThe date of the book is also a matter of debate. Even among those who accept Mosaic authorship there is debate as to when Moses lived. Based on the biblical data, Moses should have lived in the 15th century BC<\/span> (cf. Jgs 11:26; 1 Kgs 6:1), but many scholars incline toward a 13th-century date. As outlined above, the liberal view of the date of Genesis would be from the ninth to the fifth centuries BC<\/span>, with the final editing coming around the fifth century or perhaps even later.<\/p>\nPurpose<\/p>\nGenesis sketches the origin of many things: the universe, the earth, plants, animals, and mankind. It gives the beginnings of human institutions, professions, and crafts. It describes the origin of sin and death, and illustrates the insidious working of Satan in human life. Above all, Genesis relates the beginning of the history of redemption with the announcement of a Redeemer who was to come (Gn 3:15). It names the early progenitors in the lineage of the Messiah and the beginning of the Hebrew people through whom the Bible and the Savior came. Genesis also gives a selective history of people and events as viewed from the perspective of the purposes of God.<\/p>\nStructure<\/p>\nThe book is divided into 11 parts of uneven length, each set off by the expression “these are the generations [descendants, history] of” (2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1; 37:2). Only three times does the formula coincide with the first verse of a chapter. Usually called a heading or superscription, the expression serves as a kind of link between what precedes and what follows.<\/p>\n\nContent<\/p>\n<h5>The Creation (1:1–2:25)<\/h5>\nThese two chapters have been a scientific-theological battleground for many years, as researchers and students have tried to probe the origins of the universe and of life. Much of the evidence is not subject to scientific scrutiny, for science by definition requires that the evidence must be reproducible by experiment.<\/p>\nThe statement of Genesis 1:1 remains the grandest, most precise, and most accurate statement of origins: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” He did this ex nihilo<\/em> (“out of nothing”) by his word (Heb 11:3); he spoke the word of command and it was done (Gn 1:3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20; Ps 33:6, 9).<\/p>\nThe date of the beginning is unknown. Uniformitarian cosmogonists (students of the origins of the universe who believe that natural events have always followed a uniform pattern; cf. 2 Pt 3:3-7) have speculated that the beginning of the universe was billions of years ago. But some creationists posit a world thousands of years old.<\/p>\nTo accommodate geological ages and the existence of extinct animals, some interpreters have proposed a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, with Genesis 1:2–2:3 representing a second or new creation. But this is conjecture. So is the idea that each day represents a geological age.<\/p>\nAs the text stands, there is a correlation between the first three days and the second three days. Day one saw the creation of light; day four, the light bearers. Day two was the time of the creation of the firmament (better, “expanse”), which divided the waters; day five, birds and swarming water creatures. On day three, God made the dry land and plants; on day six he created the land animals and man. He made man in the image of God (Gn 1:26), “a little less than God” (Ps 8:5), and gave him dominion over the earth. He made everything “according to their kinds,” so that each kind is distinct and unique. The perfection of his work is affirmed in that “God saw that it was good” (Gn 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21; “very good,” v 31). The seventh day was a time of cessation from the activity of creating and served as a type for mankind’s day of rest (2:1-3).<\/p>\nCritical scholarship eyes 2:4-25 as a doublet in conflict with Genesis 1:1–2:3. To conservative scholars, the second chapter is the same account from a different perspective. Chapter 1 gives the Creation from the standpoint of sequence; chapter 2 shows it in view of the centrality of mankind in God’s creative work.<\/p>\nChapter 2 gives details of the creation of man of “dust from the ground” (v 7) and woman from a rib of the man (vv 21-22). She was created to be “a companion who will help him” (vv 18-20). They were created as mature adults, with the gift of speech and with great intelligence. Adam had imagination and vocabulary sufficient for naming all of the animal species (v 19).<\/p>\nThe location of the Garden of Eden is given (vv 10-14). Two of the four rivers, the Tigris and the Euphrates, can be identified with certainty. So man lived in this beautiful garden in the bliss of innocence.<\/p>\n<h5>The History of Humankind from Eden to Babel (3:1–11:26)<\/h5>\n<h6>The Fall<\/h6>\nThe loss of Eden and the break in fellowship with God is the saddest chapter in human history. The serpent, the devil, approached Eve with the same philosophy he always uses: doubt of God’s word (Gn 3:1), denial of death (v 4), and the suggestion of equality with God (v 5). He gained access to her will by deceiving her with the promise that the fruit would make her as wise as God is (Gn 3:5; cf. 1 Jn 2:16). Eve was deceived, but when she offered the fruit to Adam, he took it willingly, knowing what he was doing (Gn 3:6; cf. 1 Tm 2:14). Later, he tried to blame God for giving him the wife who gave him the fruit (Gn 3:12). Fellowship with God was broken (v 8), yet God came seeking Adam and found him.<\/p>\nWith sin came judgment, and the Lord pronounced righteous judgment on the serpent, the woman, and the man. The earth was also “subjected to frustration” and now groans as it awaits renewal (Rom 8:21-22). God gave hope to man and a promise of a Redeemer (Gn 3:15), who was to bruise the serpent’s head. Adam and Eve were forced out of the Garden, and it was made inaccessible to them.<\/p>\nThe impatience of humankind is shown in Eve’s expectation that her son Cain was the promised Deliverer. Instead, he developed a wrong-hearted attitude toward God and became so jealous of his younger brother that he murdered him. Apprehended by God and confronted with his crime, Cain showed only self-pity and went east from Eden, where he built a city (4:1-16). Chapter 4 closes with another contrast: the brazen Lamech, who called for vengeance, while others began to call upon the name of the Lord.<\/p>\n<h6>The Generations of Adam<\/h6>\nThis genealogical table (5:1-32) brings humankind to the time of Noah and the Flood. The longevity of the antediluvian patriarchs seems very striking to us, but one must remember that the earth had not yet been subjected to pollution and that the effects of sin on the human race were still nominal. The refrain “and he died” reminds us of man’s mortality. For Enoch, however, there was something better: “He enjoyed a close relationship with God throughout his life. Then, suddenly, he disappeared because God took him” (5:24, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h6>The Flood<\/h6>\nWith increased population came an eruption of sin (6:1-5). As men multiplied, so did their corruption. The universal condemnation of verse 5 shows a world ripe for judgment. Noah, however, “found favor with the Lord<\/span>,” for he was a righteous and blameless man who walked with God (6:8-9).<\/p>\nThe Lord planned to annihilate the human race, but he determined to save Noah and his family. Intending to flood the earth, God instructed Noah to build an ark. Noah was directed to take animals aboard the ark, two by two, male and female, for the preservation of each species. When all was in readiness, the Flood came: “the underground waters burst forth on the earth, and the rain fell in mighty torrents from the sky” (7:11, nlt<\/span>). It rained for 40 days and 40 nights. The highest mountains were covered, and life outside the ark perished. “But God remembered Noah” and sent a wind to evaporate the waters (8:1). Eventually the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat (v 4). Noah made a sacrifice to the Lord, and the Lord determined that he would never again bring such destruction upon the earth.<\/p>\nThe Flood is another of God’s acts that has been much debated. Many have argued for a local flood, which affected only part of Mesopotamia. Archaeologists have pointed to various flood strata in the excavation of Mesopotamian city-mounds as evidence for the account of the flood and have cited the various flood stories from that area as the source of the Genesis record. The epic of Gilgamesh gives an interesting tale of this hero, who went on a mission to visit Utnapishtim, the cuneiform Noah, in quest of eternal life. The flood story told by Utnapishtim has many parallels to Genesis, but there are greater contrasts, which demonstrate that the Bible preserves the true account.<\/p>\nBoth the Genesis account and the references to it in the NT (cf. 2 Pt 3:6) favor the view that the deluge was not a minor episode in the Tigris-Euphrates area but was an unprecedented worldwide catastrophe. Christian geologists affirm that the Flood had far-reaching effects on the earth itself. Flood stories are almost universally known, lending support to the conclusion that the Flood covered the whole earth. Following the Flood, God blessed Noah and his sons, Ham, Shem, and Japheth. God made a covenant with Noah, promising that he would never again send a worldwide flood. As a sign of this, he established the rainbow.<\/p>\nNoah was the first tiller of the soil, and he planted a vineyard (9:20). Noah became drunk from wine he made and lay uncovered in his tent. Ham saw him and reported this to his brothers, who discreetly covered him. Ham and his son Canaan were cursed; Shem and Japheth were blessed.<\/p>\n<h6>The History of the Nations<\/h6>\n“This is the history of the families of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, the three sons of Noah. Many children were born to them after the Flood” (10:1, nlt<\/span>). This chapter lists the descendants of Noah’s three sons, in the order of Japheth (vv 2-5), Ham (vv 6-20), and Shem (vv 21-31). Many of the names of their descendants are preserved in tribes and nations of the world.<\/p>\n<h6>The Tower of Babel<\/h6>\nThe building of the Tower of Babel (“Gate of God”) illustrates man’s perversity and his tendency to want independence from God. The desire of man to displace God follows the fateful example of Lucifer and is a basic tenet of many cults. God thwarted the designs of the builders of Babel by confusing their languages, so that the project came to a halt (11:1-9). The site of this tower is not known with certainty. Some associate it with Birs Nimrud, not far from the ruins of the city of Babylon. Genesis 11:10-25 picks up the line of Shem and carries it down to Terah, the father of Abram.<\/p>\n<h5>The History of Abraham (11:27–25:10) and Isaac (21:1–28:5)<\/h5>\nAbram came from Ur of the Chaldees, a prosperous city. The city had an imposing ziggurat (temple-tower), with many temples, storehouses, and residences. Abram and Sarai, his half sister and wife, went with his father to Haran in Syria, which like Ur was a center of the worship of the moon god, Sin (or Annar).<\/p>\n<h6>Abram’s Call<\/h6>\nThe call of God came to Abram directing him to leave his relatives and move to a land that the Lord would show him (12:1; cf. Acts 7:2-3). Abram obeyed. At the age of 75, he, Sarai, and his nephew Lot left Haran and went to Shechem, where the Lord appeared to him and promised that land to his descendants.<\/p>\nFamine drove Abram down to Egypt (Gn 12:10-20). Because of Sarai’s beauty, he feared that someone might kill him to get her, so he passed her off as his sister. She was taken into the pharaoh’s harem. When the Lord plagued Pharaoh because of this, Abram’s lie was discovered and Sarai was returned to him.<\/p>\n<h6>Abram and Lot<\/h6>\nAbram and Lot returned to Canaan, where strife broke out between Abram’s herdsmen and those of Lot. Abram suggested that they should separate, and he gave Lot the choice of territory. Lot chose the well-watered Jordan Valley and the cities of the plain, Sodom and Gomorrah (ch 13).<\/p>\n<h6>The Invasion of the Four Kings from the East<\/h6>\nThe four kings who invaded along the King’s Highway in Transjordan cannot be identified with certainty. Those kings were successful in their attack against the five cities of the plain, and they moved off with much booty and many captives, including Lot. Abram took 318 retainers, born in his household, and set off after them. By surprise attack, Abram recovered both Lot and the loot. On his return he was met by Melchizedek, king of Jerusalem, to whom Abram paid tithes (ch 14).<\/p>\n<h6>The Covenant<\/h6>\nThe Lord promised Abram a son as heir, and in an impressive nighttime ceremony, God made a covenant with Abram and promised him the land from the River of Egypt (Wadi el Arish) to the Euphrates (ch 15). Because of her own barrenness, Sarai gave her Egyptian maid, Hagar, to Abram. Hagar gave birth to Ishmael, the progenitor of the Arab peoples. When trouble arose between the women, Sarai sent Hagar away, which was her right according to Near Eastern customs (as illustrated by the Nuzi tablets). God showed mercy to Hagar and promised that she would have a great posterity (ch 16).<\/p>\nGod repeated his promise to Abram concerning his descendants and changed the names of Abram (“exalted father”) and Sarai to Abraham (“father of many”) and Sarah (“princess”). A covenant sign of circumcision was given to Abraham (ch 17). This operation had already been practiced among the Egyptians for several centuries.<\/p>\n<h6>The Destruction of the Cities of the Plain<\/h6>\nThe Lord and two angels appeared to Abraham and announced the birth of the promised heir within a year, as well as proclaimed the impending destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, concerning which Abraham bargained with God (18:22-33). Lot and his immediate family were rescued from Sodom, and the cities were destroyed by God with brimstone and fire (19:24-25). Lot’s two daughters, wishing to preserve their family line, got their father drunk and had sexual relations with him. Moab and Ammon, enemies of Israel in later times, were the result.<\/p>\nIn Genesis 20:1-18, Abraham again represented Sarah as his sister and got into trouble with Abimelech, king of Gerar.<\/p>\n<h6>Isaac<\/h6>\nWhen Isaac was born (21:1-3), trouble again broke out between Sarah and Hagar. Hagar was driven out a second time, and once more was befriended by the Lord.<\/p>\nA disagreement arose between Abraham and Abimelech concerning a well, but they made a covenant of peace at Beersheba (21:25-34).<\/p>\nGod tested Abraham’s faith by asking him to sacrifice Isaac on Mt Moriah, which probably is the same site David later bought from Araunah the Jebusite (2 Sm 24:16-25), the place where the temple was to stand. As Abraham was about to use the knife, God called to him and showed him a ram caught in a thicket. Isaac was freed and the animal was sacrificed in his stead.<\/p>\nSarah died at Hebron, and Abraham purchased the cave of Machpelah as a burial place from Ephron the Hittite (ch 23), in a transaction typical of Near Eastern business dealings. To find a wife for Isaac, Abraham sent his servant Eliezer back to the area of Haran, and the Lord directed Eliezer to Rebekah (ch 24).<\/p>\nChapter 25 records the marriage of Abraham to Keturah, who bore him a number of children. Abraham died at the age of 175 years and was buried in the cave of Machpelah by his two sons, Isaac and Ishmael.<\/p>\n<h5>The History of Jacob and Esau (25:19–37:1)<\/h5>\nRebekah gave birth to twin sons, Esau and Jacob. When the boys were grown, Esau sold his birthright to Jacob for a meal of red pottage (25:27-34).<\/p>\nWhen famine came to the land, Isaac went to Gerar, as his father had done (ch 20), and repeated his father’s lie by calling his wife his sister (26:1-11). Trouble arose with the Philistines over wells, but Isaac was a peaceable man and preferred digging new wells rather than fighting over old ones (vv 17-33).<\/p>\nIn Isaac’s old age, when his sight had failed, Rebekah connived with Jacob to trick Isaac into giving to Jacob the blessing of the firstborn, which was rightfully Esau’s. This oral blessing had legal validity and was irrevocable, according to the ancient Nuzi tablets. Fearing for Jacob’s life at the hands of Esau, Rebekah arranged to send Jacob to Haran to find a wife from among her own people. At Bethel, God appeared to Jacob in a dream of a ladder leading up to heaven; God renewed with Jacob the promise made to Abraham and Isaac (28:10-22).<\/p>\nJacob reached Haran, found his uncle Laban, and was employed by him (ch 29). His wages for seven years of labor were to be Laban’s younger daughter, Rachel, as his wife. But Laban substituted Leah, so that Jacob had to work another seven years for Rachel. The Lord prospered Jacob, but he continually had difficulties with Laban. The Lord directed Jacob back to Canaan (31:3), so he left secretly with his wives, children, and property. Laban pursued them because his household gods were missing (possession of these “gods” made the holder heir to the owner’s estate, according to Nuzi custom). Rachel had taken them but successfully concealed them from her father, and Laban went back to Haran.<\/p>\nFearing a meeting with Esau as they passed through Edom, Jacob sent gifts to his brother and divided his own party into two camps for security. On this return journey, Jacob had an unexpected wrestling bout with the Angel of the Lord, and he was left with a limp and a new name, Israel (ch 32).<\/p>\nThe meeting with Esau was friendly, and Jacob went on to Shechem (ch 33), where his sons killed the male Shechemites because of the rape of their sister Dinah (ch 34). God told Jacob to go to Bethel and build an altar to the Lord. All idols of foreign gods were buried (35:1-4). At Bethel, God reaffirmed his promise of a posterity and the land (vv 9-15). Rachel died on the way to Bethlehem, while giving birth to Benjamin, Jacob’s 12th and last son. Isaac died at Hebron at age 180 and was buried in the cave of Machpelah by Esau and Jacob.<\/p>\nGenesis 36 records “the generations of Esau” (v 1). Here Esau is also named Edom (“Red”; cf. 25:30).<\/p>\n<h5>The History of Joseph (37:2–50:26)<\/h5>\nJoseph was Jacob’s favorite son and thus incurred the jealousy of his brothers. This was heightened by Joseph’s dreams of lordship over them. Their resentment of Joseph came to a climax when Jacob gave Joseph a beautiful coat. The brothers determined to kill Joseph, but they compromised by selling him to a caravan of merchants, who took him to Egypt and sold him as a slave to Potiphar, an Egyptian captain of the guard (37:36; 39:1).<\/p>\nChapter 38 relates a historic case of levirate marriage. Judah failed to give his widowed daughter-in-law to his third son. She deceived him into fathering twin sons and forced him to acknowledge his faults. The elder son, Perez, is named in Luke’s genealogy of Jesus (Lk 3:33).<\/p>\nThe Lord blessed Joseph, who soon was put in charge of Potiphar’s household (Gn 39). The young man attracted the attention of Potiphar’s wife, who, after many attempts to seduce him, at last accused him of attempted rape. Sentenced on this charge, Joseph met with favor in prison, where he had opportunity to interpret dreams for two of the pharaoh’s servants (ch 40). When the king had dreams that his magicians and wise men could not interpret, Joseph was summoned from jail. Joseph told Pharaoh that the dreams meant seven years of plenty, followed by seven years of famine. Joseph was then exalted to the office of vizier, or prime minister, second only to the king, and put in charge of the administration of the land (41:37-44).<\/p>\nWhen the famine came to Palestine, Jacob sent his sons to Egypt to purchase grain. Joseph recognized his brothers but did not reveal his identity to them. Joseph put them to the test by accusing them of being spies (42:9), by keeping one of the brothers (Simeon) hostage (v 19), and by demanding that if they came to Egypt again, they must bring their youngest brother with them (42:20; 43:3). The famine became so severe in Canaan (43:1) that Jacob at last allowed Benjamin to go with his brothers to Egypt. The brothers were again set up by Joseph, who had his silver cup put into Benjamin’s grain sack and then had him apprehended as a thief (ch 44).<\/p>\nAt this point Joseph revealed his identity to his brothers (45:4-15) and there was much rejoicing. Joseph pointed out that it was God who had sent him to Egypt (vv 7-8), in order to preserve the lives of all the family. Jacob was then sent for (46:1), and Joseph met him in the land of Goshen (46:28-29). The Israelites were assigned land in the region of Goshen, where they prospered (47:27).<\/p>\nIn Jacob’s final illness, Joseph brought his two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, to his father for his blessing. Jacob gave the primary blessing to the second-born, Ephraim (48:13-20). Jacob blessed each of his own sons and then died at the age of at least 130 years. Joseph arranged for Jacob’s body to be prepared for burial according to Egyptian custom (50:2-3). After the burial of their father in the cave of Machpelah at Hebron, Joseph’s brothers worried about vengeance, but Joseph declared, “As far as I am concerned, God turned into good what you meant for evil. He brought me to the high position I have today so I could save the lives of many people” (v 20, nlt<\/span>). Joseph died at age 110 with the prophetic request that when the Israelites went up from Egypt they would take his bones with them (50:25; cf. Ex 13:19; Jos 24:32).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Abraham; Adam (Person); Covenant; Creation; Eve; Fall of Man; Flood, The; Isaac; Jacob #1; Joseph #1; Nations; Noah #1; Patriarchs, Period of the.<\/p>","summary_ro":"GENESIS, Book of First book of the Bible. Preview • Name • Author • Date • Purpose • Structure • Content Name The name Genesis comes into English as a transliteration of the Greek word meaning “origin” or “beginning.” This name was given to the book in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, known as the Septuagint. Genesis reflects both the content of the book and the Hebrew name for it, which is taken from its first word, bere’shith, “in the beginning.” Author The authorship of Gene...","summary_en":"GENESIS, Book of First book of the Bible. Preview • Name • Author • Date • Purpose • Structure • Content Name The name Genesis comes into English as a transliteration of the Greek word meaning “origin” or “beginning.” This name was given to the book in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, known as the Septuagint. Genesis reflects both the content of the book and the Hebrew name for it, which is taken from its first word, bere’shith, “in the beginning.” Author The authorship of Gene...","source":"Articles\/G.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":14210,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Names of God","title_en":"Names of God","content_ro":"<h3>GOD, Names of<\/h3>\nGod’s self-identifications expressing various aspects of his being.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• The Biblical Idea of Name<\/p>\n• The Names of God in the Old Testament<\/p>\n• The Names of God in the New Testament<\/p>\nThe Biblical Idea of Name<\/p>\nIn the Scriptures the name and person of God are inseparably related. This is in keeping with the biblical conception of what a name signifies.<\/p>\nIn the Hebrew language, the term for “name” most probably meant “sign” or “distinctive mark.” In the Greek language, “name” (<\/em>onoma<\/span>)<\/em> is derived from a verb that means “to know.” A name, therefore, indicates that by which a person or object is to be known. But the idea of name is not to be taken in the sense of a label or an arbitrary means of identifying or specifying a person, place, or object. “Name” in biblical usage correctly describes the person, place, or object and indicates the essential character of that to which the name is given. Adam named the animals according to their nature (Gn 2:19-20); Noah means “one who brings relief and comfort” (5:29); Jesus means “savior” (Mt 1:21). When a person was given a new position or a radical change took place in his life, a new name was given to indicate that new aspect—for example, Abraham (“father of many,” Gn 17:5), and Israel (“one who strives with God” or “God strives,” 32:28). The name of a person or people expressed what the person or people thought the proper description or statement of character was.<\/p>\nWith regard to the names of God, there are considerable differences, and these are most clearly seen when biblical scholars and theologians confront the question of whether the names of God are ascriptions given by God concerning himself or they are ascriptions given to God by people who observed his acts and reflected on his character as discerned through a study of divine deeds. Here are some examples of various kinds of divine names:<\/p>\n1. Proper names: El, Yahweh, Adonai, Theos (God), Kurios (Lord).<\/p>\n<li>2. Personal names: Father, Abba, Son, Jesus, Holy Spirit.<\/li>\n<li>3. Titles: Creator, Messiah\/Christ, Paraclete\/Comforter.<\/li>\n<li>4. Essential names: Light, Love, Spirit.<\/li>\n<li>5. Descriptive names: Rock, Ba’al, Master, Rabboni, Shepherd.<\/li>\nThe Names of God in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<h5>El and Related Names<\/h5>\nThe name ’El<\/span> is found over 200 times in the Hebrew Bible. It is best translated as “God.” The term ’el<\/span> has a number of possible meanings. The root is thought by some to be ’ul<\/span>,<\/em> which means “to be first” or “to be strong.” Others suggest the root is ’alah<\/span>,<\/em> which means “to precede” and suggests “leader” or “commander.” It can also mean “to be afraid.” Thus God as ’alah<\/span>,<\/em> as the strong one, is to be feared. Still others suggest the preposition ’el<\/span> (“to, toward”) as the root; the idea then is of “one giving self to others” or of “one to whom others go for help.” Some scholars suggest that the word ’alim<\/span>,<\/em> meaning “to bind,” should be considered as a root also—that is, “the strong one binds and holds firm control.” Common to these four suggested root meanings is the idea of strength, power, and of supreme excellence and greatness.<\/p>\n’El<\/span> in the OT is used particularly in the earlier books, where it describes God’s exercising dynamic power as distinguished from authority. ’El<\/span> speaks of God as the great doer and producer. He is the One who exercises such power that whatever is made, done, kept, or destroyed is his doing (cf. Ex 15). ’El<\/span> is also used to express the idea that God is not to be identified as part of creation but as the One who is above, behind, and beyond creation (Ps 19:1).<\/p>\n’Elohim<\/span> is also commonly used as the name of God, occurring over 2,500 times in the OT. There are differences of opinion concerning the exact origin and meaning of this plural name. Some have suggested that ’Elohim<\/span> is the plural form of ’El<\/span>,<\/em> but it seems more likely that it is a plural of ’Eloah<\/span>,<\/em> which appears in the poetical writings. Some critical writers have suggested that this plural form is borrowed from pagan polytheistic sources, but no such plural form is found among pagans as the name of a deity. Others have suggested that the plural form is used to indicate the triune nature of God, and support for this has been seen in the use of a singular verb with this plural noun. The biblical doctrine of the Trinity, as it is developed throughout the Scriptures, does not appear to be based on the use of this plural form of God’s name, even though the two positions are not contradictory.<\/p>\nThe plural form, ’Elohim<\/span>,<\/em> is best understood as expressing intensity. God makes himself known by this name as the Lord of intense and extensive glory and richness as he exercises his preeminence and power in the created cosmos. Hence, when the Scripture speaks of creation, it states, “In the beginning ’Elohim<\/span> created the heavens and the earth” (Gn 1:1). This name is repeated 35 times in Genesis 1 and 2 in connection with God’s power as revealed in Creation. In the book of Deuteronomy the name ’Elohim<\/span> is used repeatedly to stress the majestic power of God that was shown in Israel’s release from bondage in Egypt, preservation in the wilderness, and preparation for entrance into the Promised Land. In this context, God (<\/em>’Elohim<\/span>)<\/em> is also recognized as the Lawgiver who will powerfully execute judgment on covenant breakers. The psalmists also used this named repeatedly as they acknowledged and praised God the majestic ruler who had demonstrated his omnipotence in many dimensions of life (see Ps 68, in which ’Elohim<\/span> appears 26 times.)<\/p>\nSome scholars point to the use of ’Elohim<\/span> when God spoke to Abraham and said he would be ’Elohim<\/span> to the patriarch and his seed; that is, God would be in a covenant relationship to them (Gn 17:1-8). Included in this relationship is the idea that God is ever ready to use his power on behalf of those who are in covenant with him. Thus, ’<\/span>Elohim<\/span> also expresses the concept of God’s faithfulness in regard to the covenant and the promises and blessings involved in it.<\/p>\nThe name ’<\/span>Eloah<\/span> occurs mainly in the poetical writings, no fewer than 41 times in Job. Isaiah used it to express the incomparable character of God (Is 44:8). In like manner David asked, “Who is God [’<\/span>Eloah<\/span>], but the Lord<\/span>?” (2 Sm 22:32). Moses was the first to use the name ’<\/span>Eloah<\/span> in his song (Dt 32:15-17), referring to Israel’s God in the context of the “no-gods,” which had been chosen in place of the Rock of salvation and the incomparable One. This name was probably used to stress the fact that God is the only true and living One, the One to be adored and worshiped; he is to be revered with a holy fear.<\/p>\nAnother closely related name is ’Elah<\/span>,<\/em> found in Ezra and Daniel. Some think ’Elah<\/span> is a Chaldee or Aramaic form of ’Eloah<\/span>.<\/em> Its root is said to be ’alah<\/span>,<\/em> which means “to fear” or “to be perplexed.” God as ’Elah<\/span> is the God to be feared and worshiped accordingly. In view of this meaning, it can be understood why, in the time of Israel’s exile and immediately after their return, this name was commonly used.<\/p>\nThree other names of God include the term ’El<\/span>:<\/em><\/p>\n’El ‘Elyon<\/span> is the name used to designate the God of Melchizedek (Gn 14:18-22) as God Most High. In Psalms 57:2 and 78:56 the Hebrew reads ’Elohim ‘Elyon<\/span>.<\/em> It is believed that the term ‘Elyon<\/span> is derived from the verb ‘alah<\/span>,<\/em> meaning “go up, be elevated, to be exalted.” There are a number of instances where the term ‘Elyon<\/span> is used alone, but the context indicates that it is then used as a synonym for God (e.g., Nm 24:16; Ps 83:18; Is 14:14). The term ‘elyon<\/span> is used quite frequently as an adjective; it is then translated as “high, highest, upper, uppermost.” The basic ascription given to God when this name is employed is to One who is above all things as the maker, possessor, and ruler. He is incomparable in every way; he is subject to no one and no thing; he is the Exalted One.<\/p>\n’El Shaddai<\/span> is used in the longer form seven times in the Scriptures (Gn 17:1; 28:3; 35:11; 43:14; 48:3; Ex 6:3; Ez 10:5). In the shorter form (<\/em>Shaddai<\/span>),<\/em> it appears more frequently: in Job 30 times; in Psalms 19:1 and 68:14; once in Ruth (1:21), Isaiah (13:6), Ezekiel (1:24), and Joel (1:15). In these passages the combined ideas of God as the all-powerful, all-sufficient, transcendent, sovereign ruler and disposer are present. This meaning is generally accepted, but there are differences as to the exact meaning of the term Shaddai<\/span>.<\/em> Some have begun with shad<\/span> as the first concept to be considered; its meaning is “breast, pap, or teat,” and it is considered a “precious metaphor” of the God who nourishes, supplies, and satisfies. The root of shad<\/span> (<\/em>shadah<\/span>),<\/em> in Semitic usage, is to moisten. This meaning is not the preferred one in the context of which ’El Shaddai<\/span> appears; nor is shed<\/span> (demon), which some scholars have sought to use because it appears in Deuteronomy 32:17 and Psalm 106:37 speaking of Israel’s idolatry. In addition to the fact that shed<\/span> is spelled differently, the connection between the concept of demon and God as all-powerful is difficult to establish. More acceptable is the suggestion that Shaddai<\/span> is a composite term of sha<\/span> (“the one who”) and dai<\/span> (“is sufficient”). The later Greek versions have adopted this meaning. The most preferred explanation is that Shaddai<\/span> is derived from the verb shadad<\/span> (“to overpower, to deal violently, or to devastate”). A clear connection between shadad<\/span> and Shaddai<\/span> is said to be found in Isaiah 13:6 and Joel 1:15. God as ’El Shaddai<\/span> is presented as the all-powerful One, totally self-sufficient, absolute ruler, and the One who can and does make final disposition. The Septuagint has adapted this meaning; it translates ’El Shaddai<\/span> as Pantokrator<\/span>,<\/em> the “All-Ruler” or “Sovereign One.”<\/p>\n’El ‘Olam<\/span> is used to refer to God as the everlasting or eternal One, a clear instance where the name of God and an attribute of God are combined. The term ‘olam<\/span> has a wide range of uses. It is usually defined in lexicons as meaning “long duration, antiquity, and indefinite futurity.” It is used to speak of God’s existence, of God’s covenant and promises, and of the Messiah’s reign. Speaking to God, the psalmist said, “You are from ‘olam<\/span> (everlasting) to ‘olam<\/span> (everlasting)” (Ps 90:2), and the prophet Isaiah spoke of God as the everlasting Creator (Is 40:28) and as everlasting strength (26:4), and Jeremiah spoke of God as everlasting King (Jer 10:10). God’s everlastingness or eternity speaks of his infinity in relation to time. ‘Olam<\/span>,<\/em> as ascribed to God, should not be thought of as duration prolonged indefinitely backward and forward. Rather, the word speaks to God’s transcending all temporal limits; in addition, ‘olam<\/span> refers to the quality of God that differs essentially from time. The Scriptures speak of ’El ‘Olam<\/span> in contexts where the believer’s assurance of well-being, security, and hope are presented as prized possessions.<\/p>\n’El Gibbor<\/span> is a name that speaks of God’s power and might. Gibbor<\/span> alone is used in reference to mighty and heroic men. The two terms together always refer to God, and in some instances Haggadol<\/span> (“the greatest”) is added (Dt 10:17; Jer 32:18) to emphasize the greatness and awesome majesty of God. ’El Gibbor<\/span> is also used to describe the Messiah in Isaiah 9:6 (cf. Ps 45:4).<\/p>\n’El Ro’i<\/span> is used once to describe God as the seeing One. Hagar described the Lord this way when she was found in the wilderness (Gn 16:13). Psalm 139:1-2 expresses this concept of God as the all-seeing One from whose eye nothing is hidden (cf. Ps 33:18).<\/p>\nYahweh<\/span> is a distinctly proper name of God. It is never used to refer to any pagan gods; neither is it used in regard to men. It appears 6,823 times in the OT, occurring first in Genesis 2:4, where it is joined with ’Elohim<\/span>.<\/em> Yahweh<\/span> is used 164 times in Genesis, and it appears 1,800 times in Exodus through Joshua. It never appears in a declined form in the Hebrew language, and it never occurs in the plural form or with suffixes. It is abbreviated as Yah<\/span> and Yahu<\/span> (cf. Ex 15:2; Ps 68:4; Is 12:2; etc.).<\/p>\nThe exact meaning of the name Yahweh<\/span> is difficult to determine. Some have sought the root in the verb hayah<\/span> (“to be”) or in an ancient form of that same verb, hawah<\/span>.<\/em> There is no agreement as to whether the qal<\/span> or hiphil<\/span> form of the verb should be considered as the root. Those who opt for the hiphil<\/span> form read Yahweh<\/span> to mean “cause to be”; thus Exodus 3:14 would read, “I will cause to be what has come to be.” Others look to the qal<\/span> form and then translate the name as “I Am” or “I Shall Be.” Still others are inclined to disassociate the name from the verb hayah<\/span> and regard it as an original and independent term, expressing the uniqueness of Israel’s gracious God.<\/p>\n\nTranslators of the OT have not agreed upon the correct translation of the name Yahweh<\/span>.<\/em> Since it is translated into the Greek as kurios<\/span>,<\/em> which means “Lord,” many have rendered Yahweh<\/span> as “Lord<\/span>.” But ’Adonai<\/span>,<\/em> which is best rendered “Lord,” appears with Yahweh<\/span> in various instances. The kjv<\/span>, for example, translates Yahweh<\/span> as “God,” and ’Adonai<\/span> as “Lord.” Some modern translators have chosen to use Yahweh<\/span> (see jb<\/span> and njb<\/span>). The name Jehovah, as used in the asv<\/span> (1901), has been judged unacceptable. This name arose due to the Jewish practice of not pronouncing Yahweh<\/span> because of Leviticus 24:16, “He that blasphemes the name of Yahweh<\/span> shall surely be put to death.” This warning against a vain or blasphemous use of the name was taken in an absolute sense, especially after Israel’s deportation (cf. Am 6:10). Hence, when reading the OT the Jews substituted either ’Elohim<\/span> or ’Adonai<\/span> for Yahweh<\/span>.<\/em> From this, the practice of adding the vowels of ’Adonai<\/span> to YHWH (JeHoWaH) became established.<\/p>\nThe interpretation of Exodus 6:2-3 has caused much debate. “And God said to Moses, ‘I am Yahweh<\/span>;<\/em> I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as ’<\/span>El Shaddai<\/span>,<\/em> but by my name Yahweh<\/span> I did not make myself known to them.’ ” This passage has been understood to mean that the name Yahweh<\/span> was not known or used prior to the time of Moses. But that is not what the passage states; rather, it speaks of the patriarchs not knowing God as Yahweh<\/span>.<\/em> They knew him as ’El Shaddai<\/span> in actual revelatory historical deeds. They had not come to know God according to his unique character, that is, as Yahweh<\/span>.<\/em> In other words, God had always been Yahweh<\/span>;<\/em> he is saying to Moses that the descendants of the patriarchs would come to know the full, rich meaning of the name by the way God dealt with them.<\/p>\nThis name Yahweh<\/span> reveals God’s nature in the highest and fullest sense possible. It includes, or presupposes, the meaning of the other names. Yahweh<\/span> particularly stresses the absolute faithfulness of God. God had promised the patriarchs that he would be their God, that he would be with them and deliver and bless them, keep them, and give them a land as a place of service and inheritance. Moses is told by God that Israel is about to behold and experience the unchangeableness of God as he steadfastly and wondrously remembers his word and executes it to the fullest degree. God would prove to be a faithful, redeeming, upholding, restoring God. In working out this redemption, God would demonstrate that he is all that his name implies: merciful, gracious, patient, full of loving-kindness, truthful, faithful, forgiving, just, and righteous (Ex 34:5-6). Truly, Jacob had received an insight into the meaning of the name when he exclaimed, “I wait for thy salvation, O Yahweh<\/span>” (Gn 49:18).<\/p>\nYahweh<\/span>,<\/em> then, is the name par excellence of Israel’s God. As Yahweh<\/span>,<\/em> he is a faithful covenant God who, having given his word of love and life, keeps that word by bestowing love and life abundantly on his own.<\/p>\nIn view of the richness of the name Yahweh<\/span>,<\/em> it can be understood why there were stringent rules regarding its proper use (Lv 24:11, 16). It also explains why thankful, rejoicing, worshiping Israelites used the abbreviated form of Yahweh<\/span> in song when they sang Hallelujah: “Praise Yah” (Pss 104:35; 106:1; 149:1; 150:1).<\/p>\nYahweh<\/span> is used in a number of phrases that are considered names of or ascriptions of God. The most common of these compound names is Yahweh Tseba’oth<\/span> (“hosts”). The word “hosts” is used frequently in the Pentateuch to refer to the armies of Israel (cf. Nm 10:14-28). This is because the word is derived from the verb saba<\/span>’<\/span>,<\/em> which means “to wage” war. It also means “to serve” in some contexts; for example, Numbers 8:24 clearly has reference to the service performed in the tabernacle. The noun tseba’oth<\/span> first occurs in Genesis 2:1, where it refers to the many components of the earth and heaven. Some would limit the reference in these contexts to the stars. Still others would suggest that the tseba’oth<\/span> refers to the angels, appealing to Psalm 33:6 for confirmation.<\/p>\nThe compound name Yahweh Tseba’oth<\/span> first appears in 1 Samuel 1:3. In view of the frequent use of tseba’oth<\/span> in 1—2 Samuel to refer to armies (1 Sm 12:9; 14:50; 17:55; 2 Sm 2:8; 8:16; 10:16), it is thought that the compound name refers to Yahweh<\/span> as the God of armies, that is, God has his armies to serve him. These are considered to be armies of angels who are ministering servants to God. It has been correctly pointed out that the compound name Yahweh Tseba’oth<\/span> is used most frequently by the prophets (Jeremiah, 88 times; Zechariah, 55 times; Malachi, 25 times; Haggai, 14 times) at times when God’s people had either suffered defeat at the hands of enemy armies or were threatened by defeat. Therefore, the compound name was used to remind them that their covenant God had great hosts to fight and work for him on behalf of his people. Thus, though Israel’s armies failed, their covenant God was sufficient for every possible circumstance. And it was to this Yahweh Tseba’oth<\/span> that Israel’s commanders were to give allegiance (Jos 5:14-15), and in whose name Israel was blessed (2 Sm 6:18).<\/p>\nSeveral other compound names occur infrequently:<\/p>\nYahweh-Nissi<\/span> (nissi<\/span>,<\/em> “my banner”) is the name that Moses called on when he built an altar celebrating Israel’s God-given victory over the Amalekites (Ex 17:15). Isaiah uses the term nissi<\/span> when speaking of the coming Messiah who is to be the conqueror (Is 11:10).<\/p>\nYahweh-Rapha<\/span> (rapha’<\/span>,<\/em> “healer”) appears in Exodus 15:26, when Israel is assured that God, their healer, will prevent the diseases of Egypt from affecting Israel. Although the name is only used once, God was often called upon and praised as the healing One (e.g., Ps 103:3; Is 30:26; Jer 6:14).<\/p>\nYahweh-Rohi<\/span> (ro‘i<\/span>,<\/em> “my shepherd”) appears in Psalm 23:1. The concept of Yahweh<\/span> as shepherd is explicated in Ezekiel 34. “I myself will be the Shepherd of my sheep” (v 15). Jesus demonstrated this concept’s full meaning when as a shepherd he gave his life for his sheep.<\/p>\nYahweh-Jireh<\/span> (yir’eh<\/span>,<\/em> “to see ahead or to provide”) appears in Genesis 22:14. Abraham gave this name to the place where God provided a substitute for his son Isaac, whom Abraham was to offer as a sacrifice to God. Yahweh-Shalom<\/span> (shalom<\/span>,<\/em> “peace”) is the name Gideon gave to the altar he built when the angel of the Lord came to give him orders to fight the Midianites (Jgs 6:24).<\/p>\nYahweh<\/span> appears with a few forms of the term tsadaq<\/span>,<\/em> “righteousness.” Yahweh<\/span> is spoken of as our righteousness in Jeremiah 23:6; the thought evidently is that David’s Righteous Branch (the Messiah) will attribute God’s righteousness to those who are incorporated in the new covenant. This concept is expressed in the Pentateuch a number of times when it is said that God has provided a way for living righteously; that is, God provides a way of sanctification (cf. Lv 20:8; 22:9).<\/p>\n’Adonai<\/span> as a name for God appears about 360 times in the OT, though it is not uniformly used. It is first found in Genesis 15:2 and 8, when Abram requests more definite information concerning a son and the Promised Land. It appears only 14 times after that in the Pentateuch. It appears repeatedly in the Psalms (over 50 times), and certain of the prophets use it frequently (Isaiah, 47 times; Jeremiah, 29 times; Ezekiel, over 150 times; and Amos, 27 times).<\/p>\nThe word ’adan<\/span>,<\/em> meaning “master, ruler, owner, lord,” is thought to be the root of the noun ’adon<\/span>,<\/em> which is frequently used of men. For example, in Genesis and 1—2 Samuel the term is used often for men who own slaves or are in positions of authority. ’Adonai<\/span> is correctly described as the name of personal communication between the believer and God. In such communication the worshiper acknowledged God’s intense majesty and greatness and also the sense of belonging to this God. ’Adonai<\/span>,<\/em> coming from human lips, expressed honor for God and humble submission on the part of the believing person. ’Adonai<\/span>,<\/em> thus, is the name that expresses faith, assurance, security, ready service, and thanksgiving (Pss 16:2; 57:9-10).<\/p>\n<h5>Old Testament Name Combinations<\/h5>\nIn the OT the names of God appear in various combinations. For example ’Elohim-Yahweh<\/span>,<\/em> ’Elohim-Yahweh-’Adonai<\/span>,<\/em> and ’Elohim-’Adonai<\/span> are very common. These combinations were an effort to express the fullness of God’s being and character as these had been revealed. Names of God in combination with “Israel” occur also as, for example, with Yahweh<\/span>-God-Israel (Jgs 5:3; Is 17:6). God is also invoked in relation to Israel without the mention of one of his names—for example, Qedosh Yisrael<\/span> (“Holy One of Israel,” Is 43:14) and ’Abir Yisrael<\/span> (“Mighty One of Israel,” Gn 49:24; Ps 132:2; Is 49:26). By means of these phrases, the covenantal relationship between God and his people was expressed and God’s unchanging character was positively acknowledged.<\/p>\n<h5>Old Testament Personal Names<\/h5>\nThe personal names of God are Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and variations of these.<\/p>\nThe term ’Abh<\/span> (“father”) appears more frequently in Genesis than in any other book, and in the Pentateuch more than in any other division of the OT. But it is not used there of God but rather of one who has generated children (i.e., the male parent), the progenitor—head, chief, and ruler of the family group or clan. It is used often in the sense of the responsible one through whom God has spoken, with whom God has dealt, and through whom he has given a rich heritage to the children and descendants of the patriarchs.<\/p>\nIn the poetical books, God is referred to as Father but is not directly named as such. Job is asked, “Has the rain a father?” (Jb 38:28). The reference is to God as the maker, source, and controller of rain. In Psalm 68:5 God in his holy dwelling place is the “Father of the fatherless”; the parallel phrase, “protector of widows,” indicates the sense. Psalm 89:26 says that David will cry to God, “Thou art my Father,” and the parallels use the terms “God” and “Rock of my salvation.” The idea here is of God as Creator and Savior who raised up, delivered, and protected David. In Psalm 103:13, “Father” is used analogously, “As a father pities his children.”<\/p>\nIsaiah uses the term “Father” in relation to God four times. Three times it refers to the One who has made, saved, formed, kept, and directed Israel (Is 63:16; 64:8). Isaiah says the promised child is to be named Everlasting Father (9:6). Used in this sense, the term establishes the Son’s equality with the Father in stature, function, ability, and responsibility. Jeremiah also refers to God as Father in Jeremiah 3:4, 19, meaning the origin, keeper, and friend of his people Israel. Malachi 1:6 and 2:10 speak of God as the parent who deserves honor from his children and as the origin and ruler of all people.<\/p>\nThe term “son” is one of the most-used terms in the OT; it commonly occurs in the sense of offspring and descendant. It also appears in the sense of follower or successor. There are a few indirect references to the second person of the Trinity.<\/p>\nThe messianic Psalm 2 has such a reference: “You are my son” (v 7). It is stated in the context of the king speaking to one who rules and is to rule with and under the sovereign. The immediate reference may be to the theocratic king; however, the reference is revealed in the NT to be the second person of the Trinity (Acts 13:33). Thus, the term “son” is applied to the promised Messiah who is set forth as the divine sovereign ruler and judge of the nations. The Son is perceived to be equal with the Father in deity and function. Not all biblical scholars accept this interpretation, but support is found in such NT passages as Hebrews 1:8 which quotes Psalm 45:6. As stated above, Isaiah speaks of the son to be given (Is 9:6), the One born of the virgin (7:14), who is Immanuel, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.<\/p>\nThe name “Holy Spirit” occurs only a few times in the OT. The Spirit is referred to frequently by terms and phrases such as “the Spirit of God” (Gn 1:2), “the Spirit of the Lord God” (Is 61:1), “the Spirit of the Lord” (Ez 37:1), “the Spirit” (Nm 11:17; 27:18), “my Spirit” (Gn 6:3), and “your Spirit” (Ps 51:11). Though the character of the Spirit is not developed as clearly in the OT as in the NT, it can be safely stated that the relationship posited between God and the Spirit is such that there is no doubt that the OT teaches the deity of the Spirit. The character and function of the Spirit is referred to especially in relation to the work of creation (Gn 1:2; Ps 33:6; etc.) and the equipping of servants for the service of God—for example, craftsmanship (Ex 35:31), leadership (Nm 11:17; 27:18), and prophecy (1 Sm 10:6; 2 Sm 23:2; 2 Chr 15:1; Ez 11:5).<\/p>\nThe Names of God in the New Testament<\/p>\n<h5>Proper Names of God<\/h5>\nTheos<\/span> is the NT equivalent of the OT names ’El<\/span>and ’Elohim<\/span>;<\/em> ‘Elyon<\/span> appears in the NT as Hupsistos<\/span>,<\/em> the Highest (Mk 5:7; Lk 1:32, 76). Pantokrator<\/span> (‘El Shaddai<\/span>) appears with Theos<\/span> (2 Cor 6:18; Rv 16:7). This name was used not only to express God’s transcendency, power, sovereignty, and lordship, but also to express that God is one who has a close relationship with his people. This fact is established by the very frequent use of personal pronouns with Theos<\/span>.<\/em> The name Theos<\/span> appears over 1,000 times in the NT.<\/p>\nKurios<\/span>,<\/em> “Lord,” is used to express the OT names Yahweh<\/span> and ‘Adonai<\/span> in the Septuagint, and the NT follows it. Kurios<\/span> means “power,” so the meaning is not the same as with Yahweh<\/span>;<\/em> yet the NT does give Kurios<\/span> the full weight of meaning that the OT gave to Yahweh<\/span>,<\/em> especially when used of Jesus Christ (cf. Acts 2:36; Phil 2:9-11; etc.)<\/p>\nDespotes<\/span> is used five times of God or Jesus in the NT (Lk 2:29; Acts 4:24; 2 Pt 2:11; Jude 1:4; Rv 6:10). It expresses the idea of authority. The idea of brutality conveyed by the modern concept “despot” is absent from the NT usage even when applied to men, where its central thought is ownership (2 Tm 2:21).<\/p>\n<h5>Personal Names of God<\/h5>\nIn the baptismal formula, which is part of the Great Commission (Mt 28:19-20), the three personal names of God appear: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These names carry the OT meaning, but since the relationship of the three Persons is explicated, the NT meaning of the names is enriched.<\/p>\n“Jesus” is the personal name of the Son, the second person of the triune Godhead. It means “savior” (Mt 1:21). The root of this name “to save” gave rise to names such as Joshua, Hoshea, and Hosea. The basic meaning of the OT root is “to bring into a safe, wide-open place.” Joshua, bringing Israel into Canaan, personally did what his name meant. The NT explanation (“save from sin”) is not contrary to the OT meaning. To be saved from sin is to be restored to fellowship with God and to enter into the paradise of the heavenly kingdom.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Christology; God, Being and Attributes of; Holy Spirit; Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of; Messiah; Names, Significance of.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>GOD, Names of<\/h3>\nGod’s self-identifications expressing various aspects of his being.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• The Biblical Idea of Name<\/p>\n• The Names of God in the Old Testament<\/p>\n• The Names of God in the New Testament<\/p>\nThe Biblical Idea of Name<\/p>\nIn the Scriptures the name and person of God are inseparably related. This is in keeping with the biblical conception of what a name signifies.<\/p>\nIn the Hebrew language, the term for “name” most probably meant “sign” or “distinctive mark.” In the Greek language, “name” (<\/em>onoma<\/span>)<\/em> is derived from a verb that means “to know.” A name, therefore, indicates that by which a person or object is to be known. But the idea of name is not to be taken in the sense of a label or an arbitrary means of identifying or specifying a person, place, or object. “Name” in biblical usage correctly describes the person, place, or object and indicates the essential character of that to which the name is given. Adam named the animals according to their nature (Gn 2:19-20); Noah means “one who brings relief and comfort” (5:29); Jesus means “savior” (Mt 1:21). When a person was given a new position or a radical change took place in his life, a new name was given to indicate that new aspect—for example, Abraham (“father of many,” Gn 17:5), and Israel (“one who strives with God” or “God strives,” 32:28). The name of a person or people expressed what the person or people thought the proper description or statement of character was.<\/p>\nWith regard to the names of God, there are considerable differences, and these are most clearly seen when biblical scholars and theologians confront the question of whether the names of God are ascriptions given by God concerning himself or they are ascriptions given to God by people who observed his acts and reflected on his character as discerned through a study of divine deeds. Here are some examples of various kinds of divine names:<\/p>\n1. Proper names: El, Yahweh, Adonai, Theos (God), Kurios (Lord).<\/p>\n<li>2. Personal names: Father, Abba, Son, Jesus, Holy Spirit.<\/li>\n<li>3. Titles: Creator, Messiah\/Christ, Paraclete\/Comforter.<\/li>\n<li>4. Essential names: Light, Love, Spirit.<\/li>\n<li>5. Descriptive names: Rock, Ba’al, Master, Rabboni, Shepherd.<\/li>\nThe Names of God in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<h5>El and Related Names<\/h5>\nThe name ’El<\/span> is found over 200 times in the Hebrew Bible. It is best translated as “God.” The term ’el<\/span> has a number of possible meanings. The root is thought by some to be ’ul<\/span>,<\/em> which means “to be first” or “to be strong.” Others suggest the root is ’alah<\/span>,<\/em> which means “to precede” and suggests “leader” or “commander.” It can also mean “to be afraid.” Thus God as ’alah<\/span>,<\/em> as the strong one, is to be feared. Still others suggest the preposition ’el<\/span> (“to, toward”) as the root; the idea then is of “one giving self to others” or of “one to whom others go for help.” Some scholars suggest that the word ’alim<\/span>,<\/em> meaning “to bind,” should be considered as a root also—that is, “the strong one binds and holds firm control.” Common to these four suggested root meanings is the idea of strength, power, and of supreme excellence and greatness.<\/p>\n’El<\/span> in the OT is used particularly in the earlier books, where it describes God’s exercising dynamic power as distinguished from authority. ’El<\/span> speaks of God as the great doer and producer. He is the One who exercises such power that whatever is made, done, kept, or destroyed is his doing (cf. Ex 15). ’El<\/span> is also used to express the idea that God is not to be identified as part of creation but as the One who is above, behind, and beyond creation (Ps 19:1).<\/p>\n’Elohim<\/span> is also commonly used as the name of God, occurring over 2,500 times in the OT. There are differences of opinion concerning the exact origin and meaning of this plural name. Some have suggested that ’Elohim<\/span> is the plural form of ’El<\/span>,<\/em> but it seems more likely that it is a plural of ’Eloah<\/span>,<\/em> which appears in the poetical writings. Some critical writers have suggested that this plural form is borrowed from pagan polytheistic sources, but no such plural form is found among pagans as the name of a deity. Others have suggested that the plural form is used to indicate the triune nature of God, and support for this has been seen in the use of a singular verb with this plural noun. The biblical doctrine of the Trinity, as it is developed throughout the Scriptures, does not appear to be based on the use of this plural form of God’s name, even though the two positions are not contradictory.<\/p>\nThe plural form, ’Elohim<\/span>,<\/em> is best understood as expressing intensity. God makes himself known by this name as the Lord of intense and extensive glory and richness as he exercises his preeminence and power in the created cosmos. Hence, when the Scripture speaks of creation, it states, “In the beginning ’Elohim<\/span> created the heavens and the earth” (Gn 1:1). This name is repeated 35 times in Genesis 1 and 2 in connection with God’s power as revealed in Creation. In the book of Deuteronomy the name ’Elohim<\/span> is used repeatedly to stress the majestic power of God that was shown in Israel’s release from bondage in Egypt, preservation in the wilderness, and preparation for entrance into the Promised Land. In this context, God (<\/em>’Elohim<\/span>)<\/em> is also recognized as the Lawgiver who will powerfully execute judgment on covenant breakers. The psalmists also used this named repeatedly as they acknowledged and praised God the majestic ruler who had demonstrated his omnipotence in many dimensions of life (see Ps 68, in which ’Elohim<\/span> appears 26 times.)<\/p>\nSome scholars point to the use of ’Elohim<\/span> when God spoke to Abraham and said he would be ’Elohim<\/span> to the patriarch and his seed; that is, God would be in a covenant relationship to them (Gn 17:1-8). Included in this relationship is the idea that God is ever ready to use his power on behalf of those who are in covenant with him. Thus, ’<\/span>Elohim<\/span> also expresses the concept of God’s faithfulness in regard to the covenant and the promises and blessings involved in it.<\/p>\nThe name ’<\/span>Eloah<\/span> occurs mainly in the poetical writings, no fewer than 41 times in Job. Isaiah used it to express the incomparable character of God (Is 44:8). In like manner David asked, “Who is God [’<\/span>Eloah<\/span>], but the Lord<\/span>?” (2 Sm 22:32). Moses was the first to use the name ’<\/span>Eloah<\/span> in his song (Dt 32:15-17), referring to Israel’s God in the context of the “no-gods,” which had been chosen in place of the Rock of salvation and the incomparable One. This name was probably used to stress the fact that God is the only true and living One, the One to be adored and worshiped; he is to be revered with a holy fear.<\/p>\nAnother closely related name is ’Elah<\/span>,<\/em> found in Ezra and Daniel. Some think ’Elah<\/span> is a Chaldee or Aramaic form of ’Eloah<\/span>.<\/em> Its root is said to be ’alah<\/span>,<\/em> which means “to fear” or “to be perplexed.” God as ’Elah<\/span> is the God to be feared and worshiped accordingly. In view of this meaning, it can be understood why, in the time of Israel’s exile and immediately after their return, this name was commonly used.<\/p>\nThree other names of God include the term ’El<\/span>:<\/em><\/p>\n’El ‘Elyon<\/span> is the name used to designate the God of Melchizedek (Gn 14:18-22) as God Most High. In Psalms 57:2 and 78:56 the Hebrew reads ’Elohim ‘Elyon<\/span>.<\/em> It is believed that the term ‘Elyon<\/span> is derived from the verb ‘alah<\/span>,<\/em> meaning “go up, be elevated, to be exalted.” There are a number of instances where the term ‘Elyon<\/span> is used alone, but the context indicates that it is then used as a synonym for God (e.g., Nm 24:16; Ps 83:18; Is 14:14). The term ‘elyon<\/span> is used quite frequently as an adjective; it is then translated as “high, highest, upper, uppermost.” The basic ascription given to God when this name is employed is to One who is above all things as the maker, possessor, and ruler. He is incomparable in every way; he is subject to no one and no thing; he is the Exalted One.<\/p>\n’El Shaddai<\/span> is used in the longer form seven times in the Scriptures (Gn 17:1; 28:3; 35:11; 43:14; 48:3; Ex 6:3; Ez 10:5). In the shorter form (<\/em>Shaddai<\/span>),<\/em> it appears more frequently: in Job 30 times; in Psalms 19:1 and 68:14; once in Ruth (1:21), Isaiah (13:6), Ezekiel (1:24), and Joel (1:15). In these passages the combined ideas of God as the all-powerful, all-sufficient, transcendent, sovereign ruler and disposer are present. This meaning is generally accepted, but there are differences as to the exact meaning of the term Shaddai<\/span>.<\/em> Some have begun with shad<\/span> as the first concept to be considered; its meaning is “breast, pap, or teat,” and it is considered a “precious metaphor” of the God who nourishes, supplies, and satisfies. The root of shad<\/span> (<\/em>shadah<\/span>),<\/em> in Semitic usage, is to moisten. This meaning is not the preferred one in the context of which ’El Shaddai<\/span> appears; nor is shed<\/span> (demon), which some scholars have sought to use because it appears in Deuteronomy 32:17 and Psalm 106:37 speaking of Israel’s idolatry. In addition to the fact that shed<\/span> is spelled differently, the connection between the concept of demon and God as all-powerful is difficult to establish. More acceptable is the suggestion that Shaddai<\/span> is a composite term of sha<\/span> (“the one who”) and dai<\/span> (“is sufficient”). The later Greek versions have adopted this meaning. The most preferred explanation is that Shaddai<\/span> is derived from the verb shadad<\/span> (“to overpower, to deal violently, or to devastate”). A clear connection between shadad<\/span> and Shaddai<\/span> is said to be found in Isaiah 13:6 and Joel 1:15. God as ’El Shaddai<\/span> is presented as the all-powerful One, totally self-sufficient, absolute ruler, and the One who can and does make final disposition. The Septuagint has adapted this meaning; it translates ’El Shaddai<\/span> as Pantokrator<\/span>,<\/em> the “All-Ruler” or “Sovereign One.”<\/p>\n’El ‘Olam<\/span> is used to refer to God as the everlasting or eternal One, a clear instance where the name of God and an attribute of God are combined. The term ‘olam<\/span> has a wide range of uses. It is usually defined in lexicons as meaning “long duration, antiquity, and indefinite futurity.” It is used to speak of God’s existence, of God’s covenant and promises, and of the Messiah’s reign. Speaking to God, the psalmist said, “You are from ‘olam<\/span> (everlasting) to ‘olam<\/span> (everlasting)” (Ps 90:2), and the prophet Isaiah spoke of God as the everlasting Creator (Is 40:28) and as everlasting strength (26:4), and Jeremiah spoke of God as everlasting King (Jer 10:10). God’s everlastingness or eternity speaks of his infinity in relation to time. ‘Olam<\/span>,<\/em> as ascribed to God, should not be thought of as duration prolonged indefinitely backward and forward. Rather, the word speaks to God’s transcending all temporal limits; in addition, ‘olam<\/span> refers to the quality of God that differs essentially from time. The Scriptures speak of ’El ‘Olam<\/span> in contexts where the believer’s assurance of well-being, security, and hope are presented as prized possessions.<\/p>\n’El Gibbor<\/span> is a name that speaks of God’s power and might. Gibbor<\/span> alone is used in reference to mighty and heroic men. The two terms together always refer to God, and in some instances Haggadol<\/span> (“the greatest”) is added (Dt 10:17; Jer 32:18) to emphasize the greatness and awesome majesty of God. ’El Gibbor<\/span> is also used to describe the Messiah in Isaiah 9:6 (cf. Ps 45:4).<\/p>\n’El Ro’i<\/span> is used once to describe God as the seeing One. Hagar described the Lord this way when she was found in the wilderness (Gn 16:13). Psalm 139:1-2 expresses this concept of God as the all-seeing One from whose eye nothing is hidden (cf. Ps 33:18).<\/p>\nYahweh<\/span> is a distinctly proper name of God. It is never used to refer to any pagan gods; neither is it used in regard to men. It appears 6,823 times in the OT, occurring first in Genesis 2:4, where it is joined with ’Elohim<\/span>.<\/em> Yahweh<\/span> is used 164 times in Genesis, and it appears 1,800 times in Exodus through Joshua. It never appears in a declined form in the Hebrew language, and it never occurs in the plural form or with suffixes. It is abbreviated as Yah<\/span> and Yahu<\/span> (cf. Ex 15:2; Ps 68:4; Is 12:2; etc.).<\/p>\nThe exact meaning of the name Yahweh<\/span> is difficult to determine. Some have sought the root in the verb hayah<\/span> (“to be”) or in an ancient form of that same verb, hawah<\/span>.<\/em> There is no agreement as to whether the qal<\/span> or hiphil<\/span> form of the verb should be considered as the root. Those who opt for the hiphil<\/span> form read Yahweh<\/span> to mean “cause to be”; thus Exodus 3:14 would read, “I will cause to be what has come to be.” Others look to the qal<\/span> form and then translate the name as “I Am” or “I Shall Be.” Still others are inclined to disassociate the name from the verb hayah<\/span> and regard it as an original and independent term, expressing the uniqueness of Israel’s gracious God.<\/p>\n\nTranslators of the OT have not agreed upon the correct translation of the name Yahweh<\/span>.<\/em> Since it is translated into the Greek as kurios<\/span>,<\/em> which means “Lord,” many have rendered Yahweh<\/span> as “Lord<\/span>.” But ’Adonai<\/span>,<\/em> which is best rendered “Lord,” appears with Yahweh<\/span> in various instances. The kjv<\/span>, for example, translates Yahweh<\/span> as “God,” and ’Adonai<\/span> as “Lord.” Some modern translators have chosen to use Yahweh<\/span> (see jb<\/span> and njb<\/span>). The name Jehovah, as used in the asv<\/span> (1901), has been judged unacceptable. This name arose due to the Jewish practice of not pronouncing Yahweh<\/span> because of Leviticus 24:16, “He that blasphemes the name of Yahweh<\/span> shall surely be put to death.” This warning against a vain or blasphemous use of the name was taken in an absolute sense, especially after Israel’s deportation (cf. Am 6:10). Hence, when reading the OT the Jews substituted either ’Elohim<\/span> or ’Adonai<\/span> for Yahweh<\/span>.<\/em> From this, the practice of adding the vowels of ’Adonai<\/span> to YHWH (JeHoWaH) became established.<\/p>\nThe interpretation of Exodus 6:2-3 has caused much debate. “And God said to Moses, ‘I am Yahweh<\/span>;<\/em> I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as ’<\/span>El Shaddai<\/span>,<\/em> but by my name Yahweh<\/span> I did not make myself known to them.’ ” This passage has been understood to mean that the name Yahweh<\/span> was not known or used prior to the time of Moses. But that is not what the passage states; rather, it speaks of the patriarchs not knowing God as Yahweh<\/span>.<\/em> They knew him as ’El Shaddai<\/span> in actual revelatory historical deeds. They had not come to know God according to his unique character, that is, as Yahweh<\/span>.<\/em> In other words, God had always been Yahweh<\/span>;<\/em> he is saying to Moses that the descendants of the patriarchs would come to know the full, rich meaning of the name by the way God dealt with them.<\/p>\nThis name Yahweh<\/span> reveals God’s nature in the highest and fullest sense possible. It includes, or presupposes, the meaning of the other names. Yahweh<\/span> particularly stresses the absolute faithfulness of God. God had promised the patriarchs that he would be their God, that he would be with them and deliver and bless them, keep them, and give them a land as a place of service and inheritance. Moses is told by God that Israel is about to behold and experience the unchangeableness of God as he steadfastly and wondrously remembers his word and executes it to the fullest degree. God would prove to be a faithful, redeeming, upholding, restoring God. In working out this redemption, God would demonstrate that he is all that his name implies: merciful, gracious, patient, full of loving-kindness, truthful, faithful, forgiving, just, and righteous (Ex 34:5-6). Truly, Jacob had received an insight into the meaning of the name when he exclaimed, “I wait for thy salvation, O Yahweh<\/span>” (Gn 49:18).<\/p>\nYahweh<\/span>,<\/em> then, is the name par excellence of Israel’s God. As Yahweh<\/span>,<\/em> he is a faithful covenant God who, having given his word of love and life, keeps that word by bestowing love and life abundantly on his own.<\/p>\nIn view of the richness of the name Yahweh<\/span>,<\/em> it can be understood why there were stringent rules regarding its proper use (Lv 24:11, 16). It also explains why thankful, rejoicing, worshiping Israelites used the abbreviated form of Yahweh<\/span> in song when they sang Hallelujah: “Praise Yah” (Pss 104:35; 106:1; 149:1; 150:1).<\/p>\nYahweh<\/span> is used in a number of phrases that are considered names of or ascriptions of God. The most common of these compound names is Yahweh Tseba’oth<\/span> (“hosts”). The word “hosts” is used frequently in the Pentateuch to refer to the armies of Israel (cf. Nm 10:14-28). This is because the word is derived from the verb saba<\/span>’<\/span>,<\/em> which means “to wage” war. It also means “to serve” in some contexts; for example, Numbers 8:24 clearly has reference to the service performed in the tabernacle. The noun tseba’oth<\/span> first occurs in Genesis 2:1, where it refers to the many components of the earth and heaven. Some would limit the reference in these contexts to the stars. Still others would suggest that the tseba’oth<\/span> refers to the angels, appealing to Psalm 33:6 for confirmation.<\/p>\nThe compound name Yahweh Tseba’oth<\/span> first appears in 1 Samuel 1:3. In view of the frequent use of tseba’oth<\/span> in 1—2 Samuel to refer to armies (1 Sm 12:9; 14:50; 17:55; 2 Sm 2:8; 8:16; 10:16), it is thought that the compound name refers to Yahweh<\/span> as the God of armies, that is, God has his armies to serve him. These are considered to be armies of angels who are ministering servants to God. It has been correctly pointed out that the compound name Yahweh Tseba’oth<\/span> is used most frequently by the prophets (Jeremiah, 88 times; Zechariah, 55 times; Malachi, 25 times; Haggai, 14 times) at times when God’s people had either suffered defeat at the hands of enemy armies or were threatened by defeat. Therefore, the compound name was used to remind them that their covenant God had great hosts to fight and work for him on behalf of his people. Thus, though Israel’s armies failed, their covenant God was sufficient for every possible circumstance. And it was to this Yahweh Tseba’oth<\/span> that Israel’s commanders were to give allegiance (Jos 5:14-15), and in whose name Israel was blessed (2 Sm 6:18).<\/p>\nSeveral other compound names occur infrequently:<\/p>\nYahweh-Nissi<\/span> (nissi<\/span>,<\/em> “my banner”) is the name that Moses called on when he built an altar celebrating Israel’s God-given victory over the Amalekites (Ex 17:15). Isaiah uses the term nissi<\/span> when speaking of the coming Messiah who is to be the conqueror (Is 11:10).<\/p>\nYahweh-Rapha<\/span> (rapha’<\/span>,<\/em> “healer”) appears in Exodus 15:26, when Israel is assured that God, their healer, will prevent the diseases of Egypt from affecting Israel. Although the name is only used once, God was often called upon and praised as the healing One (e.g., Ps 103:3; Is 30:26; Jer 6:14).<\/p>\nYahweh-Rohi<\/span> (ro‘i<\/span>,<\/em> “my shepherd”) appears in Psalm 23:1. The concept of Yahweh<\/span> as shepherd is explicated in Ezekiel 34. “I myself will be the Shepherd of my sheep” (v 15). Jesus demonstrated this concept’s full meaning when as a shepherd he gave his life for his sheep.<\/p>\nYahweh-Jireh<\/span> (yir’eh<\/span>,<\/em> “to see ahead or to provide”) appears in Genesis 22:14. Abraham gave this name to the place where God provided a substitute for his son Isaac, whom Abraham was to offer as a sacrifice to God. Yahweh-Shalom<\/span> (shalom<\/span>,<\/em> “peace”) is the name Gideon gave to the altar he built when the angel of the Lord came to give him orders to fight the Midianites (Jgs 6:24).<\/p>\nYahweh<\/span> appears with a few forms of the term tsadaq<\/span>,<\/em> “righteousness.” Yahweh<\/span> is spoken of as our righteousness in Jeremiah 23:6; the thought evidently is that David’s Righteous Branch (the Messiah) will attribute God’s righteousness to those who are incorporated in the new covenant. This concept is expressed in the Pentateuch a number of times when it is said that God has provided a way for living righteously; that is, God provides a way of sanctification (cf. Lv 20:8; 22:9).<\/p>\n’Adonai<\/span> as a name for God appears about 360 times in the OT, though it is not uniformly used. It is first found in Genesis 15:2 and 8, when Abram requests more definite information concerning a son and the Promised Land. It appears only 14 times after that in the Pentateuch. It appears repeatedly in the Psalms (over 50 times), and certain of the prophets use it frequently (Isaiah, 47 times; Jeremiah, 29 times; Ezekiel, over 150 times; and Amos, 27 times).<\/p>\nThe word ’adan<\/span>,<\/em> meaning “master, ruler, owner, lord,” is thought to be the root of the noun ’adon<\/span>,<\/em> which is frequently used of men. For example, in Genesis and 1—2 Samuel the term is used often for men who own slaves or are in positions of authority. ’Adonai<\/span> is correctly described as the name of personal communication between the believer and God. In such communication the worshiper acknowledged God’s intense majesty and greatness and also the sense of belonging to this God. ’Adonai<\/span>,<\/em> coming from human lips, expressed honor for God and humble submission on the part of the believing person. ’Adonai<\/span>,<\/em> thus, is the name that expresses faith, assurance, security, ready service, and thanksgiving (Pss 16:2; 57:9-10).<\/p>\n<h5>Old Testament Name Combinations<\/h5>\nIn the OT the names of God appear in various combinations. For example ’Elohim-Yahweh<\/span>,<\/em> ’Elohim-Yahweh-’Adonai<\/span>,<\/em> and ’Elohim-’Adonai<\/span> are very common. These combinations were an effort to express the fullness of God’s being and character as these had been revealed. Names of God in combination with “Israel” occur also as, for example, with Yahweh<\/span>-God-Israel (Jgs 5:3; Is 17:6). God is also invoked in relation to Israel without the mention of one of his names—for example, Qedosh Yisrael<\/span> (“Holy One of Israel,” Is 43:14) and ’Abir Yisrael<\/span> (“Mighty One of Israel,” Gn 49:24; Ps 132:2; Is 49:26). By means of these phrases, the covenantal relationship between God and his people was expressed and God’s unchanging character was positively acknowledged.<\/p>\n<h5>Old Testament Personal Names<\/h5>\nThe personal names of God are Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and variations of these.<\/p>\nThe term ’Abh<\/span> (“father”) appears more frequently in Genesis than in any other book, and in the Pentateuch more than in any other division of the OT. But it is not used there of God but rather of one who has generated children (i.e., the male parent), the progenitor—head, chief, and ruler of the family group or clan. It is used often in the sense of the responsible one through whom God has spoken, with whom God has dealt, and through whom he has given a rich heritage to the children and descendants of the patriarchs.<\/p>\nIn the poetical books, God is referred to as Father but is not directly named as such. Job is asked, “Has the rain a father?” (Jb 38:28). The reference is to God as the maker, source, and controller of rain. In Psalm 68:5 God in his holy dwelling place is the “Father of the fatherless”; the parallel phrase, “protector of widows,” indicates the sense. Psalm 89:26 says that David will cry to God, “Thou art my Father,” and the parallels use the terms “God” and “Rock of my salvation.” The idea here is of God as Creator and Savior who raised up, delivered, and protected David. In Psalm 103:13, “Father” is used analogously, “As a father pities his children.”<\/p>\nIsaiah uses the term “Father” in relation to God four times. Three times it refers to the One who has made, saved, formed, kept, and directed Israel (Is 63:16; 64:8). Isaiah says the promised child is to be named Everlasting Father (9:6). Used in this sense, the term establishes the Son’s equality with the Father in stature, function, ability, and responsibility. Jeremiah also refers to God as Father in Jeremiah 3:4, 19, meaning the origin, keeper, and friend of his people Israel. Malachi 1:6 and 2:10 speak of God as the parent who deserves honor from his children and as the origin and ruler of all people.<\/p>\nThe term “son” is one of the most-used terms in the OT; it commonly occurs in the sense of offspring and descendant. It also appears in the sense of follower or successor. There are a few indirect references to the second person of the Trinity.<\/p>\nThe messianic Psalm 2 has such a reference: “You are my son” (v 7). It is stated in the context of the king speaking to one who rules and is to rule with and under the sovereign. The immediate reference may be to the theocratic king; however, the reference is revealed in the NT to be the second person of the Trinity (Acts 13:33). Thus, the term “son” is applied to the promised Messiah who is set forth as the divine sovereign ruler and judge of the nations. The Son is perceived to be equal with the Father in deity and function. Not all biblical scholars accept this interpretation, but support is found in such NT passages as Hebrews 1:8 which quotes Psalm 45:6. As stated above, Isaiah speaks of the son to be given (Is 9:6), the One born of the virgin (7:14), who is Immanuel, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.<\/p>\nThe name “Holy Spirit” occurs only a few times in the OT. The Spirit is referred to frequently by terms and phrases such as “the Spirit of God” (Gn 1:2), “the Spirit of the Lord God” (Is 61:1), “the Spirit of the Lord” (Ez 37:1), “the Spirit” (Nm 11:17; 27:18), “my Spirit” (Gn 6:3), and “your Spirit” (Ps 51:11). Though the character of the Spirit is not developed as clearly in the OT as in the NT, it can be safely stated that the relationship posited between God and the Spirit is such that there is no doubt that the OT teaches the deity of the Spirit. The character and function of the Spirit is referred to especially in relation to the work of creation (Gn 1:2; Ps 33:6; etc.) and the equipping of servants for the service of God—for example, craftsmanship (Ex 35:31), leadership (Nm 11:17; 27:18), and prophecy (1 Sm 10:6; 2 Sm 23:2; 2 Chr 15:1; Ez 11:5).<\/p>\nThe Names of God in the New Testament<\/p>\n<h5>Proper Names of God<\/h5>\nTheos<\/span> is the NT equivalent of the OT names ’El<\/span>and ’Elohim<\/span>;<\/em> ‘Elyon<\/span> appears in the NT as Hupsistos<\/span>,<\/em> the Highest (Mk 5:7; Lk 1:32, 76). Pantokrator<\/span> (‘El Shaddai<\/span>) appears with Theos<\/span> (2 Cor 6:18; Rv 16:7). This name was used not only to express God’s transcendency, power, sovereignty, and lordship, but also to express that God is one who has a close relationship with his people. This fact is established by the very frequent use of personal pronouns with Theos<\/span>.<\/em> The name Theos<\/span> appears over 1,000 times in the NT.<\/p>\nKurios<\/span>,<\/em> “Lord,” is used to express the OT names Yahweh<\/span> and ‘Adonai<\/span> in the Septuagint, and the NT follows it. Kurios<\/span> means “power,” so the meaning is not the same as with Yahweh<\/span>;<\/em> yet the NT does give Kurios<\/span> the full weight of meaning that the OT gave to Yahweh<\/span>,<\/em> especially when used of Jesus Christ (cf. Acts 2:36; Phil 2:9-11; etc.)<\/p>\nDespotes<\/span> is used five times of God or Jesus in the NT (Lk 2:29; Acts 4:24; 2 Pt 2:11; Jude 1:4; Rv 6:10). It expresses the idea of authority. The idea of brutality conveyed by the modern concept “despot” is absent from the NT usage even when applied to men, where its central thought is ownership (2 Tm 2:21).<\/p>\n<h5>Personal Names of God<\/h5>\nIn the baptismal formula, which is part of the Great Commission (Mt 28:19-20), the three personal names of God appear: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These names carry the OT meaning, but since the relationship of the three Persons is explicated, the NT meaning of the names is enriched.<\/p>\n“Jesus” is the personal name of the Son, the second person of the triune Godhead. It means “savior” (Mt 1:21). The root of this name “to save” gave rise to names such as Joshua, Hoshea, and Hosea. The basic meaning of the OT root is “to bring into a safe, wide-open place.” Joshua, bringing Israel into Canaan, personally did what his name meant. The NT explanation (“save from sin”) is not contrary to the OT meaning. To be saved from sin is to be restored to fellowship with God and to enter into the paradise of the heavenly kingdom.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Christology; God, Being and Attributes of; Holy Spirit; Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of; Messiah; Names, Significance of.<\/p>","summary_ro":"GOD, Names of God’s self-identifications expressing various aspects of his being. Preview • The Biblical Idea of Name • The Names of God in the Old Testament • The Names of God in the New Testament The Biblical Idea of Name In the Scriptures the name and person of God are inseparably related. This is in keeping with the biblical conception of what a name signifies. In the Hebrew language, the term for “name” most probably meant “sign” or “distinctive mark.” In the Greek language, “name” (onom...","summary_en":"GOD, Names of God’s self-identifications expressing various aspects of his being. Preview • The Biblical Idea of Name • The Names of God in the Old Testament • The Names of God in the New Testament The Biblical Idea of Name In the Scriptures the name and person of God are inseparably related. This is in keeping with the biblical conception of what a name signifies. In the Hebrew language, the term for “name” most probably meant “sign” or “distinctive mark.” In the Greek language, “name” (onom...","source":"Articles\/G.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":26932,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Significance of Names","title_en":"Significance of Names","content_ro":"<h3>NAMES, Significance of<\/h3>\nIn biblical times names were given in order to express something about a person, or to express something through him, and not simply to hang a convenient label around his neck. At least seven motivations appear in the choice of names:<\/p>\n1. To record some aspect of a person’s birth. Moses was so called by his adoptive mother because he was drawn from the water, the sound of the name recalling a Hebrew verb “to draw out” (Ex 2:10). The circumstances surrounding their births gave Jacob (Gn 25:26) and also Samuel (1 Sm 1:20) their names. In Samuel’s case it is interesting to note that his name, meaning “heard by God,” records not the offering of prayer but the hearing and answering of it. Something of the deeper and more far-reaching implications of naming is seen in the fact that while the names Jacob and Samuel arise from birth circumstances, they also reveal in advance the person the child will become: Jacob the sneaky opportunist (cf. Gn 27:36), Samuel the man of prayer (1 Sm 7:5-9; 8:6, 21; 12:19-23).<\/p>\n<li>2. To express parental reactions to the birth. Isaac means “laughter” (cf. Gn 17:17; 18:12; 21:3-6). Nabal (1 Sm 25:25), which means “fool,” must have been the essence of a mother’s prayer—“Let him not be a fool”—though sadly he was! Abimelech (Jgs 8:31) means “My father is king” and may express a secret ambition of Gideon’s, at variance with his public testimony (Jgs 8:22-23).<\/li>\n<li>3. To secure the solidarity of the family. This may explain the proposal to call the baby Zechariah in Luke 1:59.<\/li>\n<li>4. To reveal the nature of the person, his function, or some other significant thing about him. The preeminent example of this is Jesus (Mt 1:21), named for his saving vocation. Isaiah seems to have seen his own name as significant of his message “the Lord saves” (see Is 8:18 nlt<\/span> mg).<\/li>\n<li>5. To communicate God’s message. Isaiah (see Is 7:3) called his first son Shear-jashub (“a remnant shall return”) in order to embody the double-sided thrust of his message: as a result of faithlessness, the people will be reduced to a mere remnant (“only a remnant shall return”); as a result of God’s faithfulness, his people will be preserved in life (“a remnant shall indeed return”). He called his second boy Maher-shalal-hash-baz (8:3), (“speed-prey-haste-spoil”), indicating the certainty of the imminent onset of a victorious foe.<\/li>\n<li>6. To establish religious affiliation. All the names in the Bible with the endings -iah<\/span> (alternatively -jah<\/span>) or -el<\/span> (e.g., Jeremiah, Nathanael) are in fact statements with “the Lord” (<\/em>-yah<\/span>)<\/em> or “God” (<\/em>-el<\/span>)<\/em> as subject. For example, Adonijah (2 Sm 3:4) means “the Lord is Sovereign”; Nathanael (Jn 1:47) means “God gave.” Such names were often chosen in times of religious decline in order to affirm the true faith of the parents.<\/li>\n<li>7. To affirm authority over another. In the ancient Near East, the naming of an object or person implied power and authority over what was named (Gn 2:19-20). Thus, a person not knowing another’s name could do neither harm nor good to that person (Ex 33:12, 17). In the ancient world a name described the person or his work in some way. When the individual or his situation changed, so did the name, as with Abram (Abraham) and Jacob (Israel). Pharaoh, as master of the patriarch Joseph, changed Joseph’s name when his status altered, calling him Zaphenath-paneah (Gn 41:45). When Eliakim was made king of Judah, the pharaoh changed the Jewish king’s name to Jehoiakim (2 Kgs 23:34). In captivity, Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah were forced to change their names to Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego by order of the eunuch (Dn 1:6-7).<\/li>\nIn the NT, John the Baptist was named by an angel who represented God, and similarly Jesus was given his name by an angel. The naming of those children symbolized God’s authority over John the Baptist and his special relationship as Father to Jesus.<\/p>\nNew Names<\/p>\nThe ability of the name to reveal the nature or status of the person who bears it is well illustrated in the biblical practice of giving new names, as when Sarai became Sarah (Gn 17:15). Three motivations are possible:<\/p>\n1. The new name replaces the old in order to signify the bestowal of powers not hitherto possessed. In this case the new name is equivalent to the experience of regeneration. The childless Abram becomes the “father of a multitude of nations,” Abraham (Gn 17:5).<\/p>\n<li>2. The new name may indicate a new character and status with God, as when Jacob the trickster became Israel the man of power with God (Gn 32:27; Hos 12:3-4); thus also, Simon became Peter (Jn 1:42).<\/li>\n<li>3. The new name may cement a new loyalty in the place of an old. Daniel the captive was given the name Belteshazzar, incorporating the name Bel, one of the gods of Babylon—presumably to turn him from the God of his fathers to that of his captors (Dn 1:7).<\/li>\nSee also<\/em> God, Names of.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>NAMES, Significance of<\/h3>\nIn biblical times names were given in order to express something about a person, or to express something through him, and not simply to hang a convenient label around his neck. At least seven motivations appear in the choice of names:<\/p>\n1. To record some aspect of a person’s birth. Moses was so called by his adoptive mother because he was drawn from the water, the sound of the name recalling a Hebrew verb “to draw out” (Ex 2:10). The circumstances surrounding their births gave Jacob (Gn 25:26) and also Samuel (1 Sm 1:20) their names. In Samuel’s case it is interesting to note that his name, meaning “heard by God,” records not the offering of prayer but the hearing and answering of it. Something of the deeper and more far-reaching implications of naming is seen in the fact that while the names Jacob and Samuel arise from birth circumstances, they also reveal in advance the person the child will become: Jacob the sneaky opportunist (cf. Gn 27:36), Samuel the man of prayer (1 Sm 7:5-9; 8:6, 21; 12:19-23).<\/p>\n<li>2. To express parental reactions to the birth. Isaac means “laughter” (cf. Gn 17:17; 18:12; 21:3-6). Nabal (1 Sm 25:25), which means “fool,” must have been the essence of a mother’s prayer—“Let him not be a fool”—though sadly he was! Abimelech (Jgs 8:31) means “My father is king” and may express a secret ambition of Gideon’s, at variance with his public testimony (Jgs 8:22-23).<\/li>\n<li>3. To secure the solidarity of the family. This may explain the proposal to call the baby Zechariah in Luke 1:59.<\/li>\n<li>4. To reveal the nature of the person, his function, or some other significant thing about him. The preeminent example of this is Jesus (Mt 1:21), named for his saving vocation. Isaiah seems to have seen his own name as significant of his message “the Lord saves” (see Is 8:18 nlt<\/span> mg).<\/li>\n<li>5. To communicate God’s message. Isaiah (see Is 7:3) called his first son Shear-jashub (“a remnant shall return”) in order to embody the double-sided thrust of his message: as a result of faithlessness, the people will be reduced to a mere remnant (“only a remnant shall return”); as a result of God’s faithfulness, his people will be preserved in life (“a remnant shall indeed return”). He called his second boy Maher-shalal-hash-baz (8:3), (“speed-prey-haste-spoil”), indicating the certainty of the imminent onset of a victorious foe.<\/li>\n<li>6. To establish religious affiliation. All the names in the Bible with the endings -iah<\/span> (alternatively -jah<\/span>) or -el<\/span> (e.g., Jeremiah, Nathanael) are in fact statements with “the Lord” (<\/em>-yah<\/span>)<\/em> or “God” (<\/em>-el<\/span>)<\/em> as subject. For example, Adonijah (2 Sm 3:4) means “the Lord is Sovereign”; Nathanael (Jn 1:47) means “God gave.” Such names were often chosen in times of religious decline in order to affirm the true faith of the parents.<\/li>\n<li>7. To affirm authority over another. In the ancient Near East, the naming of an object or person implied power and authority over what was named (Gn 2:19-20). Thus, a person not knowing another’s name could do neither harm nor good to that person (Ex 33:12, 17). In the ancient world a name described the person or his work in some way. When the individual or his situation changed, so did the name, as with Abram (Abraham) and Jacob (Israel). Pharaoh, as master of the patriarch Joseph, changed Joseph’s name when his status altered, calling him Zaphenath-paneah (Gn 41:45). When Eliakim was made king of Judah, the pharaoh changed the Jewish king’s name to Jehoiakim (2 Kgs 23:34). In captivity, Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah were forced to change their names to Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego by order of the eunuch (Dn 1:6-7).<\/li>\nIn the NT, John the Baptist was named by an angel who represented God, and similarly Jesus was given his name by an angel. The naming of those children symbolized God’s authority over John the Baptist and his special relationship as Father to Jesus.<\/p>\nNew Names<\/p>\nThe ability of the name to reveal the nature or status of the person who bears it is well illustrated in the biblical practice of giving new names, as when Sarai became Sarah (Gn 17:15). Three motivations are possible:<\/p>\n1. The new name replaces the old in order to signify the bestowal of powers not hitherto possessed. In this case the new name is equivalent to the experience of regeneration. The childless Abram becomes the “father of a multitude of nations,” Abraham (Gn 17:5).<\/p>\n<li>2. The new name may indicate a new character and status with God, as when Jacob the trickster became Israel the man of power with God (Gn 32:27; Hos 12:3-4); thus also, Simon became Peter (Jn 1:42).<\/li>\n<li>3. The new name may cement a new loyalty in the place of an old. Daniel the captive was given the name Belteshazzar, incorporating the name Bel, one of the gods of Babylon—presumably to turn him from the God of his fathers to that of his captors (Dn 1:7).<\/li>\nSee also<\/em> God, Names of.<\/p>","summary_ro":"NAMES, Significance of In biblical times names were given in order to express something about a person, or to express something through him, and not simply to hang a convenient label around his neck. At least seven motivations appear in the choice of names: 1. To record some aspect of a person’s birth. Moses was so called by his adoptive mother because he was drawn from the water, the sound of the name recalling a Hebrew verb “to draw out” (Ex 2:10). The circumstances surrounding their births...","summary_en":"NAMES, Significance of In biblical times names were given in order to express something about a person, or to express something through him, and not simply to hang a convenient label around his neck. At least seven motivations appear in the choice of names: 1. To record some aspect of a person’s birth. Moses was so called by his adoptive mother because he was drawn from the water, the sound of the name recalling a Hebrew verb “to draw out” (Ex 2:10). The circumstances surrounding their births...","source":"Articles\/N.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":42856,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:19","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:19","content_ro":"2:19-20<\/strong> to see what he would call them:<\/em> Following God’s example (1:5, 8, 10), the man chose a name for each<\/em> of the creatures. In so doing, he was exercising his reign over creation (1:26, 28).<\/p>","content_en":"2:19-20<\/strong> to see what he would call them:<\/em> Following God’s example (1:5, 8, 10), the man chose a name for each<\/em> of the creatures. In so doing, he was exercising his reign over creation (1:26, 28).<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:19-20 to see what he would call them: Following God’s example (1:5, 8, 10), the man chose a name for each of the creatures. In so doing, he was exercising his reign over creation (1:26, 28).","summary_en":"2:19-20 to see what he would call them: Following God’s example (1:5, 8, 10), the man chose a name for each of the creatures. In so doing, he was exercising his reign over creation (1:26, 28).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":70482,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:19","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:19","content_ro":"2:19-20<\/strong> to see what he would call them:<\/em> Following God’s example (1:5, 8, 10), the man chose a name for each<\/em> of the creatures. In so doing, he was exercising his reign over creation (1:26, 28).<\/p>","content_en":"2:19-20<\/strong> to see what he would call them:<\/em> Following God’s example (1:5, 8, 10), the man chose a name for each<\/em> of the creatures. In so doing, he was exercising his reign over creation (1:26, 28).<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:19-20 to see what he would call them: Following God’s example (1:5, 8, 10), the man chose a name for each of the creatures. In so doing, he was exercising his reign over creation (1:26, 28).","summary_en":"2:19-20 to see what he would call them: Following God’s example (1:5, 8, 10), the man chose a name for each of the creatures. In so doing, he was exercising his reign over creation (1:26, 28).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":98108,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:19","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:19","content_ro":"2:19-20<\/strong> to see what he would call them:<\/em> Following God’s example (1:5, 8, 10), the man chose a name for each<\/em> of the creatures. In so doing, he was exercising his reign over creation (1:26, 28).<\/p>","content_en":"2:19-20<\/strong> to see what he would call them:<\/em> Following God’s example (1:5, 8, 10), the man chose a name for each<\/em> of the creatures. In so doing, he was exercising his reign over creation (1:26, 28).<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:19-20 to see what he would call them: Following God’s example (1:5, 8, 10), the man chose a name for each of the creatures. In so doing, he was exercising his reign over creation (1:26, 28).","summary_en":"2:19-20 to see what he would call them: Following God’s example (1:5, 8, 10), the man chose a name for each of the creatures. In so doing, he was exercising his reign over creation (1:26, 28).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":125734,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:19","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:19","content_ro":"2:19-20<\/strong> to see what he would call them:<\/em> Following God’s example (1:5, 8, 10), the man chose a name for each<\/em> of the creatures. In so doing, he was exercising his reign over creation (1:26, 28).<\/p>","content_en":"2:19-20<\/strong> to see what he would call them:<\/em> Following God’s example (1:5, 8, 10), the man chose a name for each<\/em> of the creatures. In so doing, he was exercising his reign over creation (1:26, 28).<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:19-20 to see what he would call them: Following God’s example (1:5, 8, 10), the man chose a name for each of the creatures. In so doing, he was exercising his reign over creation (1:26, 28).","summary_en":"2:19-20 to see what he would call them: Following God’s example (1:5, 8, 10), the man chose a name for each of the creatures. In so doing, he was exercising his reign over creation (1:26, 28).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"20":[{"id":1739,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Animals","title_en":"Animals","content_ro":"<h3>ANIMALS<\/h3>\nIn biblical usage, all members of the animal kingdom. Animals are mentioned throughout the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. Animals figured in many important biblical events, including the Creation, the fall of man, the Flood, the ten plagues in Egypt, the Hebrew worship system, and the life of Jesus Christ. The people of both OT and NT times lived close to the land and were well acquainted with various animals so that the scriptural writers and Jesus himself frequently used animals as object lessons.<\/p>\nThe biblical approach to classification of animals is somewhat different from the system of classification used by biologists today. The present system of classification, which traces back to Carolus Linnaeus (an 18th-century Swedish botanist), is based on structure, both internal and external. The biblical basis of classification is habitat. Thus Genesis 1 speaks of aquatic organisms (v 20); aerial organisms (v 21); animals that crawl on the ground (v 24); cattle or domesticated animals (animals that live in association with humans) (v 24); and wild animals (v 24). The same system of classification is followed in Leviticus 11 and throughout Scripture.<\/p>\nBecause of the divergence between systems of classification, the various animals of the Bible will be listed here in alphabetical order—including reptiles, fish, and even invertebrates such as insects, spiders, worms, and sponges. Birds are discussed in a separate article.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Adder<\/p>\n• Ant<\/p>\n• Antelope<\/p>\n• Ape<\/p>\n• Asp<\/p>\n• Ass<\/p>\n• Badger<\/p>\n• Bat<\/p>\n• Bear<\/p>\n• Bee<\/p>\n• Behemoth<\/p>\n• Camel<\/p>\n• Caterpillar<\/p>\n• Cattle<\/p>\n• Chameleon<\/p>\n• Coral<\/p>\n• Cricket<\/p>\n• Crocodile<\/p>\n• Deer<\/p>\n• Dog<\/p>\n• Donkey<\/p>\n• Dragon<\/p>\n• Fish<\/p>\n• Flea<\/p>\n• Fly<\/p>\n• Fox<\/p>\n• Frog<\/p>\n• Gazelle<\/p>\n• Gecko<\/p>\n• Gnat<\/p>\n• Goat<\/p>\n• Grasshopper<\/p>\n• Hare<\/p>\n• Hippopotamus<\/p>\n• Horse<\/p>\n• Hyena<\/p>\n• Jackal<\/p>\n• Leech<\/p>\n• Leopard<\/p>\n• Leviathan<\/p>\n• Lion<\/p>\n• Lizard<\/p>\n• Locust<\/p>\n• Mole<\/p>\n• Moth<\/p>\n• Mouse<\/p>\n• Mule<\/p>\n• Pig<\/p>\n• Porcupine<\/p>\n• Scorpion<\/p>\n• Sheep<\/p>\n• Snail<\/p>\n• Snake<\/p>\n• Spider<\/p>\n• Sponge<\/p>\n• Unicorn<\/p>\n• Wasp<\/p>\n• Whale<\/p>\n• Wild Ox<\/p>\n• Wolf<\/p>\n• Worm<\/p>\n\nAdder<\/p>\nOne of the 20 poisonous snakes found in Israel and surrounding countries, also referred to as cockatrice and viper. True vipers (genus Cerastes, Echis colorata,<\/em> and Vipera palestina<\/em>) also exist there, poisonous snakes with curved fangs that spring into position when the snake strikes. The horned viper (Cerastes hasselquistii)<\/em> may attack horses. It is 12 to 18 inches (30 to 46 centimeters) long and often lies in ambush in the sand with only its eyes and the hornlike protrusions on its head visible.<\/p>\nBoth Jesus and John the Baptist referred to the viper several times (Mt 3:7; 12:34; 23:33). The reference in Acts 28:3 is probably to a small viper (Vipera aspis)<\/em> that strikes rapidly and is very pugnacious. It is found in southern Europe and hisses each time it inhales and exhales. The poison of vipers attacks the respiratory system and disintegrates red blood cells.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Snake (below).<\/p>\nAnt<\/p>\nMentioned only twice in the Bible, both times in the book of Proverbs. For many years Solomon was charged with a biological error when he referred to the ant as providing her meat in the summer and gathering her food in the harvest (Prv 6:8). Critics of the Bible were quick to point out that, so far as was then known, ants do not store up food. They assumed that Solomon had probably kicked open an ant hill and mistaken the pupal cases (pods in which immature ants grow to maturity) for grain or had observed ants carrying bits of grain, leaves, and other matter to their nests.<\/p>\nAt least three species of grain-storing ants are now known—two occur in Israel and the other in Mediterranean countries. The particular species referred to by Solomon (Prv 6:6-8; 30:24-25) is probably the harvester ant (Messor semirufus).<\/em> Its granaries are flat chambers connected by galleries irregularly scattered over an area about six feet (1.8 meters) in diameter and about a foot (.3 meter) deep in the ground. Seeds are collected from the ground or picked from plants. The head, or radicle, which is the softest part of the kernel, is bitten off to prevent germination, and the chaff and empty capsules are discarded on kitchen middens (refuse piles) outside the nest. Individual granaries may be 5 inches (12.7 centimeters) in diameter and a half inch (1.2 centimeters) high. Some nests are known to be 40 feet (12 meters) in diameter and 6 to 7 feet (approx. 2 meters) deep with several entrances.<\/p>\nAntelope<\/p>\nSeveral antelope-like creatures are referred to in the Scriptures. One seems to be the white oryx (Oryx leucoryx),<\/em> referred to in Deuteronomy 14:5 (kjv<\/span> “wild ox”; rsv<\/span> “antelope”) and Isaiah 51:20 (kjv<\/span> “wild bull”; RSV <\/span>“antelope”). The oryx was probably the antelope, commonly used for food because its long horns made it relatively easy to catch.<\/p>\nAnother antelope mentioned in the Bible is the addax (Addax nasomaculatus),<\/em> probably the “pygarg” of Deuteronomy 14:5 (kjv<\/span>). It is a native of North Africa with grayish white hinder parts, a white patch on the forehead, and twisted and ringed horns. The word “pygarg” comes from a Greek word meaning “white rump.” The addax is about the size of a donkey. Its body is closely covered with short hair. It has a short mane on the underside of its neck that makes the head look somewhat like that of a goat. The hooves are broad and flat, and the tail resembles that of a donkey. It is common in Africa and in Arabia, where Arabs hunt it with falcons and dogs.<\/p>\nAntelopes are very graceful and run with their heads held high. Both sexes have long, permanent, hollow horns. With the oryx the horns go straight back; addax horns are twisted and ringed. Antelope are alert, wary, and keen sighted. They are usually found in herds of from two to a dozen. If injured or brought to bay, an antelope attacks with its head lowered so that the sharp horns point forward. Antelopes feed on grasses and shrubs, drinking from streams and water holes. When water is scarce, they eat melons and succulent bulbs. Both addax and oryx were ceremonially clean in Jewish law.<\/p>\nApe<\/p>\nPrimate not native to Palestine. The two references to apes in the OT (1 Kgs 10:22; 2 Chr 9:21) refer to their importation by King Solomon with other treasures on board the ships of his mercantile fleet. There is some question concerning the origin of those primates. Some believe that the mention of “ivory” in the same verses suggests they came from East Africa and that they were indeed apes, that is, tailless primates. Others, believing they came from India or Ceylon, suggest that they were actually monkeys. There the baboon (genus Papeio), a large monkey, was considered sacred to the god Thoth. Males of that genus were kept in temples, and the more docile females were often kept as house pets. Such baboons frequently had some of their teeth removed or ground down to lessen the danger of their biting. A number of mummified baboons have been found in Egypt, indicating the high regard in which they were held.<\/p>\nAsp<\/p>\nPoisonous snake. Most biblical references to the asp (Dt 32:33) seem to be to the Egyptian cobra (Naja haje),<\/em> which conceals itself in holes, walls, and rocks and has the ability to expand its neck by raising its anterior ribs so as to enlarge the front of its breast into the shape of a flat disc. Its potent poison can cause death in 30 minutes. It attains a length of about 80 inches (2 meters). The fangs are permanently erect, not movable as in the vipers (the common poisonous snakes of North America; only the coral snake in America has permanently erect fangs). Cobra poison attacks the nervous system, causing muscular paralysis. The Egyptians looked upon it as a sacred creature; they regarded it as a protector since it fed on the rodents that ate their crops. The “fiery serpents” (Nm 21:6; Dt 8:15, both rsv<\/span>) may have been cobras; “fiery” probably refers to the burning fever caused by their venom. Isaiah 14:29 and 30:6 (“flying serpent”) may refer to the hood of the cobra.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Snake (below).<\/p>\nAss<\/p>\nSee<\/em> Donkey (below).<\/p>\nBadger<\/p>\nSmall hoofed mammal. What the kjv<\/span> calls a “coney,” modern translations name “rock badger” (Lv 11:5; Dt 14:7; Ps 104:18; Prv 30:26). The rock badger spoken of in the Bible is probably the Syrian rock hyrax (Hyrax syriaca),<\/em> the only species of hyrax found outside Africa. This small ungulate (having hooflike toenails) lives among rocks from the Dead Sea valley to Mt Hermon. It is strictly a herbivorous (plant-eating) animal about the size of a rabbit. It resembles a guinea pig more than a rabbit, having quite inconspicuous ears and a very small tail. It has broad nails with four toes on its forelegs and three on its hind legs, the toes being connected with skin almost like a web. Pads acting as sucking discs under its feet enable it to keep its footing on slippery rocks. With its yellow and brown fur, it is sometimes called the bear rat because of its resemblance to a tailless rat. It is also equipped with black whiskers that may be seven inches (17.8 centimeters) long.<\/p>\nThese rock badgers, or hyraxes, live together in colonies of from 6 to 50 animals, often sunning themselves on rocks. They are difficult to catch. Guards are posted, and if approaching danger is sighted, the whole group will scurry for cover, warned by the sharp whistles of the guards. Thus they are commended for taking refuge in the rocks (Ps 104:18) and are called wise for making “their houses in the rocks” (Prv 30:24, 26, kjv<\/span>). The badger is not a ruminant (does not chew its cud), but the motion of its jaws may suggest that it chews its cud. That is probably why it was included with other cud-chewing animals in the Jewish food laws (Lv 11:5; Dt 14:7). It was forbidden to the Jews as food because it did not have cloven hooves. Some Arabs eat and even prize its meat.<\/p>\nBat<\/p>\nFlying mammals according to modern classification. They have hair and provide milk for their young. The Bible classifies them with other aerial creatures. Bats take shelter in caves, crevices, tree cavities, buildings, and also in exposed places on trees. In colder areas they hibernate or migrate. The normal resting position for a bat is hanging head downward. Bats “swim” through the air rather than fly because they move with their legs as well as with their wings.<\/p>\nThe bat’s thumb is free and terminates in a single hook claw used for climbing and hanging. The hind feet have five toes, all pointing the same way. The large chest accommodates the powerful muscles needed for flying. Because they orient themselves by echo location, the sense of hearing is very well developed.<\/p>\nMost bats are insect eaters, seizing insects in flight. Many insectivorous bats also eat some fruit. Other bats feed exclusively, usually in groups, on fruit and green vegetation. Fruit-eating bats generally live in the tropics where fruit is constantly ripening, although some have been found in the Holy Land. These bats tend to be larger than the insectivores, having a wingspread of up to five feet (1.5 meters).<\/p>\nA third group includes flower-eating bats that feed on pollen and nectar. These small bats with long pointed heads and long tongues are found only in tropical and semitropical regions. Three species of vampire bats, which do not occur in the Holy Land, eat blood by making a small incision and lapping it up. Carnivorous (meat-eating) bats prey on birds, lizards, and frogs. Fish-eating bats catch fish at or near the water surface.<\/p>\nEight varieties of bats are known in the Holy Land. One of them, the little brown bat (genus Myotis<\/em>), is worldwide in its distribution. It is insectivorous and probably has the widest distribution of any nonhuman terrestrial mammal. Brown bats are mostly cave dwellers. The females form maternity colonies that may number in the tens of thousands.<\/p>\nTwo species of mouse-tailed bats (genus Rhinopoma<\/em>) are found in the Holy Land. Their tails are nearly as long as the head and body combined. They are colonial, roosting in caves, rock clefts, wells, pyramids, palaces, and houses. Like the brown bat, they are insectivorous. The slit-faced or hollow-faced bats (genus Nycteris<\/em>) are also found in the Holy Land. They are insectivorous and roost in groups from 6 to 20.<\/p>\nThe bats found in the Holy Land vary in size from that of a mouse to the size of a rat; the largest species measures more than 20 inches (51 centimeters) across the wings. The bat was unclean to the Jews (Lv 11:19; Dt 14:18).<\/p>\nBear<\/p>\nLarge, heavy, big-headed mammal with short, powerful limbs, a short tail, and small eyes and ears. Bears have a “plantigrade” walk: they walk on both the sole and heel as humans do. The Palestinian bear is a Syrian version of the brown bear (Ursus arctos syriacus).<\/em> It can grow to a height of 6 feet (1.8 meters) and may weigh as much as 500 pounds (227 kilograms).<\/p>\nBears have an excellent sense of smell but less developed senses of sight and hearing. They are omnivorous (eating any kind of food); they subsist largely on vegetation, fruits, insects, and fish.<\/p>\nBears are usually peaceful and inoffensive, but if they think they must defend themselves (Lam 3:10) or their young (2 Sm 17:8; Prv 17:12; Hos 13:8), they may be formidable and dangerous adversaries. David boasted of his role as a bear killer (1 Sm 17:34-37). Since a blow from a bear’s paw can be fatal, David’s courage and strength as a young shepherd in running after a bear and wrenching one of his father’s sheep from its jaws were noteworthy.<\/p>\nSome biblical passages seem to imply that bears attacked for no apparent reason (e.g., Prv 28:15; Am 5:19). At other times they were God’s instruments of punishment, as in the story of Elisha and the two she-bears (2 Kgs 2:24). The bear and the lion, often mentioned together in the Bible (1 Sm 17:37), were the two largest and strongest beasts of prey in the Holy Land. Thus they symbolized both strength and terror (Am 5:19).<\/p>\nIn biblical times bears seem to have roamed all over Palestine. Today they are found only in the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon Mountains, and even there they are rare.<\/p>\nBee<\/p>\nOne of two domesticated insects (Apis mellifica),<\/em> the other being the silkworm. Bees gather nectar from flowers, transferring pollen from one flower to another in the process. It is believed that they convey the location of sources of nectar to other bees through a bee “dance,” which may indicate both distance and direction. Bees are sensitive to four colors: blue-green, yellow-green, blue-violet, and ultra-violet (invisible to humans).<\/p>\nThe wild bees of the Holy Land are especially noted for their ferocity in attack. Only the female “worker” bees sting people and animals, the virulence of their venom increasing in warm weather. A number of biblical passages allude to the irritable, vindictive nature of bees and to the painful stings they inflict (Dt 1:44; Ps 118:12; Is 7:18).<\/p>\nOne reference calls attention to the fact that in semidesert regions a dead animal’s carcass, stripped to the bone by jackals or vultures and dried in the sun, can provide wild bees an excellent place to start a new colony (Jgs 14:5-9).<\/p>\nThe Egyptians considered the bee sacred. In ancient Greece candles were made from beeswax. In the Holy Land, beekeeping was probably not practiced until the Hellenistic period (second century BC<\/span>), although Ezekiel 27:17 suggests that it may have been practiced earlier. If domestic honey was not available to the Hebrews, wild honey certainly was, and travelers would be on the lookout for caches of honey in rocky clefts and other likely places. The Philistines and the Hittites practiced beekeeping in their cities.<\/p>\nThe Bible contains many references to bees and bee products. A bee swarm was a valuable asset, though the price of honey itself was low. Honey was sometimes eaten with the honeycomb (Sg 5:1). Honey also had uses other than food, e.g., in embalming.<\/p>\nThe land of Israel was described as a land flowing with milk and honey. Honey was a major source of sweetening in the ancient Near East—hence, its importance (cf. Jgs 14:8-9). Actually the Hebrew word for “honey” may include not only bee honey but also the sweet syrup extracted from such fruits as figs, dates, and grapes. Thus “a land flowing with milk and honey” (Ex 3:8, rsv<\/span>) does not necessarily stand for a land of bees but for a land rich in sweetness.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Food and Food Preparation; Honey.<\/p>\nBehemoth<\/p>\nSee<\/em> Hippopotamus (below).<\/p>\nCamel<\/p>\nLarge beast of burden. Unintelligent, ill-natured, and quarrelsome, the camel (Camelus dromedarius)<\/em> is nevertheless a blessing to people living in the desert and on its borders because it is especially adapted to that habitat. It has been called the ship of the desert. Having thick elastic pads of fibrous tissue on its feet, it can walk on hot desert sands. It can go without water for long periods and can subsist on vegetation growing on the saline soils. The camel’s nostrils are pinched together and can be closed at will to prevent penetration of sand during violent sandstorms.<\/p>\nCamels are used for transporting both goods and people. A person riding a camel can cover from 60 to 75 miles (96.5 to 121 kilometers) in a day. A camel can carry a load weighing 600 pounds (272 kilograms) or more. Camels were used heavily in the spice trade (Gn 37:25) and traveled regularly in camel trains between Arabia, Egypt, and Assyria. They were also ridden in time of war (Jgs 6:5). A camel can even be hitched to a plow in areas where the land is cultivated.<\/p>\nThe hair shed by camels during the early spring is preserved and used in weaving cloth and making tents. As much as 10 pounds (4.5 kilograms) of hair can be obtained from one camel. A rough cloak of camel’s hair, as worn by John the Baptist (Mt 3:4), is still worn by Bedouins today. A camel’s hair garment was also the sign of the prophetic office (Zec 13:4).<\/p>\nTwo varieties of camel occur within the one-humped species, the slow burden-bearing camel referred to in Genesis 37:25 and the fast dromedary of 1 Samuel 30:17. The dromedary can stand seven feet (2.1 meters) tall and measure as much as nine feet (2.7 meters) from the muzzle to the tip of the tail. With its three-chambered stomach, which can hold from 15 to 30 quarts (14.2 to 28.4 liters) of liquid, it can go for as long as 5 days during the summer or 25 days in winter without drinking. The camel’s hump is a reserve store of fat, making it possible for the animal to subsist on very little food during a desert journey.<\/p>\nAnother species of camel, the Bactrian camel (Camelus bactrianus),<\/em> is also resident in the Holy Land. It has two humps. It is heavier, bigger, and has longer hair than the one-humped camel and is slower than the swift dromedary. Isaiah 21:7 may refer to the Bactrian camel; both kinds of camel are referred to in Esther 8:10 (kjv<\/span>). Camels ranked in importance with sheep, cattle, and asses in OT times. A third of the 66 biblical references to the camel lists it with other animals.<\/p>\nCamels are ruminants (cud-chewing mammals) but do not have cloven hooves. Thus, they were included in the list of unclean beasts, forbidden by the Israelites as food (Lv 11:4; Dt 14:7). They are eaten by Arabs, however, who also drink their milk (cf. Gn 32:15).<\/p>\nAbraham had camels in Egypt (Gn 12:16). At first Job had 3,000 camels (Jb 1:3) and after his recovery, 6,000 (Jb 42:12). Although wide use of camels does not seem to have begun until shortly before 1000 BC<\/span> (Jgs 6:5), Sumerian texts from the Old Babylonian period list camels and indicate that they had been domesticated. Camel bones and figurines have been found at various eastern archaeological sites dating from well before 1200 BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Travel.<\/p>\nCaterpillar<\/p>\nLarval stage of insects characterized by complete metamorphosis. Such insects pass through four stages: egg, larva or caterpillar, pupa, and adult. Bees, flies, moths, and butterflies all pass through a larval or caterpillar stage.<\/p>\nThe word “caterpillar” occurs three times in the nlt<\/span> (1 Kgs 8:37; 2 Chr 6:28; Ps 78:46). In the book of Joel that same Hebrew word is translated “locust” (1:4; 2:25, nlt<\/span>). The locust and grasshopper to which the Hebrew word refers have an incomplete type of metamorphosis with only three stages: egg, nymph, and adult. The nymph is a miniature adult in which the wings are not fully developed, though their outline may be present. There are several nymph stages known as instars. The reference is to one of the last instars, in which the wing structures are still folded together and enclosed in a sac but are nevertheless clearly recognizable. That form of the insect is about an inch (2.5 centimeters) long.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Locust (below).<\/p>\nCattle<\/p>\nDomestic animals of the bovine species (Bos primigenius).<\/em> The OT often emphasized the beauty of cattle. Egypt was rich in cattle, especially in the Nile River delta area (Goshen), where the Hebrews settled under Joseph.<\/p>\nSome scholars believe that milk rather than meat was the foremost consideration in the domestication of cattle and that in early civilizations meat supplies came chiefly from wild game. Cattle also supplied strong hides that supplanted wood in the manufacture of shields. Their dung was a source of fuel when wood was scarce (Ez 4:15). They were used as beasts of burden and for plowing. Development of wheeled transportation was associated more closely with cattle than with any other animal.<\/p>\nThe biblical term “cattle” often refers to all domesticated animals or livestock (Gn 1:24; 2:20; 7:23; 47:6, 16-17; Ex 9:3-7; Nm 3:41, 45). Occasionally, the term was used to refer to all large domestic animals (Nm 31:9; 32:26), although sometimes the word as used in the kjv<\/span> refers only to sheep and goats (Gn 30:32, 39, 43; 31:8, 10; Is 7:25; 43:23).<\/p>\nProbably several kinds of cattle were domesticated in the Holy Land. Small, short-legged, black or brown shorthorn cattle were found in the southern part of Judah; that type submitted easily to the yoke and was prominent in agricultural operations. Along the coast a larger variety was found, and the wild districts east of the Jordan River were populated with a breed of huge black cattle.<\/p>\nCattle breeding was widely practiced by the patriarchs (cf. Gn 32:15; Jb 21:10). Strict laws in Mesopotamia, as well as in Israel, penalized the owner of a bull that gored a man or other cattle (Ex 21:28-36). Bulls were sometimes employed figuratively as pictures of strength or violence (Dt 33:17; Pss 22:12; 68:30; Is 10:13). For breeding purposes one bull is normally adequate for about 30 cows, but many more were kept since bulls were widely used in Israel for sacrifices. They might be used as a general sacrifice (Lv 22:23; Nm 23:1) or for special sacrifices (Jgs 6:25; 1 Sm 1:24). Particular sacrifices were offered at the consecration of priests (Ex 29:1), consecration of an altar (Nm 7), purification of the Levites (Nm 8), sin offerings (Lv 16), day of the new moon (Nm 28:11-14), Passover (Nm 28:19), Feast of Weeks (Nm 28:27), Feast of Trumpets (Nm 29:1-2), Day of Atonement (Nm 29:7-9), and the Feast of Tabernacles (Nm 29:12-38). The Feast of Tabernacles required the largest number of bulls for burnt offerings of all the annual feasts, with a total of 71 being slaughtered during the course of eight days.<\/p>\nCalves were sometimes referred to as “sons of the herd” in the original Hebrew (Gn 18:8; 1 Sm 6:7; 14:32). The calf, a symbol of peacefulness (Is 11:6), was also used figuratively to refer to the weak (Ps 68:30). A calf’s head decorated the back of Solomon’s throne (1 Kgs 10:19). Calves were sometimes fattened in stalls to keep them from running off weight in the field (Am 6:4; Mal 4:2; Lk 15:23) or were kept around the house; the witch of Endor kept a calf in her house that she killed and served to Saul and his men (1 Sm 28:24-25). Calves supplied veal (Gn 18:7), considered a delicacy by the wealthy; Amos referred to stall-fattened calves in a denunciation of luxurious and careless living (Am 6:4). Calves also supplied meat for all Saul’s armies at the great slaughter of the Philistines (1 Sm 14:32). The “fatted calf” served roasted or boiled was gourmet fare, suitable for the finest banquet (Gn 18:7; Mt 22:4; Lk 15:23).<\/p>\nCattle were subject to the law of firstlings (Ex 13:12). They were a mark of wealth (Gn 13:2) and were considered proper booty of war (Jos 8:2). Aaron, the first high priest, made a golden calf as a rival to the ark of the covenant (Ex 32; Dt 9:16, 21). Even though he represented the calf as an image of the invisible God, it was especially offensive because the calf was a fertility symbol related to Egyptian and Canaanite practices. Two calves were later made by Jeroboam I of Israel (930–909 BC<\/span>) for his shrines at Bethel and Dan (1 Kgs 12:28-33). Hosea’s prophetic denunciations of calf worship were directed at those shrines (Hos 8:5-6; 13:2).<\/p>\nAn ox is an adult castrated bull. A steer is a young ox. Oxen were used to do work (Nm 7:3; Dt 22:10; 25:4), though for moving heavy objects, cows were typically favored over bulls because of their more docile nature. Oxen were also used as pack animals (1 Chr 12:40, although they did not have the endurance of the ass, camel, or mule. They usually fed on grass (Nm 22:4; Ps 106:20), but they also ate straw (Is 11:7) and salted fodder (Is 30:24) and could be kept in a stable (Lk 13:15). Oxen could not be offered as sacrifices because they had been castrated (Lv 22:24). They could be used for food but were rarely eaten. Possession of an ox and an ass was regarded as the bare minimum for existence in the ancient Palestinian agriculture economy (Jb 24:3; cf. Ex 20:17).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Agriculture; Food and Food Preparation; Offerings and Sacrifices.<\/p>\nChameleon<\/p>\nLizard characterized by its ability to change color according to its surroundings (Chameleon vulgaris).<\/em> To the Israelites the chameleon was ritually unclean (Lv 11:30). The Hebrew word for chameleon is derived from a word meaning “to pant.” A lizard’s lungs are very large, and in ancient times lizards were believed to live on air. A chameleon’s eyes move independently of each other; so at times one eye may be turned upward and the other downward. Chameleons live in trees and bushes, clinging to branches with their long tails.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Lizard (below).<\/p>\nCoral<\/p>\nCalcareous (lime-containing) skeletons of relatively simple marine organisms (Corallium rubrum).<\/em> Red coral from the Mediterranean and Red Seas is widely used for jewelry and for medicinal purposes. While the animal is alive, the coral is green in color and shrublike in appearance, looking rather like an underwater plant since the coral animals are immobil. When the coral is removed from the water, it becomes hard and red in color.<\/p>\nIn ancient times coral was sometimes used as money, along with precious stones, pearls, and gold. Some believe the biblical reference in Lamentations 4:7 (rsv<\/span>) is to pearls rather than to coral, but it is probable that the references in Job 28:18 and Ezekiel 27:16 are to the red coral (see nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nCricket<\/p>\nInsect of the order Orthptera related to grasshoppers and locusts. According to Leviticus 11:22, the cricket was edible. The reference may be to one of the growth stages of the locust.<\/p>\nThe kjv<\/span> translates the Hebrew word as “beetle.” Beetles are insects with chewing mouth parts and two pairs of wings, the fore pair being hard and sheathlike and the hind pair being membranous and folded under the fore pair. Some beetles are carnivorous, others are chiefly herbivorous. Some are aquatic, some produce a secretion that blisters the skin, some damage fabrics, some damage crops, and some feed on other insects that are harmful to humans. In ancient Egypt the beetle, or sacred scarab, was a symbol of the sun god Ra. Scarab seals and amulets were extremely popular in Egypt.<\/p>\nCrocodile<\/p>\nLargest of all existing reptiles (Crocodilus vulgaris),<\/em> attaining a length of well over 20 feet (6 meters). Crocodiles are characterized by large lizardlike bodies supported by short legs. The head terminates in a flattened snout armed with strong conical teeth, each of which is implanted in a distinct socket. New teeth growing from beneath continually replace those in use. The toes are webbed. The back and tail are protected by quadrangular horny shields of varying sizes arranged in regular rows and in contact with one another at the edges. The eyes are covered with movable lids that can be closed when the animal enters the water.<\/p>\nThe crocodile spends most of its time in the water where it feeds mainly on fish but also on aquatic birds and even small animals that come down to the water’s edge to drink. It is surprisingly fast and agile on dry land, even though its legs are so short that its belly and tail drag across the earth leaving a distinct path.<\/p>\nUntil the beginning of the 20th century, the crocodile was found in the marshes and small coastal rivers of western Palestine. A first-century Roman writer, Pliny, referred to a place in the Holy Land called Crocodeilopolis (“crocodile city”) to the south of Mt Carmel, and visitors to the Holy Land as late as the 19th century reported seeing crocodiles in that general region.<\/p>\nThe description of “Leviathan” in Job 41 seems to be based on the crocodile (thus the translation of the nlt<\/span>). The “dragon” of Ezekiel 29:3, used figuratively of the Egyptian pharaoh, may be a reference to the crocodile.<\/p>\nDeer<\/p>\nLarge ruminant (cud-chewing) animals. Only the males have antlers (branching horns). Deer antlers grow annually and are solid, in contrast to those of the antelope and the gazelle. Fully developed antlers are devoid of any covering of skin or horn and, for all practical purposes, may be regarded as a mass of dead bone carried for a certain time by the living animal.<\/p>\nThe end of the deer’s muzzle is naked in all species. The stomach is divided into a series of compartments, some of which are used to store partly chewed food. The food is later regurgitated, rechewed, and finally swallowed into a section of the stomach where true digestion takes place.<\/p>\nThree species of deer were known in Palestine: the red deer (Cervus elaphus),<\/em> the Persian fallow deer (Dama mesopotamica),<\/em> and the roe deer (Capreolus capreolus).<\/em> All are now extinct there. The last deer were hunted in the Holy Land in 1914. The red deer referred to in the Bible as “hart” (male), “stag” (male), or “hind” (female) stood about four feet (1.2 meters) high at the shoulder. It was gregarious (living in herds or flocks), each group remaining in a definite territory. Red deer grazed and browsed during the morning and late afternoon (Lam 1:6). The sexes remained in separate herds. The red deer was known for its leaping (Is 35:6) and sure-footedness in the mountains (Ps 18:33; Sg 2:8-9, 17; 8:14; Hb 3:19).<\/p>\nThe antlers of the Persian fallow deer (1 Kgs 4:23) were large, flattened, and palmated (shaped like an open palm with fingers extended), and its coat was a yellowbrown. It traveled in small groups, feeding mainly on grass in the morning and evening.<\/p>\nThe roe deer (Dt 14:5; 1 Kgs 4:23) was a small, graceful animal, dark reddish brown in summer and yellowish gray in winter. Its antlers were about a foot (30.5 centimeters) long and had three points. The roe deer preferred sparsely wooded valleys and the lower slopes of mountains, grazing in open grasslands. It usually associated in family groups made up of the doe and her offspring. They were shy, yet very curious. The roe deer barked like a dog when disturbed, and they were excellent swimmers.<\/p>\nThere is some question as to whether the roe deer is actually referred to in such passages as 1 Kings 4:23; references may be to the fallow deer, although that animal does not seem to have lived in the southern part of Palestine around the Sinai Desert because of its need for ample amounts of food and water. Fallow deer were found in northern Palestine.<\/p>\nThe hart (the male red deer) was listed among the clean beasts that Jewish law permitted as food (Dt 12:15, 22; 14:5), but deer were not listed among the animals appropriate for sacrifice. The hind (female red deer) normally gave birth to one calf at a time, though twins were born with some degree of regularity (Jb 39:1; Ps 29:9, kjv<\/span>; Jer 14:5). The gestation period was about 40 weeks. When it was about to give birth, the hind looked for a secure hiding place, preferably in the dense undergrowth of the forest where it could find natural protection for the tiny calf. During the first few days after birth, the mother never went far from her young. The fawn was able to stand on its own legs a few hours after birth. The solicitous care by the hind for her calf during the first days of its life is hinted at in a touching way in Jeremiah 14:4-5, where only a severe drought is said to drive the hind from her calf. Job 39:1-4 describes the calving of the hinds. The hind illustrated grace and charm (Gn 49:21; Prv 5:19), and its dark, gentle eyes and graceful limbs were used to describe the beauty of a woman (Prv 5:18-19).<\/p>\nDog<\/p>\nProbably the earliest domesticated animal (Canis familiaris),<\/em> used very early in hunting. The modern dog is believed to have come from the Indian wolf (Canis lupus pallipes).<\/em> The dogs of biblical times probably looked like a modern German shepherd, with short pointed ears, a pointed nose, and a long tail.<\/p>\nThe dog was generally looked down upon in biblical times (Prv 26:11; 2 Pt 2:22). The biblical writers did not share modern sentiments about dogs being man’s best friends. The dog was pictured as a scavenger, haunting streets and dumps (Ex 22:31; 1 Kgs 22:38; Mt 15:26; Lk 16:21). Human corpses could become the spoil of dogs (2 Kgs 9:35-36). In general, dogs served the same function as vultures and other birds of prey. Most of the 41 references in the Scriptures to dogs show strong disfavor. Dogs were considered cowardly, filthy creatures.<\/p>\nDogs used in hunting occur in paintings in Egyptian tombs, and there is a reference to dogs herding sheep in Job 30:1. One good quality of dogs highly esteemed by the Israelites was watchfulness (Is 56:10). In general, however, in biblical times “dog” was a term of contempt (1 Sm 17:43; 2 Sm 16:9) and was used of overly submissive persons (2 Sm 9:8; 2 Kgs 8:13) and of evil persons (Is 56:10-11; Mt 7:6; Phil 3:2; Rv 22:15).<\/p>\nDogs, like pigs, were voracious and omnivorous (eating any kind of food). In response to a Gentile woman’s request that he heal her daughter, Jesus used the metaphor of throwing household food scraps to dogs (Mt 15:22-28; Mk 7:25-30). At the time of Jesus, the word “dog” was a standard Jewish term of contempt for Gentiles who, like dogs, were considered unclean, although the diminutive form of the word, used by Jesus, softened this considerably. Seeing her faith, Jesus granted the woman’s request, giving a non-Jew some of “the children’s bread.”<\/p>\nDonkey<\/p>\nBeast of burden. The donkey of the Holy Land (Equus asinus)<\/em> was quite different from the European donkey of today, which is usually a small, stubborn animal. In biblical times the donkey was a beautiful, stately, friendly animal. Its color was usually reddish brown. Three wild races have been described, all from Africa. The race from northwest Africa is extinct; the one from northeast Africa, if not extinct, is close to extinction; the Somalian race, which survives, did not play an important part in domestication. The northeast African race, the Nubian donkey, was evidently domesticated in the Nile River region in early historic times. The donkey was used as a mount from the time of domestication on. It is first mentioned in the Bible among the animals that Abraham acquired in Egypt (Gn 12:16). The donkey was primarily a beast of burden, driven but not bridled. From the time of the Middle Kingdom on (c. 2040 BC<\/span>), it was used for riding in Egypt, but only the Jews and Nubians rode donkeys regularly. The donkey was also used for threshing grain and for pulling the plow. In Arab countries today peasants plow with a donkey and a cow or camel hitched together. In Israel the law forbade plowing with a donkey and an ox hitched together (Dt 22:10). Until the time of Solomon (960 BC<\/span>), horses were not used in Palestine. From that time on, the horse was ridden by warriors; the donkey was used by those who were traveling peaceably.<\/p>\nThe donkey was held in high regard by the Jews and was considered an economic asset. An individual had to have a donkey for minimum existence (Jb 24:3), and wealth was frequently counted by the number of donkeys one possessed (Gn 12:16; 24:35). The donkey was considered an acceptable gift (Gn 32:13-15). It was allowed to rest on the Sabbath (Dt 5:14). Women in biblical times often used the donkey as a riding animal (Jos 15:18; 1 Sm 25:23; 2 Kgs 4:24); often a special driver would help a woman guide the animal, running along at its side. If a married couple possessed only one donkey, the husband usually walked alongside while the wife rode (Ex 4:20).<\/p>\nThe people of Israel returning from Babylon had ten times as many donkeys as horses and camels (Ezr 2:66-67; Neh 7:68-69). Job’s wealth was indicated by the fact that he had 500 she-donkeys before catastrophe hit him (Jb 1:3); after his recovery he had 1,000 donkeys (Jb 42:12). Joseph’s brothers used donkeys to transport the grain they purchased in Egypt (Gn 42:26; 43:24). Abigail transported food on donkeys to David and his troops during their conflict with Saul (1 Sm 25:18). David assigned one of the 12 managers of his royal estates to look after his donkeys exclusively (1 Chr 27:30).<\/p>\nThe onager, or Syrian wild donkey (Equus hemionus hemihippus)<\/em>, is an intermediate between the true horse and the true donkey. Its ears are longer than those of a horse but shorter than those of a donkey. The front hooves are narrow; there are chestnuts (callouslike spots on the inside of the knees) on the front legs only, and the tail is short haired for a long distance from its root so that it appears to be tufted.<\/p>\nThe Sumerians (ancient Mesopotamians) were able to domesticate the onager, which was eventually replaced by the horse. It was used to draw chariots in Ur; a number of onagers were buried with their vehicles in a royal grave that dates from about 2500 BC<\/span>. Later the wild onager was a favorite hunter’s prize for Babylonian and Assyrian kings.<\/p>\nThe onager was very common in the steppe lands near Israel, where it was described as a freedom-loving desert animal (Jb 24:5; 39:5-8; Ps 104:11; Is 32:14; Jer 2:24; Hos 8:9). Ishmael was described as “free and untamed as a wild donkey” (Gn 16:12, nlt<\/span>)—that is, one who could not adjust to domestic life. Drought seems to have been responsible for the population decline of the onager in biblical times (Jer 14:6). The modern onager (Equus hemionus onager)<\/em> is slightly larger than the Syrian wild donkey that is extinct.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Travel.<\/p>\nDragon<\/p>\nAny one of a number of monstrous land and sea creatures. In biblical usage, “dragon” does not refer to the huge, fire-breathing, winged reptile of European folklore. The translators of the kjv<\/span> used the term to translate two Hebrew words that are usually rendered more precisely in modern translations. One word referred to desert animals; most scholars agree with the niv<\/span> that “jackals” is its proper meaning (Ps 44:19; Is 13:22; Jer 9:11; Mal 1:3). See<\/em> Jackal (below).<\/p>\nThe other Hebrew word translated “dragon” is harder to define. It was frequently used in reference to serpents (so translated in the rsv<\/span>: Ex 7:9-12; Dt 32:33; Ps 91:13). In other rsv<\/span> passages it is translated “sea monster” (Gn 1:21; Jb 7:12; Ps 148:7). The exact identity of such sea monsters is not known. Several rsv<\/span> passages retain the English “dragon.” In two of them (Ps 74:13; Is 27:1), the context indicates that sea monsters are meant. In three others (Is 51:9; Ez 29:3; 32:2) “dragon” seems to refer to the crocodile, a figurative reference to the Egyptian pharaoh at the time of the exodus. Jeremiah 51:34 (translated “monster” in the rsv<\/span>) may also refer to a voracious creature such as a crocodile. See<\/em> Crocodile (above).<\/p>\nBabylonian myths described monsters and dragons in primordial conflict with the god Marduk; they represented the principle of evil. In its figurative usages in Scripture, “dragon” has a similar significance, especially in the prophetic books. In the book of Revelation it is a symbol of Satan, the archenemy of God and his people (Rv 12:3-17; 13:2, 4, 11; 16:13; 20:2).<\/p>\nFish<\/p>\nAquatic animals frequently mentioned in the Bible without names or descriptions that enable us to identify the particular species. Since time immemorial, fish have constituted one of the staple foods of humanity, and they still serve as the chief source of protein in many parts of the world. The trade in fish was highly developed in biblical times. For example, one of the gates in Jerusalem was called the Fish Gate (Neh 3:3; Zep 1:10). The law in Leviticus 11:9-12 permitted the Jews to eat fish, but only those having both fins and scales. Scaleless fish such as catfish were forbidden, even though they had fins.<\/p>\nEgyptian paintings depict various methods of fishing, and the Philistines fished in the Mediterranean Sea. Since the people of Israel were not a seafaring nation, it is safe to assume that most of their fish came from freshwater lakes and rivers, especially the Sea of Galilee. Some 36 species of fish have been identified in that lake, including varieties of perch, carp, barbel, “sardine,” and catfish.<\/p>\nThe method of fishing characteristic of NT times was the dragnet. After a boat had put out into the deep (Lk 5:4), a large net would be thrown out from it and then dragged toward shore by the rowers in the boat, possibly with the help of a crew in another boat. The catch was sorted out on shore (Mt 13:47-48). Fishing was usually carried out at night when the coolness of the water brought fish closer to the surface and when they could not see the approaching nets.<\/p>\nThe Jews also fished by hook and line (Mt 17:27), a few by spear (Jb 41:7), and some by the throw net (Ez 47:10). Habakkuk refers to hook-and-line fishing, netting, and seining (1:15).<\/p>\nVery early in the history of the Christian church the fish became a symbol for Christ and the faith. It was scratched on the walls of Roman catacombs and may be seen today decorating walls, altars, pews, and vestments. The symbol came into use because the Greek word for “fish” (<\/em>ichthus<\/span>)<\/em> is composed of the first letter of each word in the Greek phrase “Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior.” See<\/em> Whale (below).<\/p>\nFlea<\/p>\nTiny, irritating insect (1 Sm 24:14; 26:20, nlt<\/span>). Many species of fleas occur in Palestine, the most common being Pulex irritans.<\/em> About a thousand species are known around the world. Fleas are wingless parasites that have sharp jaws and suck out blood from the bodies of humans and animals. The body is wedge shaped, enabling the flea to burrow into folds of skin and hide there. The eggs, laid by the female in dust heaps in the corners of rooms, hatch into small, white larvae that pupate (a nonfeeding stage) in a cocoon. Soon adult fleas appear that immediately attach themselves to the body of a host. The female requires blood for the development of her eggs.<\/p>\nA flea bite is painful and causes some swelling and itching. Fleas are attracted by warmth. With favorable moisture and temperature, adult fleas can live a year or longer without food, but they are voracious feeders. The most dangerous fleas are those of the rat that transmit the organism responsible for bubonic plague. There were 41 recorded epidemics of bubonic plague before the Christian era.<\/p>\nFly<\/p>\nInsects of the order Diptera, which have one pair of wings. Many winged insects of other orders, however, are also called flies, such as the dragonfly or butterfly.<\/p>\nAs in almost all parts of the world, flies are abundant in Palestine. One of the most numerous is the common housefly (Musca domestica),<\/em> found chiefly around dung heaps and garbage. The female lays her eggs, out of which emerge white maggots that feed on refuse. After a few days the maggot develops into a cocoon out of which emerges the adult housefly. In the summer the whole cycle lasts about 12 days, so that a fly can breed about 20 generations a year.<\/p>\nAnother fly common to Palestine is the botfly (family Oestridae). It causes much discomfort among livestock by irritating them and spreading diseases. Tabanid flies (family Tabanidae), including the horsefly (genus Tabanus<\/em>) and related species, are also found in Palestine. Both the botfly and horsefly are known as gadflies because of the persistent distress they inflict. Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar is spoken of as a gadfly in view of his invasion of Egypt (Jer 46:20).<\/p>\nThe fourth plague in Egypt just before the exodus featured “swarms of flies” (Ex 8:21-31, nlt<\/span>; cf. Pss 78:45; 105:31). Those swarms may have been made up of any or all the flies mentioned above. The maggots mentioned in Job 25:6 and Isaiah 14:11 and the worms in Exodus 16:24 and Job 7:5 and 17:14 were probably fly larvae.<\/p>\nA proverb quoted in Ecclesiastes 10:1 probably refers to the housefly, which would be attracted to an open, perfumed ointment bottle. Once inside it would drown and eventually decay, causing the ointment to spoil and stink. The fly is also referred to in Isaiah 7:18 where it symbolizes Egypt. Isaiah may have had in mind a horsefly (Tabanus arenivagus)<\/em> that attacks both humans and animals.<\/p>\nPhilistine inhabitants of the city of Ekron worshiped a god named Baal-zebul, meaning “Lord of the high places.” The Hebrews mockingly spoke of Baal-zebub, meaning “Lord of the flies” (2 Kgs 1:2). The NT form is Beelzebub (e.g., Mt 10:25; 12:24, 27).<\/p>\nFox<\/p>\nSmall, doglike carnivore with a bushy tail that is about half its body length. The red fox of the Holy Land (Vulpes palaetinae)<\/em> is similar to the North American red fox; it is smaller than a wolf and is normally a nocturnal solitary animal. The omnivorous fox eats almost any kind of food—fruits, plants, mice, beetles, and birds—but seldom touches carrion. It loves the sweet juice of grapes, but it also burrows underground tunnels that can destroy the vines (Sg 2:15). The fox is intelligent and known for its slyness (Lk 13:32). It has considerable endurance and can run at speeds up to 30 miles (48 kilometers) per hour. The Jews rebuilding Jerusalem’s wall were taunted by the wisecrack that even a fox jumping on their wall would knock it over (Neh 4:3).<\/p>\nThe Egyptian fox (Vulpes niloticus)<\/em> is found in the central and southern parts of the Holy Land. It is somewhat smaller than the common red fox. Its back is rust colored and its belly light. The Syrian fox (Vulpes flavescens)<\/em> that lives in the northern part of the Holy Land is shiny gold in color.<\/p>\nSome OT references such as Psalm 63:10 and Lamentations 5:18 are translated “fox” in the kjv<\/span> but probably refer to jackals. Jackals, not foxes, hunt in packs and tend to act as scavengers.<\/p>\nFrog<\/p>\nAmphibian (genus Rana<\/em>), living part of its life in the water and part on land.<\/p>\nFrogs and toads are covered with soft, hairless skin and lack a tail in the adult stage. The hind legs are much longer and more powerfully developed than the forelegs so that the animals are able to jump large distances. It has been suggested that the frog referred to in Scripture is an edible one, Rana ridibunda,<\/em> one of the aquatic frogs found in Egypt and in the stagnant waters of the Holy Land.<\/p>\nThe female frog lays her eggs in the water; after about a week the eggs hatch into tadpoles. Gradually through metamorphosis the tail is lost and limbs are acquired. Frogs must maintain a moist skin since they take oxygen through the skin as well as through their lungs; thus they must always remain close to water. They feed on insects and worms.<\/p>\nFrogs are found throughout the Palestinian lowlands, where their croaking is heard in the spring and on summer evenings. The Israelites seem to have associated frogs primarily with sliminess and foulness. They fell into the category of creeping or swarming creatures, which in general were ritually unclean (Lv 11:29-31). Since the frog was not specifically listed, however, rabbis did not consider it one of the animals that defiled human beings through contact.<\/p>\nIn Revelation 16:13 certain foul spirits are said to look like frogs. The ancient Egyptians made the frog a symbol of life and birth and an image of Heqet, the patron goddess of birth. She is depicted with a frog’s head giving life to the newborn. Thus that deity was discredited when the power of God afflicted Egypt in the second of the ten plagues on the Egyptians with the very animal that was her symbol (Ex 8:1-14; Pss 78:45; 105:30). The frog in question may have been the spotted frog of Egypt (Rana punctata,<\/em> or Rana ridibunda).<\/em><\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Plagues upon Egypt.<\/p>\nGazelle<\/p>\nSmall, dainty, graceful antelope with hollow recurved horns on both sexes. Two varieties exist in the Holy Land, the dorcas gazelle (Gazella dorcas),<\/em> which is pale fawn in color and up to 22 inches (56 centimeters) tall, and the Arabian gazelle (Gazella arabica),<\/em> which is a dark smoky color and up to 25 inches (63.5 centimeters) tall.<\/p>\nGazelles are still quite common throughout the desert and steppe areas of the Holy Land, especially in the Negev Desert. Herds usually consist of from 5 to 10 animals, but some varieties assemble in large migratory herds in the fall to relocate to lower elevations and new feeding grounds. Gazelles are herbivorous (plant eating). They are very shy and post guards to warn the herd of approaching danger.<\/p>\nIn biblical times the gazelle was probably the game animal most hunted by the Jews (Prv 6:5; Is 13:14). Pharaoh Tutankhamen hunted gazelles and ostriches. The gazelle is said to have graced Solomon’s table (1 Kgs 4:23). Gazelles were not easy to catch because of their great speed (2 Sm 2:18; 1 Chr 12:8; Prv 6:5); they surpass the deer in swiftness. They were trapped in various ways—encircled with nets, driven into enclosures with pitfalls, or forced into narrow valleys and shot with arrows. The Bedouin hunt gazelle with falcons and dogs; the falcon annoys the gazelle, striking it on the head and injuring it so that the dogs can overtake it.<\/p>\nThe gazelle is referred to in Song of Songs 2:9, 17; 4:5; 7:3; 8:14, where it is an image of feminine beauty.<\/p>\nGecko<\/p>\nReptile of the family Gekkonidae, referred to in Leviticus 11:30. In Jewish food law it was a ritually unclean lizard. There are seven species of geckos in the Holy Land (including Hemidactylus turcicus<\/em> and Ptyodactylus hasselquistii,<\/em> all insectivorous—insect eating). The gecko makes a low mourning sound by vibrating its tongue rapidly against the roof of its mouth. In legend the gecko was said to cause leprosy by crawling across a person’s body.<\/p>\nAnother name for the gecko is the wall lizard, so named because it can walk upside down on ceilings with the aid of the suction discs on its toes—but it often plops down into the middle of the home. Since it was considered unclean, such an intrusion would have been a disgusting nuisance to Jewish households (Lv 11:31-38).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Lizard (below).<\/p>\nGnat<\/p>\nAny very small fly, in common and biblical usage. According to the nlt<\/span>, the third plague in Egypt before the exodus consisted of gnats (Ex 8:16-18; Ps 105:31). The kjv<\/span> translates the Hebrew word there as “lice,” but the breeding pattern described in Exodus 8—insects rising from the dust—seems to fit gnats better than lice. Since “gnat” is a general term, the small flies of that plague may have included several small species such as mosquitos, harvester gnats, midges, or sand flies.<\/p>\nThe sand fly inflicts a far more painful bite than the mosquito. Further, it does not betray itself by a buzzing noise in flight and is so small that it penetrates most mosquito netting.<\/p>\nGnats were drawn to wine while it was fermenting. The Pharisees in particular would strain their wine to avoid consuming unclean insects (Mt 23:24).<\/p>\nGoat<\/p>\nCloven-hooved mammals (genus Capra<\/em>) with large eyes and big, floppy ears that constantly twitch. Both males and females have backward arching horns. The Palestinian goat is a ruminant (cud-chewing animal) of lighter build than the sheep.<\/p>\nThe goat was probably the earliest ruminant to be domesticated. Its wild ancestor seems to have been the Gezoar goat (Capra aegagrus).<\/em> Wild goats are believed to have been domesticated very early in Palestine. The goat of Bible times was probably the Syrian or Mamber variety (Capra hircus mambrica).<\/em> Domesticated goats may have as many as four kids in a litter, whereas wild goats bear only one or two.<\/p>\nThe Palestinian goat was commonly black. Speckled and spotted goats were a rarity, and for that reason Jacob’s request for those goats in Genesis 30:32 appeared very modest. There may also have been red goats (cf. 1 Sm 16:12; 19:13, where goat’s hair was used to imitate David’s hair, which was “ruddy” or auburn).<\/p>\nAlmost every part of the goat was used by the Israelites. The whole goat was used for sacrifice. Its flesh served as meat (Lv 7:23; Dt 14:4), and it was the principal source of milk (Prv 27:27). Goats were sheared in the late spring, and the goat hair was used for weaving tent cloth and for various domestic purposes (Ex 36:14; 1 Sm 19:13, 16). The tabernacle at Mt Sinai was made of goat’s hair blankets (Ex 26:7).<\/p>\nAdult male goats were generally not eaten because of their strong flavor and toughness and also because they were necessary to insure the flock’s increase. Young kids, however, were usually the chief meat for a feast and were offered to visitors as a symbol of hospitality. Goat milk is richer than the milk of cows and sheep and evidently had broader uses. A good goat gives three quarts of milk a day, from which a rich butter and buttermilk can be made. The average Hebrew family could have lived almost entirely on a single goat’s production.<\/p>\nGoatskin was tanned as leather, and the whole hide was turned into a skin bottle by sewing shut leg and neck apertures (Gn 21:14; Jos 9:4). Goatskin had many uses, including the construction of Hebrew musical instruments. The nebal, a large harp, was made with goatskin for its base sound. Drums had goatskin coverings.<\/p>\nGoats were herded with sheep in biblical times, but each group remained separate following its own bell-laden leader. Jesus was evidently referring to their common herding in his description of the Last Judgment (Mt 25:31-46).<\/p>\nBecause of their wool, sheep are valued more than goats. However, where pasture and water are scarce and thorny shrubs dominate over grass, sheep are difficult to keep and goats become important. They can live under conditions that suit neither cows nor sheep, producing large quantities of milk. The goat does not supply fat as the sheep does, and since its hair is coarse its wool is rather scarce. Goat-hair cloth called cilicium was used to make tents.<\/p>\nGoats have voracious appetites. They also were responsible for much damage done to the land of Palestine, breaking down terraces, destroying forests, and bringing about soil erosion by eating off all cover.<\/p>\nThe goat was recognized as a form of wealth, subject to the law of firstlings (Nm 18:17). It had to be eight days old before it could be offered as a sacrifice. A year-old male goat was one of the animals offered at the Passover (28:22), and two goats were offered on the Day of Atonement (Lv 16:7-10). The goat was also used for other specific sacrifices.<\/p>\nThe ibex, a type of wild goat (Capra ibex nubiana),<\/em> still lives in small numbers on the cliffs close to the Dead Sea. That it was known in ancient times is evident from rock carvings. It is distinguished from the true wild goat by having a more compact rump and horns that are slender and curved back. Its slender legs and sharp cloven hooves enable it to cling to narrow rock ledges, to jump between them, and to climb steep cliffs.<\/p>\nUsually the ibex is found in rugged mountain country among rocky crags and meadows just below the snow line (Ps 104:18). In Job 39:1 they are referred to as “mountain goats.” They frequently gather in herds of 5 to 20. They graze and browse, being active in the afternoon and sometimes feeding through the night. The large horn of the ibex was at one period made into the shofar that was blown in the second Jerusalem temple to announce the new year and the jubilee year.<\/p>\nThe goat was often used in a figurative and symbolic sense by the writers of the Bible: in Song of Songs 4:1 and 6:5 for the bride’s black hair; in Matthew 25:31-46 for the wicked; and in Ezekiel 34:17 and Daniel 8:5-8 for various human leaders.<\/p>\nGrasshopper<\/p>\nLarge insects of the Orthoptera order. They have chewing or biting mouth parts and two pairs of wings, the front pair of which is narrow and somewhat thickened and the hind pair membranous and used for flying. When not in use the flight wings are folded beneath the protective front wings like a fan against the body. By rubbing their wings together, male grasshoppers produce sounds that both males and females can detect. Grasshoppers pass through a partial metamorphosis; the egg hatches into a juvenile nymph that looks like an adult except for its smaller size and undeveloped wings. After several months the nymph becomes a winged adult.<\/p>\nThe terms “grasshopper” and “locust” are often used interchangeably. Actually the locust is a kind of grasshopper. Also confusing is the fact that other insects such as cicadas are sometimes called locusts. The difference between grasshoppers and locusts depends more on behavior than appearance. Grasshoppers are individual insects that lead solitary lives and do not migrate. The same insects when migrating in a swarm are called migratory grasshoppers or locusts. Elimination of their food supply by drought, flood, or fire may lead to migration. Climatic factors such as a warm dry winter also stimulate migrations.<\/p>\nGrasshoppers and locusts have been a staple food in the Middle East and also among the Indians of the American Southwest. To the Israelites the grasshopper was considered ritually clean and could be eaten (Lv 11:22).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Locust (below).<\/p>\nHare<\/p>\nAnimal of the genus and species Lepus europaeus judaeus, Lepus capensis,<\/em> and Lepus arabicus.<\/em> It is found in open country, often near or on cultivated lands, and in woods, usually deciduous rather than evergreen. It is an herbivorous rodent and is different from the rabbit, which is not found in Palestine. Although it is not a true ruminant according to modern classification (because it does not have a four-chambered stomach), the hare does rechew its food. It has a process of partial regurgitation of material too hard for the cells in the stomach to absorb initially; thus, the hare actually chews food previously swallowed.<\/p>\nNear Eastern hares have very long ears and large hind feet; their feet are well furred. They are similar to American jackrabbits, which are true hares. Hares do not dig or occupy burrows the way rabbits do. Hares are mainly nocturnal and spend their inactive hours hiding in vegetation. They eat grasses and herbaceous matter as well as twigs and young bark of woody plants. Hares breed with great rapidity—the young attaining sexual maturity at six months after birth.<\/p>\nThe hare was ceremonially unclean (Lv 11:6; Dt 14:7), evidently because although it appeared to chew its cud, it did not have cloven hooves. Consumption of hares has also been forbidden among the Arabs, Chinese, and Lapps, but the hare was widely hunted by other people in ancient and modern times. Its great speed, prolific breeding, timidity, and caution have saved it from extermination by its many enemies.<\/p>\nHippopotamus<\/p>\nLarge beast of problematic interpretation. Some early interpreters thought it referred to the elephant, others to the wild ox, the mammoth, or any large animal. It was called “behemoth” by the kjv<\/span> translators. Today it is generally agreed that the reference is to the hippopotamus (Hippopotamus amphibius),<\/em> a large, thick-skinned, amphibious mammal, an ungulate (having hooflike toenails) with a large head, a bulky, hairless body, and short legs.<\/p>\nThe description in Job 40:15-24 fits closely the modern hippopotamus (see nlt<\/span>), except for the depiction of the tail. At present the hippopotamus is found only in the rivers of Africa, but there is fossil evidence that it has existed in the Holy Land, perhaps in the swamps of northern Galilee and the Jordan Valley.<\/p>\nThe hippopotamus has highly developed sense organs, placed in such a way that it can see, hear, and smell almost without being seen; its eyes, ears, and nostrils can reach above water while the rest of the animal lies submerged. It has a large mouth, large tusks, and a short, heavy throat. The strong legs are so short that the belly almost reaches the ground when the animal is on the land. The hippopotamus lives on plants and herbs growing in rivers, but if food is scarce there, it forages on land, usually at night. In spite of its heavy body it is surprisingly agile on land.<\/p>\nHorse<\/p>\nPrzewalski’s horse (Equus przewalskii,<\/em> an eastern race that roamed about Mongolia until modern firearms destroyed most of them after World War I) and the tarpan (a western race of southern Russia that became extinct in the Ukraine in 1851). The domesticated horse (Equus caballus)<\/em> seems to have been derived from the tarpan. The original site of domestication is believed to have been Turkestan, a region north of Afghanistan and India, now in Russia. The horse differs from the donkey in that it has shorter ears, a longer mane with a forelock, a long hairy tail, and a soft, sensitive muzzle.<\/p>\nHorses were used in war not only for riding but also for pulling the heavy, springless war chariots. Two kinds of horses were needed for these different purposes, and the Hebrews distinguished between chariot horses and cavalry horses.<\/p>\n\nThe Lord warned the early Israelites against unnecessarily amassing military strength in the form of horses and thereby following the oppressive tactics of the powerful Egyptians (Dt 17:14-16), but the demands of war caused both David and Solomon to import horses from Egypt into their kingdoms and to breed them. Solomon greatly increased the number of horses in the Jewish kingdom and maintained large stables at various cities (1 Kgs 10:26) such as the regional defense centers of Megiddo, Hazor, and Gezer (1 Kgs 9:15-19). Ahab’s horses are mentioned in 1 Kings 18:5, and records of Shalmaneser III state that Ahab furnished 2,000 chariots to a coalition against Assyria.<\/p>\nIn early Israel, the horse was opposed as a symbol of pagan luxury and of dependence on physical power for defense (Dt 17:16; 1 Sm 8:11; Ps 20:7; Is 31:1). Horse trading, mentioned as early as Genesis 47:17, was carried on by Solomon between Egypt and the Syro-Hittite principalities (1 Kgs 10:28-29). Most biblical references to horses refer to their use in war, but horses were also used for transportation. Riding seems to have been less popular than the use of chariots. Cavalry units were not introduced until the 12th century BC<\/span> by the Medes. Joseph rode in Pharaoh’s second horse-drawn chariot (Gn 41:43), and Absalom made a display by riding a horse-drawn chariot (2 Sm 15:1). Naaman traveled by horse and chariot (2 Kgs 5:9). Later, horses were so common in Jerusalem that the royal palace had a special horse gate (2 Chr 23:15), and a gate of the city itself was known as the Horse Gate (Neh 3:28; Jer 31:40). Mordecai rode a royal horse of King Xerxes as a sign of honor (Est 6:8-11). Horses are often spoken of figuratively (Ps 32:9; “mare,” Sg 1:9; “stallions,” Jer 5:8; 12:5), especially in the context of judgment (Hb 3:8; Zec 1:8; 6:1-8; Rv 6:2-8; 9:17; 19:11-16).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Warfare; Travel.<\/p>\nHyena<\/p>\nStocky carnivore (Hyaena hyaena)<\/em> with coarse hair, an erect mane, and long hairs along the neck and back. Hyenas live in holes among rocks and banks. They are mainly nocturnal but are ordinarily neither noisy nor aggressive. Their cry, however, is a disagreeable, unearthly sound. Hyenas usually feed on carrion, crushing bones with their powerful jaws. If the carrion supply is inadequate, they will kill sheep, goats, or other small animals. When threatened, hyenas growl and erect their mane, but they rarely fight. They are massively built with forelegs longer than the hind legs.<\/p>\nKnown as scavengers in Africa, hyenas eat domestic refuse in the villages. In Palestine the striped hyena is a common predator, preferring rocky territory and even rock tombs. Since hyenas were notorious for raiding the graves of the dead, all Israelites who could afford it arranged for burial in tombs protected by massive stone doors. Absalom, King David’s son who was killed by Joab in the wild, was buried under a huge pile of stones to protect his corpse from molestation by hyenas (2 Sm 18:17).<\/p>\nJackal<\/p>\nCarnivore (Canis aureus)<\/em> smaller than the true wolf and with a shorter tail. It is similar to the fox but has a broader head, shorter ears, and longer legs. The fox is solitary; the jackal tends to be gregarious. Its tail can be drooping or erect, compared with the long horizontal tail of the fox. Jackals usually prowl at night, either singly, in pairs, or in packs through open savannah country. They eat small mammals, poultry, fruit, vegetables, and carrion. They spend their days in thickets and clumps of vegetation. Often they obtain scraps from kills by larger carnivores. Jackals can run at speeds of about 33 miles (53 kilometers) per hour.<\/p>\nThe jackal can reach a height of about 20 inches (51 centimeters), roughly the size of a German shepherd dog. Its back is pale yellow with dark, almost black, flanks. Its lips are black and its ears white on the inside. The howl of the jackal sounds like the crying of a child or the heartrending wail of the bereaved (Mi 1:8; cf. Jb 30:29). To other jackals the howl is merely an invitation calling the pack together for its nocturnal hunting.<\/p>\nOT references are chiefly to jackals prowling around ruined cities and wilderness areas (Neh 2:13; Ps 44:19; Is 13:22; 34:13; 35:7; Jer 9:11; 14:6; 49:33; 51:37; Lam 4:3; 5:18; Mal 1:3). Many such references are translated “dragon” in the kjv<\/span>, but “jackal” is more appropriate.<\/p>\nLeech<\/p>\nSegmented worm (class Hirundinea) up to five inches (12.7 centimeters) long with a flat body equipped with suction pads at each end. The mouth, located at the bottom of the front suction pad, has three teeth that the leech uses to pierce the skin of its host. The leech feeds on blood, and its glands secrete an anticoagulant to prevent the blood from clotting. The ordinary medicinal leech (Hirudo medicinalis) is abundant in springs and ponds from the Negev Desert to Galilee. It adheres to the bodies of human beings and animals that submerge themselves in water, injects its anticoagulant, and sucks their blood.<\/p>\nThe reference in Proverbs 30:15 is uncertain (see nlt<\/span>) but may be to the parasitic and greedy nature of the horse leech (genus Haemopis<\/em>). The small horse leech enters its host’s mouth and nostrils from water while the animal is drinking. A leech weighing one-half ounce (14.2 grams) has been known to gorge itself with two and a half ounces (71 grams) of concentrated blood and then to exist for 15 months with no more to eat.<\/p>\nLeopard<\/p>\nCalled Panthera pardus tulliana,<\/em> it is the most widespread of all the large wildcats. In rocky areas it lives in caves, but in forested regions it lives in thick vegetation. In OT times many lived in the vicinity of Mt Hermon (Sg 4:8).<\/p>\nThe leopard is somewhat smaller than the tiger, measuring up to 5 feet (1.5 meters) in length with a tail of about 30 inches (.8 meter). Its body is better proportioned than that of the tiger. The leopard takes its victim by surprise from a silent ambush, often concealing itself near villages or watering places and waiting for its prey, remaining in one spot for long spans of time. The leopard is swift on the ground (Hb 1:8), agile in trees, and very graceful in its movements. Its color is yellowish speckled with black spots (Jer 13:23). Daniel and John saw visions in which leopards were symbols of world powers (Dn 7:6; Rv 13:2).<\/p>\nThe leopard is a wary and cunning animal, formidable and ferocious (Jer 5:6; Hos 13:7; cf. Is 11:6). The leopard is dangerous not only to domestic animals but also to humans. With its natural camouflage it can hide on the forest floor, blending into the changing light and shadows. The Israelites were terrified of the leopard because it constantly ravaged their sheep and goats. Several biblical place names suggest that they were known for the leopards in their vicinity: Nimrah, Beth-nimrah, and Nimrim, a district northeast of the Dead Sea. It has survived in the Holy Land into the present century; a few leopards still exist in remote areas near Mt Tabor and Mt Carmel.<\/p>\nLeviathan<\/p>\nSea monster mentioned several times in the Bible (Pss 74:14; 104:26; Is 27:1, nlt<\/span>). It may refer to any of the larger marine animals such as large jellyfish, whales, or sharks, or to a large reptile like the crocodile. Some scholars think “Leviathan” may refer to animals now extinct, such as ichthyosaurs and plesiosaurs (marine reptiles similar to dinosaurs). The scriptural term might also refer to certain dinosaurs that spent part of their lives half-submerged in shallow lakes and oceans. Other scholars believe that most of the references are to the crocodile.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Crocodile (above).<\/p>\nLion<\/p>\nLarge, tawny-colored carnivore (Panthera leo)<\/em> that preys chiefly on hoofed mammals and charges by a series of leaps and bounds. Within historic times the lion ranged in Africa, Europe, and the Holy Land. In ancient times the territories of the African and Persian lions met in the Middle East. The lion of the Holy Land was the Asiatic or Persian lion (Panthera leo persica).<\/em><\/p>\nThe males have heavy manes that stop at the shoulders but cover much of the chest. The Persian lion cannot climb and is mainly nocturnal, returning to its lair or a thicket by day (Jer 4:7; 25:38; Na 2:11-12). This lion is about 5 feet (1.5 meters) long with a tasseled tail 30 inches (.8 meter) or so long; its shoulders may reach a height of 35 inches (.9 meter). It is one of the smallest of the lion breeds.<\/p>\nLions are usually found in pairs, though sometimes in larger numbers. A small group is known as a pride. They generally prefer open country but in Palestine evidently prowled the subtropical vegetation of the Jordan River valley. Lions, which usually hunt at dusk, kill smaller animals by a blow of the paw, larger ones by a bite in the throat. A lion does not remain in the same place for more than a few days. The animal is in its prime at about seven years of age, when it weighs from 400 to 600 pounds (181.6 to 272.4 kilograms).<\/p>\nThe lion does not characteristically attack humans, though like other great cats it may become a man-eater (1 Kgs 13:24-28; 20:36; 2 Kgs 17:25-26; Ps 57:4; Dn 6:7-27). Ordinarily, it attacks only out of great hunger or in self-defense. A very young lion that attacks humans can become dangerous if it develops a taste for human flesh. A very old lion, expelled from the pride because it can no longer keep up in the pursuit of antelope or gazelles, may choose humans as a relatively slow-moving prey.<\/p>\nA lion generally roars only on a full stomach—that is, after it has consumed its prey (Ps 22:13; Ez 22:25; Am 3:4). Nevertheless, its roaring arouses fear (Am 3:8; 1 Pt 5:8). The lion is a bold (2 Sm 17:10; Prv 28:1), destructive animal (Ps 7:2; Jer 2:30; Hos 5:14; Mi 5:8), and the enemy of flocks (Am 3:12).<\/p>\nLions were common in biblical times in all parts of the Holy Land. Hebrew has at least seven words for lion and young lion. The lion is referred to about 130 times in the OT—more than any other wild animal. Lions were evidently much less common in NT times. After gradually declining, they became extinct in Palestine shortly after AD<\/span> 1300. The lion was present in Mesopotamia, however, until the end of the 19th century.<\/p>\nLions played an important part in the political and religious symbolism of the Near East (1 Kgs 10:19-20). In Assyria and Babylonia the lion was regarded as a royal beast (Dn 7:4). Oriental monarchs maintained artificial lion pits as places of execution (Ez 19:1-9; Dn 6:7-16). Animals for these were captured in camouflaged nets or pits. To the Jews, the lion was the mightiest of beasts (Prv 30:29-31). Thus, it symbolized leadership (Gn 49:9-10; Nm 24:9) and hence eventually became a title for Christ (Rv 5:5). It was also the ensign of Judah’s tribe and was used by King Solomon in the decoration of his house and the temple.<\/p>\nLizard<\/p>\nReptiles of the suborder Lacertilia. Their skin is covered with scales. The lizard is a useful creature because it captures harmful insects and worms. Like other reptiles, it lays eggs with shells softer than those of a bird and with no clear division between the yolk and the white. Lizards are “cold-blooded” organisms without a temperature-maintenance mechanism; hence, they become inactive in cold weather.<\/p>\nLizards can survive in barren parched countryside. In the Near East they are encountered in great numbers in the Arabian Desert, the Sinai Peninsula, and the Judean wilderness. There may be as many as 44 different species of lizards in the Holy Land.<\/p>\nThe Dabb lizard (genus Uromastyx<\/em>), which attains a length of about 24 inches (61 centimeters), is found in the Negev Desert. It is omnivorous, an unusual trait since most lizards are insectivorous. It has a hard, rough skin, green with brown spots; a short, rounded head; and a powerful tail encircled with a row of strong spines that it uses as a weapon of defense.<\/p>\nLizards are listed as ceremonially unclean in Jewish law (Lv 11:29-31). The fact that lizards crawl on their bellies made them unclean. Contact with a lizard’s carcass defiled a law-abiding Jew (Lv 11:32-36). The nlt<\/span> translates the “lizards” of Leviticus 11 as “great lizard,” “gecko,” “monitor lizard,” “sand lizard,” and “chameleon.” The monitor lizard is a large lizard that lives in the deserts of southern Palestine, Sinai, and Egypt. It is up to 55 inches (1.4 meters) long with a long snout and sharp teeth. Other translators and commentators render the original Hebrew in a wide variety of ways, including “tortoise,” “ferret,” “lizard,” “snail,” “mole,” and even “water hen.” The fact that most of the original Hebrew words occur only once in Scripture makes it very difficult to be certain about their appropriate translation.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Gecko (above).<\/p>\nLocust<\/p>\nAn insect of the family Acridiidae.<\/em> It is referred to by at least 12 different names in Scripture. The various Hebrew words may refer to different stages of its development from larva to adult or to the type of damage that it causes. Locusts are characterized by swarming and mass migration. In modern times they have caused extensive and disastrous destruction to vegetation. Grasshoppers do not swarm or migrate en masse, differentiating them from the true locusts.<\/p>\nThe OT mentions several different species of locusts. Leviticus 11:22 seems to refer to the slant-faced (bald) locust and also to the katydid, or long-horned grasshopper. The reference in Deuteronomy 28:42 may be to the mole cricket. In Joel 1:4 and 2:25 and in Nahum 3:16-17, successive stages of the insect’s development are described. The cutting locust (kjv<\/span> “palmerworm”) of Joel is probably the first instar (stage of development), the swarming locusts (kjv<\/span> “locust”) are middle stages, and the hopping locusts (kjv<\/span> “cankerworm”) later instars but not yet fully matured insects. In the adult stage, called destroying locusts (kjv<\/span> “caterpillar”), the color of the locust is reddish brown, which turns to yellow with a brownish network on the wings.<\/p>\nOnly three of the hundreds of varieties of locusts found in Bible lands are capable of multiplying into great swarms, and only the desert locust (Schistocerca gergaria)<\/em> can be considered widespread in all the Bible lands. The desert locust is native to the Sudan (Africa). It is a little over two inches (5 centimeters) long and has a wingspread of some five inches (12.7 centimeters). It shows two phases, a solitary phase and a gregarious phase, with a possible third phase known as transiens. There are differences in the immature and adult forms of the phases in color and physiology.<\/p>\nThe quantity and distribution of rains are important factors in the extent of swarming. Moist soil is needed for depositing the eggs and permitting them to develop. Each female deposits from one to six egg pods, containing 28 to 146 eggs each. The larvae emerge in 15 to 43 days.<\/p>\nIn the gregarious phase (from the second stage of metamorphosis onward), the locust is driven by a strong wandering instinct. Masses of them form a random procession of overflowing locust bodies that ignore any obstruction. They swarm over everything (Jl 2:4-9). The only regulator of their activities is temperature; they are immobilized by high or low temperatures. Taking to wing they may move 1,200 miles (1,930.8 kilometers) from their native home. They fly in compact formations large enough to blot out the light of the sun. Their movement seems to be controlled by hormones, but the direction is influenced by the wind. The swarms consume almost every plant in their path, sparing only the carob, sycamore, castor tree, and oleander bush.<\/p>\nA locust plague was one of the most severe evils to come upon the ancient world (Dt 28:38). Joel 2:1-11 describes a locust plague in graphic terms, using it as a symbol of God’s destroying judgment. Special days of prayer, fasting, and trumpet blowing were prescribed to remove locust plagues (1 Kgs 8:37-38; 2 Chr 6:28-29; Jl 2:12-17). Locusts symbolized powerful and merciless enemies that completely destroyed the earnings of human toil (Jgs 6:5; Is 33:4; Jer 46:23; 51:27; Na 3:15).<\/p>\nBedouins eat locusts raw, roasted, or boiled, preserving them by drying and threading. They are also crushed and ground, and the grist used in cooking or eaten with bread, sometimes mixed with honey and dates. Such was the diet of John the Baptist (Mk 1:6). The Greeks ground locusts in stone mortars to make flour of them.<\/p>\nThe ancients considered the two large hind legs, or jumping legs, as separate limbs and had a special name for them. Hence locusts were described as having four legs, a reference to the four smaller walking legs. “Going on all fours” thus referred to creeping or walking as opposed to jumping and did not mean that the unclean insects had only four legs in all. Because of its two hind jumping legs, the locust was exempted from the prohibition against unclean insects (Lv 11:20-23).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Plagues upon Egypt.<\/p>\nMole<\/p>\nRodent (Spalax ehrenbergi)<\/em> from six to nine inches (15 to 23 centimeters) long, which burrows in any area where the soil is suitable for digging; it should be called a mole rat. Common in the Holy Land, large numbers are found in the vicinity of Jerusalem. Isaiah 2:20 refers to the mole, as does Leviticus 11:29-30 (nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nThe mole rat has no tail and is molelike in appearance, but neither true moles nor shrews have ever been found in the Holy Land. The mole rat’s teeth are strong and protruding like those of a squirrel. The neck is short and thick with a plump body shaped like a sausage. The short legs have broad paws with claws adapted for burrowing. The fur is soft, thick, and ashen gray. Its ears and almost sightless eyes, which are no larger than poppyseeds, are hidden in the fur. Folklore taught that touching a mole rat would result in blindness.<\/p>\nIn the wet winter season the mole rat builds breeding mounds resembling those of pocket gophers. It builds less complex resting mounds in the summer, although both have rather elaborate tunnel systems. The mole rat feeds on roots, bulbs, tubers, and various other subterranean plant parts, often doing extensive damage to agriculture.<\/p>\nMoth<\/p>\nInsect of the genus Tineola<\/em> that lays its eggs on wool or furs, its larvae feeding on those materials. The destructive qualities of moths are referred to in several biblical passages (Jb 13:28; Ps 39:11; Is 50:9; Hos 5:12; Mt 6:19-20; Lk 12:33; Jas 5:2). In Isaiah 51:8 “worm” (nlt<\/span>) refers specifically to the larva of the clothes moth. The moth symbolizes disintegration, decay, and weakening. It is only the larvae that do the damage. The adult is quite harmless and feeds mainly on the nectar of flowers. It is easily crushed (Jb 4:19). The clothes moth reproduces in May or June. It enters human dwellings in the evening. A week after the eggs are laid the larvae appear and immediately begin their work of destruction, eating anything within reach made of animal fibers.<\/p>\nThe moth’s destructive activity is done in secret without any sound and without any dramatic appearance, such as a swarm that blots out the sun. In an age when wealth was counted more in possessions than in money, and when among those possessions wool clothing was highly valued, moths could literally cause economic disaster; hence the words of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 6:19-20).<\/p>\nThere are hundreds of species of moths other than the clothes moth in the Holy Land; they are harmless to leaves, flowers, fruit, trees, and seeds. As with the clothes moth, the larvae inflict the damage.<\/p>\nMouse<\/p>\nRodent of the family Muridae, especially genus Mus.<\/em> The mouse was regarded as unclean because, being short legged, it was considered one of the creeping creatures (Lv 11:29). Mice known as commensals live in dwellings and tend to have longer tails and to be darker in color than wild mice, which are active chiefly at night. Mice are good climbers and even good swimmers. Wild mice eat many kinds of vegetation, including seeds, fleshy roots, leaves, and stems. At times they store food.<\/p>\nThe Hebrew word for “mouse” (Lv 11:29; 1 Sm 6:4-5; Is 66:17) is probably a general term for various rats and mice. The root meaning of the Hebrew word “mouse” is “destruction of corn,” a reference to the damage mice do to field crops. At least 23 varieties of mouselike rodents are known in the Holy Land. They cause food spoilage, damage household articles, and transport the host fleas that spread typhus, spotted fever, and bubonic plague. Plague bacteria may have caused the tumors or swellings among the Philistines (1 Sm 6:5). Isaiah 66:17 refers to a pre-exilic Canaanite cultic practice in which mice were eaten; the reference may actually be to the hamster. A number of rodents are eaten by Arabs of the Near East; the gerbil is considered a special delicacy. See<\/em> Mole (above).<\/p>\nMule<\/p>\nHybrid offspring of a male ass and a female horse (Equus asinus mulus),<\/em> ordinarily sterile. The offspring of a female donkey and a stallion (male horse) is known as a hinny and is of little value because of its inferior size.<\/p>\nBecause crossbreeding was forbidden in the law (Lv 19:19), the Israelites procured mules from the Gentiles, perhaps from the Phoenicians, since Tyre (a Phoenician seaport in what is now southern Lebanon) imported horses and mules (Ez 27:14). Mules did not appear in Israel until David’s reign (2 Sm 13:29), possibly because of the rarity of horses among the Hebrews. Mules were used chiefly by members of the royal court and by other nobles. King David rode on a mule, and Solomon rode to his inaugaration on King David’s mule (1 Kgs 1:33). Absalom met his death riding on a mule (2 Sm 18:9). Mules were less common than horses, camels, and asses in the postexilic community (Ezr 2:66). In antiquity Asia Minor was especially noted for breeding fine mules.<\/p>\nMules have long enjoyed a reputation for obstinacy, but that trait is not mentioned in the Bible. The mule is prized for riding and for carrying heavy burdens, especially in warm mountainous regions. They are sure-footed and thrive best in hot, dry climates. The mule has the frugality, endurance, and steady gait of an ass along with the size, strength, swiftness, and courage of a horse. Mules are almost never sick. They live longer than horses. They can carry a load of up to 300 pounds (136 kilograms) as far as 30 miles (48.3 kilometers) a day.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Travel.<\/p>\nPig<\/p>\nMost properly, newborn swine. “Swine” is technically the better name for the species, but it is rarely used in common speech today. The domestic pigs of the Middle East derived from the wild pig (Sus scrofa).<\/em> The pig is the most prolific and abundant supplier of meat and fat for food. A thick layer of fat just under the skin is especially pronounced in domestic breeds. Pigs cannot be driven, so they are of value only to the settled farmer. The Hebrews were originally a nomadic people; therefore, they had little use for an animal closely associated with settled life. An Egyptian prince of about 1500 BC<\/span>, however, is recorded as owning a herd of 1,500 swine.<\/p>\nThe pig is clumsily built, yet lively and able to move with agility and speed. The most conspicuous characteristic of the pig is a truncated, mobile snout terminating in a disc-shaped surface on which the nostrils are located. Most pigs have large tusks in both jaws which grow continuously in life. The tusks of the upper jaw are unique in that they curve upward instead of pointing downward as in most animals. The excrement of a pig has an almost unbearable odor, which clings not only to the pig itself but also to swineherds, who can be identified a long way off.<\/p>\nPigs were never raised in the Holy Land by Jews. The great herd into which Jesus drove the unclean spirits was encountered in the land of the Gadarenes, a non-Jewish area east of the Jordan. The Gadarene demons took refuge in a herd of pigs feeding on a bluff overlooking the Sea of Galilee (Mt 8:28-32).<\/p>\nWild pigs were found in the Holy Land as in many countries today. Psalm 80:13 refers to the destructiveness of a wild boar (the male, or hog) attacking growing crops. A party of wild boars can destroy an entire vineyard or a field of crops in a single night. They devour, trample, and ravage everything within reach.<\/p>\nBoar hunts were common in ancient Mesopotamia. Wild boars do not attack unless molested, but they are dangerous when aroused. They travel in bands of from 6 to 50 and are most active in the evening and early morning hours. The body is covered with stiff bristles and usually some finer hair, but the body covering is often quite scanty. Wild pigs are mainly vegetarian, feeding on roots, nuts, grains, and plant stems. Wild boars were particularly abundant in the mountainous regions of Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon, in the Jordan River valley, and in wooded sections such as Mt Tabor.<\/p>\nStrict Jews would not even mention swine by name but would always substitute the term “the abomination.” Israelites considered themselves polluted if they were even touched by a swine’s bristle. To the Jews, the pig symbolized filth and ugliness. Pigs will eat fecal material, vermin, rodents, carrion, and the like (2 Pt 2:22). Proverbs 11:22 refers to the incongruity of a golden ring in the nose of an animal showing such characteristics. A similar metaphor occurs in Jesus’ statement about casting pearls before swine (Mt 7:6). The prodigal son’s degeneration was shown by his being forced in his poverty to feed pigs and eat their food (Lk 15:15-16).<\/p>\nEating the flesh of pigs was forbidden to the Jews (Lv 11:7; Dt 14:8). The Canaanites in the Holy Land killed and ate pigs freely. In intertestamental times Antiochus IV (Epiphanes), a Syrian king whose territories included Israel, used the pig to “Hellenize” the Jews. He first tested their loyalty to the Jewish faith by requiring the consumption of pork, considered a delicacy by the Greeks (2 Macc 6:18). The act of desecration that drove the Jews to rebellion, however, was the sprinkling of pig blood on the temple altar in a sacrifice to Zeus (1 Macc 1:47).<\/p>\nPigs were frequently used in pagan worship (Is 65:4; 66:3, 17), which may account for their being forbidden to the Jews as food. Evidence in the Holy Land shows that pigs were sacrificed long before Hellenistic times. Pig bones were found in a grotto below the rock-cut place of sacrifice at Gezer. A similar underground chamber with vessels containing piglet bones at Tirzah dates to the middle Bronze Age (about 2000 BC<\/span>).<\/p>\nAlabaster fragments of a statuette of a pig ready to be sacrificed have been unearthed. Swine were sacrificed to Aphrodite (Venus) in Greece and Asia Minor. In addition, pigs were sacrificed in connection with oaths and treaties; in the Iliad,<\/em> Agamemnon sacrificed a boar to Zeus and Helios. So it is not surprising that among the Jews the pig became a symbol of filthiness and paganism.<\/p>\nIt is possible that eating pork was forbidden primarily because the pig may carry many worm parasites such as trichina, though that is also true of some “clean” animals. Another reason for forbidding their consumption may have been that pigs eat carrion. Some people are allergic to pork in hot weather—another suggested reason behind the Jewish taboo. The same taboo exists among the Muslims and existed in certain social strata in Egypt.<\/p>\nPorcupine<\/p>\nRodent, Hystrix cristata,<\/em> which lives in forested areas, rocky hills, ravines, and valleys. The porcupine is still found in the Holy Land today. It has long quills that can be raised to give the appearance of a crest. It is almost entirely nocturnal. It burrows by day into a natural cavity or crevice. The Old World porcupine rarely climbed trees, although the New World porcupine frequently does. A porcupine may weigh as much as 60 pounds (27.2 kilograms). It eats fruit, bark, roots, and other vegetation, and carrion as well. Although its flesh is edible, the porcupine was not classed among the clean animals for the Israelites. The reference in Isaiah 34:11 (rsv<\/span>) is probably to the porcupine, as is Isaiah 14:23 in the nlt<\/span>. See<\/em> Hedgehog.<\/p>\nScorpion<\/p>\nArthropod of the same group as spiders (arachnids). A dozen species of scorpions (order Scorpionida) are found in the Holy Land, but 90 percent of the scorpions are yellow scorpions, usually three to five inches (7.6 to 12.7 centimeters) long. The rock scorpion, also common to the Holy Land, is as thick as a man’s finger and from five to seven inches (12.7 to 17.8 centimeters) in length. Scorpions are slow, nocturnal invertebrates that rest beneath stones by day and prey on insects and other arachnids by night. At the end of its long tail the scorpion carries a poisonous sting that is fatal to most prey and extremely painful to humans (Rv 9:3, 5, 10; cf. 1 Kgs 12:11, 14). Scorpions symbolize Ezekiel’s evil countrymen (Ez 2:6) and the demonic forces of Satan (Lk 10:19). The scorpion is referred to as frequenting the Sinai Desert (Dt 8:15).<\/p>\nA scorpion has from six to eight eyes. It has eight legs like a spider and two lobsterlike claws with which it catches and holds its prey. It feeds particularly on locusts and beetles. In many species the female scorpion eats the male after mating. Scorpions lay eggs that hatch very shortly after laying. Scorpions prefer warmer climates, and because of their desire for warmth, enter houses, especially at night, hiding in beds, blankets, footwear, and clothing.<\/p>\nSheep<\/p>\nDomestic animal, Ovis orientalis,<\/em> referred to directly or by some term such as ewe, lamb, ram, or by some fact concerning them over 700 times in Scripture.<\/p>\nSheep represented the chief wealth and total livelihood of pastoral peoples, providing food to eat, milk to drink, wool for the making of cloth, and hides and bones for other uses. In addition, the sheep was a medium of exchange and a sacrificial animal. The number of sheep raised in ancient times was prodigious. Mesha, king of Moab, paid a tribute annually of 100,000 lambs and the wool of 100,000 rams (2 Kgs 3:4). The Israelites took 250,000 sheep from the Hagrites (1 Chr 5:21).<\/p>\nSheep shearing was often done for festivals (2 Sm 13:23). The sheep was held down on its side and its legs were tied together; then it lay docilely while its wool was clipped (Is 53:7). Sheep reserved for burnt offerings were not shorn; nothing could be held back from a sacrifice to the Lord.<\/p>\nWool had to be processed before it could be used for clothing. First it was washed, sometimes while still on the sheep, then carded and perhaps weighed for the market. The spinning of wool was regarded as a woman’s work (Prv 31:19), but weaving the spun thread into cloth on a loom was primarily a man’s occupation.<\/p>\nThe Bible reports that Abel kept sheep (Gn 4:2). The first sheep to be domesticated was probably the argali (Ovis ammon),<\/em> a variety of the urial (Ovis vignei),<\/em> a mountainous species still existing in Turkestan and Mongolia. Five breeds had reached Mesopotamia by 2000 BC<\/span>; all were of the urial stock.<\/p>\nThe sheep known in Israel was the broad-tailed sheep (Ovis orientalis vignei<\/em> or laticaudata),<\/em> of which the tail weighs from 10 to 15 pounds (4.5 to 6.8 kilograms) and has always been considered a delicacy. Thus the Lord asked for this choice part as a sacrifice (Ex 29:22-25).<\/p>\nOnly the ram of the broad-tailed sheep has horns, but in other varieties of sheep in the Holy Land the ewe also has horns. The horns, two to three inches (5 to 8 centimeters) in diameter, can be potent weapons. Rams’ horns could be used as trumpets (Jos 6:4) or as oil containers (1 Sm 16:1).<\/p>\nAlthough the sheep is very similar to the goat, it is differentiated by a lower forehead, its angulated spiral horns marked with transverse wrinkles and curved slightly outward, its covering of wool, and its lack of a “goatee.” Most sheep are white (Ps 147:16; Is 1:18; Dn 7:9; Rv 1:14).<\/p>\nThe flesh of sheep was a luxury in the biblical culture. King Solomon required a daily provision of 100 sheep for his table (1 Kgs 4:23), but the common people ate lamb or mutton only on festive occasions. A young ram was usually chosen because the ewes were more important to the future prospects of the herd. The meat was boiled in large caldrons. The milk of the sheep is extremely rich; in biblical times it was usually allowed to curdle before drinking. Possibly some Israelites kept lambs in their houses as pets (2 Sm 12:3-4).<\/p>\nTo protect the flock at night against predatory attacks, the shepherd tried to provide a fold. In meadows near villages, folds were built and watchmen were hired to relieve the shepherds. The shepherds of the nativity story were out in the field (Lk 2:8); they had no fold but probably had set up a tent for shelter, consisting simply of goat-hair blankets spread across sapling supports. The scarcity of springs in the Holy Land made the watering of the flock a crucial problem for the shepherd (Gn 13:8-11).<\/p>\nWild mountain sheep, varieties of Ovis orientalis,<\/em> are known in the Mediterranean area (Dt 14:5). The Deuteronomy passage (kjv<\/span> “chamois”) might also refer to Ovis traelaphus,<\/em> a sheep about five feet high (1.5 meters) with long, curved horns. Another possibility is the Barbary sheep that lives in small flocks in rugged mountain areas in Barbary, Egypt, and Mt Sinai. The true chamois is unknown in Palestine.<\/p>\nThe sheep is also used figuratively in Scripture. The ram represented great strength and fittingly symbolized Medo-Persia in Daniel’s vision (Dn 8:3). It is the nature of sheep to be gentle and submissive (Is 53:7; Jer 11:19), defenseless (Mi 5:8; Mt 10:16), and in constant need of guidance and care (Nm 27:17; Mt 9:36). Such qualities are regarded as desirable in the lives of believers in Christ; hence the many figurative references to sheep in the NT and to Jesus as shepherd (Mk 6:34; Jn 10:1-30; Rom 8:35-37; Heb 13:20-21; 1 Pt 2:25). The resurrected Christ told the apostle Peter to “feed my lambs” and “tend my sheep” (Jn 21:15-17).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Offerings and Sacrifices.<\/p>\nSnail<\/p>\nInvertebrate gastropods (mollusks). Land snails are very numerous in the Near East. Some freshwater forms serve as hosts for the schistosome worm, the fluke parasite causing the dread disease bilharzia (schistosomiasis).<\/p>\nPurple dyes of all shades were highly valued in the ancient world. A royal purple dye was obtained from secretions of a sea snail (Murex trunculus<\/em> and Murex brandaris).<\/em> Evidently, that process was developed by Phoenicians, Egyptians, and Assyrians as early as 1500 BC<\/span>. The “purple” fishermen had their own guild during the time of the Roman Empire. The snails were harvested during the fall and winter seasons; in the spring, when egg laying took place, little dye was available. The snails tended to remain concealed in the summer. They inhabited the waters off Crete and Phoenicia. Tyrian purple, produced in the Phoenician city of Tyre, the center of the purple-dye industry, was obtained by a double dyeing. Large deposits of murex shells from dyeing operations have been found along the Mediterranean shoreline. The Israelites had to import purple goods (Ez 27:16). Lydia was a “seller of purple” or of cloth so dyed (Acts 16:14). Purple was a sign of distinction, royalty, and wealth (cf. Ex 25:4; 28:5-6, 15; Nm 15:38; 2 Chr 2:7; Est 8:15; Prv 31:22; Sg 3:10; Ez 27:7; Dn 5:7).<\/p>\nExodus 30:34-35 refers to “onycha,” which was an important ingredient of incense. Onycha is the horny, clawlike operculum (the plate that closes off the opening of its shell when a snail is retracted) of a Near Eastern member of the molluskan family Strombidae. The operculum is sometimes used for offense or locomotion as well as for defense. When burned, the operculum gives off a sharp, strong scent, and when mixed with more fragrant but less powerful substances is even more potent. The name “onycha” is derived from a Greek word (onyx)<\/em> for a fingernail or a claw.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Dye, Dyeing, Dyer.<\/p>\nSnake<\/p>\nVarious species of snake, suborder Ophidia (Serpentes). In the Bible nine Hebrew words and four Greek ones refer to snakes. The most common Hebrew word is onomatopoeic—that is, it is an imitation of a snake hissing or of the sound it produces as it scrapes its scales along the ground (cf. Jer 46:22). Many types of snakes lay eggs (Is 59:5), although some retain the eggs in the body until ready to hatch.<\/p>\nSnakes are among the most widespread reptiles and are found on all continents except Antarctica; they decrease in numbers and species toward the poles but increase as one approaches the equator. Thirty-three species of snakes are known in Palestine and neighboring countries, 20 of which are poisonous. Two dangerous characteristics of the snake noted by biblical writers are its inconspicuous way of moving and the ease with which it hides itself.<\/p>\nMany snakes are able to swallow animals several times their own diameter because of their unusually flexible jaw mechanism. They lack not only legs but also movable eyelids. Snakes periodically shed their skins. The tongue is actually a hearing apparatus sensitive to airborne vibrations and probably to heat waves.<\/p>\nThe venom of poisonous species is a clear, thin secretion, transmitted to the victim’s bloodstream by means of fangs. Two types of venom are known: that of the vipers, which affects respiration and disintegrates red blood cells, and that of the cobras, which paralyzes the nervous system.<\/p>\nThe “asp” referred to in the Bible is probably the cobra; the “adder” is the viper. The “cockatrice” (kjv<\/span>) is probably the adder. Serpents were associated with worship in Canaanite religion and symbolized evil deities among many other peoples. Steles (upright stones bearing inscriptions) have been unearthed at several sites in the Holy Land and Syria depicting a god or worshiper with a snake winding about the legs or body. Because the Israelites were burning incense in pagan worship of Moses’ bronze serpent (Nm 21:8-9), King Hezekiah destroyed it in his religious reform (2 Kgs 18:4).<\/p>\nAlthough snakes have been an object of veneration in some religions, in the Judeo-Christian tradition snakes represent evil and, more specifically, the devil. That association began in the Garden of Eden (Gn 3:1-15) and is also found in the book of Revelation (12:9; 20:2-3).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Adder (above); Asp (above).<\/p>\nSpider<\/p>\nAnimal of the order Araneida. Between 600 and 700 different species inhabit the Holy Land. Spiders are different from insects in that, like scorpions, they have four pairs of legs instead of three. Spiders are equipped with poison glands—the effectiveness varying from species to species. A few can kill only insects, but others can also kill birds and mice.<\/p>\nMost spiders have a pair of spinnerets attached to silk glands on the underside of the abdomen; from them a web is extruded. In the Bible the spider’s web is referred to as a symbol of frailty and insecurity (Jb 8:14; Is 59:5-6).<\/p>\nSponge<\/p>\nSimple marine animals, phylum Porifera. The term “sponge” also refers to those animals’ skeletal remains. The sponge has a porous body composed of tubules and cells.<\/p>\nSponge fishing was well known in the Mediterranean area in ancient times. It was practiced particularly along the Anatolian and Syrian coasts. Sponges were harvested by divers. The use of sponges in absorbing liquids is referred to in the Bible (Mt 27:48; Mk 15:36).<\/p>\nUnicorn<\/p>\nSee<\/em> Wild Ox (below).<\/p>\nWasp<\/p>\nInsects of the family Vespidae. Hornets are social wasps that build large aerial apartment houses in which 1,000 or more individuals may live. In the Bible the hornet is used as a metaphor for God’s use of military forces (Ex 23:28; Dt 7:20; Jos 24:12).<\/p>\nWhale<\/p>\nLargest of all living creatures, including those that have become extinct. Whales are air-breathing mammals of the order Cetacea.<\/p>\nTwo varieties of whales visit the shores of the Holy Land at times. The finback whale (Balaenoptera physalus)<\/em> weighs about 200 tons (181 metric tons) and lives mainly in the Arctic region but sometimes passes through the Straits of Gibraltar to reach the eastern Mediterranean Sea. It feeds on small marine organisms that it strains through its whale bone; it does not have teeth. The finback whale’s esophagus is narrow.<\/p>\nThe sperm whale (Physeter catodon),<\/em> about 60 feet (18.3 meters) long, has a curiously shaped head that looks like a battering ram. The teeth in the lower jaw of the male sperm whale are about seven inches (17.8 centimeters) long. It feeds on big fish, even on sharks. It has a large throat opening.<\/p>\nWhales are referred to in Genesis 1:21 and Job 7:12 (kjv<\/span> only). The “great fish” of Jonah 2:1 need not have been a whale but could have been a large shark, such as the whale shark (Rhineodon),<\/em> which grows 70 feet (21.3 meters) long and lacks the terrible teeth of other sharks. Whatever the actual marine organism, Jonah’s deliverance was miraculous. The Greek word for “whale” is sometimes used as a general term for “sea monster” or huge fish and may be used in that sense in Matthew 12:40.<\/p>\nWild Ox<\/p>\nLarge, fierce, fleet, intractable animal (Bos primigenius).<\/em> It had a long, lean rump with a straight back and a long, narrow head. The animal described in Job 39:9-12 is clearly the wild ox. The two horns (Dt 33:17), its outstanding characteristic, were straight and as long as the head (Nm 23:22; 24:8; Ps 22:21). Kings often symbolized their dominion by wearing a helmet with two wild ox horns (cf. Pss 92:10; 132:17-18). The horns were often used as drinking vessels by the Israelites; some were large enough to hold four gallons (15 liters).<\/p>\nHunting the wild ox was a favorite sport of Assyrian kings. Tiglath-pileser I hunted it in the Lebanon Mountains about 1100 BC<\/span> (cf. Ps 29:6). At one time the animal referred to in Job 39:9-12 was thought to be the oryx or antelope because of the similarity between the Hebrew word in Job and the Arabian name for oryx. The translators of the kjv<\/span> called the wild ox a “unicorn” because of representations found on Babylonian mosaics and Egyptian drawings. Those representations showed it in strict profile, showing only one horn—hence, “unicorn.” Jerome’s Vulgate, a Latin Bible translation (fourth century AD<\/span>) and Martin Luther’s German version translated it similarly.<\/p>\nWolf<\/p>\nLarge doglike mammal (Canis lupus)<\/em> that travels in bands of up to 30 animals. From the nose to the rump, the wolf measures about 3 feet (.9 meter); its drooping tail is about 18 inches (.5 meter) long. It looks much like a skinny German shepherd dog. The grayish yellow pelt is coarse and short haired.<\/p>\nWolves hunt singly or in relays, usually at night (Jer 5:6). Wolves have acute hearing and sight but rely chiefly on scent and usually catch their prey in a swift, open chase. The wolf has a reputation for boldness, fierceness, and voracity (Gn 49:27; Hb 1:8). It commonly kills more than it can eat or drag away and thus is known for its greediness.<\/p>\nThe wolf is a restless animal, always on the move; hunger drives it from one place to another in constant search of new hunting grounds. During spring and fall, wolves usually roam singly or in pairs, whereas in summer they may travel in family groups. In winter, several such groups may join to form a large pack. Wolves are intelligent, social creatures, faithful to their own kind. They mate for life. Individually, the wolf is a rather timid animal; it would much rather avoid human beings. But collectively wolves can be among the most dangerous animals alive.<\/p>\nIn Egypt, Rome, and Greece the wolf was considered sacred. Wolves were well known in the Holy Land and are still found there and also in many places in Asia Minor. Shepherds continually battled with wolves that plundered their flocks (Jn 10:12).<\/p>\nThe Bible refers to wolves in a literal sense in only three places (Is 11:6; 65:25; Jn 10:12), all other references being figurative. Usually the wolf is a symbol of enemies or the wicked (e.g., Ez 22:27; Zep 3:3; Acts 20:29). Both the wolf’s courage and its cruelty were probably in the mind of the patriarch Jacob when he predicted the fate of Benjamin’s tribe (Gn 49:27).<\/p>\nWorm<\/p>\nActually insect larvae in most biblical references, usually maggots, the larvae of flies (see Fly, above). For example, maggots are evidently referred to in accounts of worms feeding on spoiled manna (Ex 16:19-20), corpses (Jb 21:26; Is 14:11), or open wounds (Jb 7:5). Mark 9:48 refers to a maggot that eats dead flesh. In Acts 12:23 a fatal, worm-induced abdominal disease of King Herod is mentioned. In other cases, the reference is to the larvae of other insects (Is 51:8). In Deuteronomy 28:39 and Jonah 4:7 the vine weevil (Cochylis ambiguella)<\/em> is probably referred to; it destroys vines by boring into their stems. Comparing a man to a worm is a metaphor for abasement (Jb 25:6; Ps 22:6).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>ANIMALS<\/h3>\nIn biblical usage, all members of the animal kingdom. Animals are mentioned throughout the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. Animals figured in many important biblical events, including the Creation, the fall of man, the Flood, the ten plagues in Egypt, the Hebrew worship system, and the life of Jesus Christ. The people of both OT and NT times lived close to the land and were well acquainted with various animals so that the scriptural writers and Jesus himself frequently used animals as object lessons.<\/p>\nThe biblical approach to classification of animals is somewhat different from the system of classification used by biologists today. The present system of classification, which traces back to Carolus Linnaeus (an 18th-century Swedish botanist), is based on structure, both internal and external. The biblical basis of classification is habitat. Thus Genesis 1 speaks of aquatic organisms (v 20); aerial organisms (v 21); animals that crawl on the ground (v 24); cattle or domesticated animals (animals that live in association with humans) (v 24); and wild animals (v 24). The same system of classification is followed in Leviticus 11 and throughout Scripture.<\/p>\nBecause of the divergence between systems of classification, the various animals of the Bible will be listed here in alphabetical order—including reptiles, fish, and even invertebrates such as insects, spiders, worms, and sponges. Birds are discussed in a separate article.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Adder<\/p>\n• Ant<\/p>\n• Antelope<\/p>\n• Ape<\/p>\n• Asp<\/p>\n• Ass<\/p>\n• Badger<\/p>\n• Bat<\/p>\n• Bear<\/p>\n• Bee<\/p>\n• Behemoth<\/p>\n• Camel<\/p>\n• Caterpillar<\/p>\n• Cattle<\/p>\n• Chameleon<\/p>\n• Coral<\/p>\n• Cricket<\/p>\n• Crocodile<\/p>\n• Deer<\/p>\n• Dog<\/p>\n• Donkey<\/p>\n• Dragon<\/p>\n• Fish<\/p>\n• Flea<\/p>\n• Fly<\/p>\n• Fox<\/p>\n• Frog<\/p>\n• Gazelle<\/p>\n• Gecko<\/p>\n• Gnat<\/p>\n• Goat<\/p>\n• Grasshopper<\/p>\n• Hare<\/p>\n• Hippopotamus<\/p>\n• Horse<\/p>\n• Hyena<\/p>\n• Jackal<\/p>\n• Leech<\/p>\n• Leopard<\/p>\n• Leviathan<\/p>\n• Lion<\/p>\n• Lizard<\/p>\n• Locust<\/p>\n• Mole<\/p>\n• Moth<\/p>\n• Mouse<\/p>\n• Mule<\/p>\n• Pig<\/p>\n• Porcupine<\/p>\n• Scorpion<\/p>\n• Sheep<\/p>\n• Snail<\/p>\n• Snake<\/p>\n• Spider<\/p>\n• Sponge<\/p>\n• Unicorn<\/p>\n• Wasp<\/p>\n• Whale<\/p>\n• Wild Ox<\/p>\n• Wolf<\/p>\n• Worm<\/p>\n\nAdder<\/p>\nOne of the 20 poisonous snakes found in Israel and surrounding countries, also referred to as cockatrice and viper. True vipers (genus Cerastes, Echis colorata,<\/em> and Vipera palestina<\/em>) also exist there, poisonous snakes with curved fangs that spring into position when the snake strikes. The horned viper (Cerastes hasselquistii)<\/em> may attack horses. It is 12 to 18 inches (30 to 46 centimeters) long and often lies in ambush in the sand with only its eyes and the hornlike protrusions on its head visible.<\/p>\nBoth Jesus and John the Baptist referred to the viper several times (Mt 3:7; 12:34; 23:33). The reference in Acts 28:3 is probably to a small viper (Vipera aspis)<\/em> that strikes rapidly and is very pugnacious. It is found in southern Europe and hisses each time it inhales and exhales. The poison of vipers attacks the respiratory system and disintegrates red blood cells.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Snake (below).<\/p>\nAnt<\/p>\nMentioned only twice in the Bible, both times in the book of Proverbs. For many years Solomon was charged with a biological error when he referred to the ant as providing her meat in the summer and gathering her food in the harvest (Prv 6:8). Critics of the Bible were quick to point out that, so far as was then known, ants do not store up food. They assumed that Solomon had probably kicked open an ant hill and mistaken the pupal cases (pods in which immature ants grow to maturity) for grain or had observed ants carrying bits of grain, leaves, and other matter to their nests.<\/p>\nAt least three species of grain-storing ants are now known—two occur in Israel and the other in Mediterranean countries. The particular species referred to by Solomon (Prv 6:6-8; 30:24-25) is probably the harvester ant (Messor semirufus).<\/em> Its granaries are flat chambers connected by galleries irregularly scattered over an area about six feet (1.8 meters) in diameter and about a foot (.3 meter) deep in the ground. Seeds are collected from the ground or picked from plants. The head, or radicle, which is the softest part of the kernel, is bitten off to prevent germination, and the chaff and empty capsules are discarded on kitchen middens (refuse piles) outside the nest. Individual granaries may be 5 inches (12.7 centimeters) in diameter and a half inch (1.2 centimeters) high. Some nests are known to be 40 feet (12 meters) in diameter and 6 to 7 feet (approx. 2 meters) deep with several entrances.<\/p>\nAntelope<\/p>\nSeveral antelope-like creatures are referred to in the Scriptures. One seems to be the white oryx (Oryx leucoryx),<\/em> referred to in Deuteronomy 14:5 (kjv<\/span> “wild ox”; rsv<\/span> “antelope”) and Isaiah 51:20 (kjv<\/span> “wild bull”; RSV <\/span>“antelope”). The oryx was probably the antelope, commonly used for food because its long horns made it relatively easy to catch.<\/p>\nAnother antelope mentioned in the Bible is the addax (Addax nasomaculatus),<\/em> probably the “pygarg” of Deuteronomy 14:5 (kjv<\/span>). It is a native of North Africa with grayish white hinder parts, a white patch on the forehead, and twisted and ringed horns. The word “pygarg” comes from a Greek word meaning “white rump.” The addax is about the size of a donkey. Its body is closely covered with short hair. It has a short mane on the underside of its neck that makes the head look somewhat like that of a goat. The hooves are broad and flat, and the tail resembles that of a donkey. It is common in Africa and in Arabia, where Arabs hunt it with falcons and dogs.<\/p>\nAntelopes are very graceful and run with their heads held high. Both sexes have long, permanent, hollow horns. With the oryx the horns go straight back; addax horns are twisted and ringed. Antelope are alert, wary, and keen sighted. They are usually found in herds of from two to a dozen. If injured or brought to bay, an antelope attacks with its head lowered so that the sharp horns point forward. Antelopes feed on grasses and shrubs, drinking from streams and water holes. When water is scarce, they eat melons and succulent bulbs. Both addax and oryx were ceremonially clean in Jewish law.<\/p>\nApe<\/p>\nPrimate not native to Palestine. The two references to apes in the OT (1 Kgs 10:22; 2 Chr 9:21) refer to their importation by King Solomon with other treasures on board the ships of his mercantile fleet. There is some question concerning the origin of those primates. Some believe that the mention of “ivory” in the same verses suggests they came from East Africa and that they were indeed apes, that is, tailless primates. Others, believing they came from India or Ceylon, suggest that they were actually monkeys. There the baboon (genus Papeio), a large monkey, was considered sacred to the god Thoth. Males of that genus were kept in temples, and the more docile females were often kept as house pets. Such baboons frequently had some of their teeth removed or ground down to lessen the danger of their biting. A number of mummified baboons have been found in Egypt, indicating the high regard in which they were held.<\/p>\nAsp<\/p>\nPoisonous snake. Most biblical references to the asp (Dt 32:33) seem to be to the Egyptian cobra (Naja haje),<\/em> which conceals itself in holes, walls, and rocks and has the ability to expand its neck by raising its anterior ribs so as to enlarge the front of its breast into the shape of a flat disc. Its potent poison can cause death in 30 minutes. It attains a length of about 80 inches (2 meters). The fangs are permanently erect, not movable as in the vipers (the common poisonous snakes of North America; only the coral snake in America has permanently erect fangs). Cobra poison attacks the nervous system, causing muscular paralysis. The Egyptians looked upon it as a sacred creature; they regarded it as a protector since it fed on the rodents that ate their crops. The “fiery serpents” (Nm 21:6; Dt 8:15, both rsv<\/span>) may have been cobras; “fiery” probably refers to the burning fever caused by their venom. Isaiah 14:29 and 30:6 (“flying serpent”) may refer to the hood of the cobra.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Snake (below).<\/p>\nAss<\/p>\nSee<\/em> Donkey (below).<\/p>\nBadger<\/p>\nSmall hoofed mammal. What the kjv<\/span> calls a “coney,” modern translations name “rock badger” (Lv 11:5; Dt 14:7; Ps 104:18; Prv 30:26). The rock badger spoken of in the Bible is probably the Syrian rock hyrax (Hyrax syriaca),<\/em> the only species of hyrax found outside Africa. This small ungulate (having hooflike toenails) lives among rocks from the Dead Sea valley to Mt Hermon. It is strictly a herbivorous (plant-eating) animal about the size of a rabbit. It resembles a guinea pig more than a rabbit, having quite inconspicuous ears and a very small tail. It has broad nails with four toes on its forelegs and three on its hind legs, the toes being connected with skin almost like a web. Pads acting as sucking discs under its feet enable it to keep its footing on slippery rocks. With its yellow and brown fur, it is sometimes called the bear rat because of its resemblance to a tailless rat. It is also equipped with black whiskers that may be seven inches (17.8 centimeters) long.<\/p>\nThese rock badgers, or hyraxes, live together in colonies of from 6 to 50 animals, often sunning themselves on rocks. They are difficult to catch. Guards are posted, and if approaching danger is sighted, the whole group will scurry for cover, warned by the sharp whistles of the guards. Thus they are commended for taking refuge in the rocks (Ps 104:18) and are called wise for making “their houses in the rocks” (Prv 30:24, 26, kjv<\/span>). The badger is not a ruminant (does not chew its cud), but the motion of its jaws may suggest that it chews its cud. That is probably why it was included with other cud-chewing animals in the Jewish food laws (Lv 11:5; Dt 14:7). It was forbidden to the Jews as food because it did not have cloven hooves. Some Arabs eat and even prize its meat.<\/p>\nBat<\/p>\nFlying mammals according to modern classification. They have hair and provide milk for their young. The Bible classifies them with other aerial creatures. Bats take shelter in caves, crevices, tree cavities, buildings, and also in exposed places on trees. In colder areas they hibernate or migrate. The normal resting position for a bat is hanging head downward. Bats “swim” through the air rather than fly because they move with their legs as well as with their wings.<\/p>\nThe bat’s thumb is free and terminates in a single hook claw used for climbing and hanging. The hind feet have five toes, all pointing the same way. The large chest accommodates the powerful muscles needed for flying. Because they orient themselves by echo location, the sense of hearing is very well developed.<\/p>\nMost bats are insect eaters, seizing insects in flight. Many insectivorous bats also eat some fruit. Other bats feed exclusively, usually in groups, on fruit and green vegetation. Fruit-eating bats generally live in the tropics where fruit is constantly ripening, although some have been found in the Holy Land. These bats tend to be larger than the insectivores, having a wingspread of up to five feet (1.5 meters).<\/p>\nA third group includes flower-eating bats that feed on pollen and nectar. These small bats with long pointed heads and long tongues are found only in tropical and semitropical regions. Three species of vampire bats, which do not occur in the Holy Land, eat blood by making a small incision and lapping it up. Carnivorous (meat-eating) bats prey on birds, lizards, and frogs. Fish-eating bats catch fish at or near the water surface.<\/p>\nEight varieties of bats are known in the Holy Land. One of them, the little brown bat (genus Myotis<\/em>), is worldwide in its distribution. It is insectivorous and probably has the widest distribution of any nonhuman terrestrial mammal. Brown bats are mostly cave dwellers. The females form maternity colonies that may number in the tens of thousands.<\/p>\nTwo species of mouse-tailed bats (genus Rhinopoma<\/em>) are found in the Holy Land. Their tails are nearly as long as the head and body combined. They are colonial, roosting in caves, rock clefts, wells, pyramids, palaces, and houses. Like the brown bat, they are insectivorous. The slit-faced or hollow-faced bats (genus Nycteris<\/em>) are also found in the Holy Land. They are insectivorous and roost in groups from 6 to 20.<\/p>\nThe bats found in the Holy Land vary in size from that of a mouse to the size of a rat; the largest species measures more than 20 inches (51 centimeters) across the wings. The bat was unclean to the Jews (Lv 11:19; Dt 14:18).<\/p>\nBear<\/p>\nLarge, heavy, big-headed mammal with short, powerful limbs, a short tail, and small eyes and ears. Bears have a “plantigrade” walk: they walk on both the sole and heel as humans do. The Palestinian bear is a Syrian version of the brown bear (Ursus arctos syriacus).<\/em> It can grow to a height of 6 feet (1.8 meters) and may weigh as much as 500 pounds (227 kilograms).<\/p>\nBears have an excellent sense of smell but less developed senses of sight and hearing. They are omnivorous (eating any kind of food); they subsist largely on vegetation, fruits, insects, and fish.<\/p>\nBears are usually peaceful and inoffensive, but if they think they must defend themselves (Lam 3:10) or their young (2 Sm 17:8; Prv 17:12; Hos 13:8), they may be formidable and dangerous adversaries. David boasted of his role as a bear killer (1 Sm 17:34-37). Since a blow from a bear’s paw can be fatal, David’s courage and strength as a young shepherd in running after a bear and wrenching one of his father’s sheep from its jaws were noteworthy.<\/p>\nSome biblical passages seem to imply that bears attacked for no apparent reason (e.g., Prv 28:15; Am 5:19). At other times they were God’s instruments of punishment, as in the story of Elisha and the two she-bears (2 Kgs 2:24). The bear and the lion, often mentioned together in the Bible (1 Sm 17:37), were the two largest and strongest beasts of prey in the Holy Land. Thus they symbolized both strength and terror (Am 5:19).<\/p>\nIn biblical times bears seem to have roamed all over Palestine. Today they are found only in the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon Mountains, and even there they are rare.<\/p>\nBee<\/p>\nOne of two domesticated insects (Apis mellifica),<\/em> the other being the silkworm. Bees gather nectar from flowers, transferring pollen from one flower to another in the process. It is believed that they convey the location of sources of nectar to other bees through a bee “dance,” which may indicate both distance and direction. Bees are sensitive to four colors: blue-green, yellow-green, blue-violet, and ultra-violet (invisible to humans).<\/p>\nThe wild bees of the Holy Land are especially noted for their ferocity in attack. Only the female “worker” bees sting people and animals, the virulence of their venom increasing in warm weather. A number of biblical passages allude to the irritable, vindictive nature of bees and to the painful stings they inflict (Dt 1:44; Ps 118:12; Is 7:18).<\/p>\nOne reference calls attention to the fact that in semidesert regions a dead animal’s carcass, stripped to the bone by jackals or vultures and dried in the sun, can provide wild bees an excellent place to start a new colony (Jgs 14:5-9).<\/p>\nThe Egyptians considered the bee sacred. In ancient Greece candles were made from beeswax. In the Holy Land, beekeeping was probably not practiced until the Hellenistic period (second century BC<\/span>), although Ezekiel 27:17 suggests that it may have been practiced earlier. If domestic honey was not available to the Hebrews, wild honey certainly was, and travelers would be on the lookout for caches of honey in rocky clefts and other likely places. The Philistines and the Hittites practiced beekeeping in their cities.<\/p>\nThe Bible contains many references to bees and bee products. A bee swarm was a valuable asset, though the price of honey itself was low. Honey was sometimes eaten with the honeycomb (Sg 5:1). Honey also had uses other than food, e.g., in embalming.<\/p>\nThe land of Israel was described as a land flowing with milk and honey. Honey was a major source of sweetening in the ancient Near East—hence, its importance (cf. Jgs 14:8-9). Actually the Hebrew word for “honey” may include not only bee honey but also the sweet syrup extracted from such fruits as figs, dates, and grapes. Thus “a land flowing with milk and honey” (Ex 3:8, rsv<\/span>) does not necessarily stand for a land of bees but for a land rich in sweetness.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Food and Food Preparation; Honey.<\/p>\nBehemoth<\/p>\nSee<\/em> Hippopotamus (below).<\/p>\nCamel<\/p>\nLarge beast of burden. Unintelligent, ill-natured, and quarrelsome, the camel (Camelus dromedarius)<\/em> is nevertheless a blessing to people living in the desert and on its borders because it is especially adapted to that habitat. It has been called the ship of the desert. Having thick elastic pads of fibrous tissue on its feet, it can walk on hot desert sands. It can go without water for long periods and can subsist on vegetation growing on the saline soils. The camel’s nostrils are pinched together and can be closed at will to prevent penetration of sand during violent sandstorms.<\/p>\nCamels are used for transporting both goods and people. A person riding a camel can cover from 60 to 75 miles (96.5 to 121 kilometers) in a day. A camel can carry a load weighing 600 pounds (272 kilograms) or more. Camels were used heavily in the spice trade (Gn 37:25) and traveled regularly in camel trains between Arabia, Egypt, and Assyria. They were also ridden in time of war (Jgs 6:5). A camel can even be hitched to a plow in areas where the land is cultivated.<\/p>\nThe hair shed by camels during the early spring is preserved and used in weaving cloth and making tents. As much as 10 pounds (4.5 kilograms) of hair can be obtained from one camel. A rough cloak of camel’s hair, as worn by John the Baptist (Mt 3:4), is still worn by Bedouins today. A camel’s hair garment was also the sign of the prophetic office (Zec 13:4).<\/p>\nTwo varieties of camel occur within the one-humped species, the slow burden-bearing camel referred to in Genesis 37:25 and the fast dromedary of 1 Samuel 30:17. The dromedary can stand seven feet (2.1 meters) tall and measure as much as nine feet (2.7 meters) from the muzzle to the tip of the tail. With its three-chambered stomach, which can hold from 15 to 30 quarts (14.2 to 28.4 liters) of liquid, it can go for as long as 5 days during the summer or 25 days in winter without drinking. The camel’s hump is a reserve store of fat, making it possible for the animal to subsist on very little food during a desert journey.<\/p>\nAnother species of camel, the Bactrian camel (Camelus bactrianus),<\/em> is also resident in the Holy Land. It has two humps. It is heavier, bigger, and has longer hair than the one-humped camel and is slower than the swift dromedary. Isaiah 21:7 may refer to the Bactrian camel; both kinds of camel are referred to in Esther 8:10 (kjv<\/span>). Camels ranked in importance with sheep, cattle, and asses in OT times. A third of the 66 biblical references to the camel lists it with other animals.<\/p>\nCamels are ruminants (cud-chewing mammals) but do not have cloven hooves. Thus, they were included in the list of unclean beasts, forbidden by the Israelites as food (Lv 11:4; Dt 14:7). They are eaten by Arabs, however, who also drink their milk (cf. Gn 32:15).<\/p>\nAbraham had camels in Egypt (Gn 12:16). At first Job had 3,000 camels (Jb 1:3) and after his recovery, 6,000 (Jb 42:12). Although wide use of camels does not seem to have begun until shortly before 1000 BC<\/span> (Jgs 6:5), Sumerian texts from the Old Babylonian period list camels and indicate that they had been domesticated. Camel bones and figurines have been found at various eastern archaeological sites dating from well before 1200 BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Travel.<\/p>\nCaterpillar<\/p>\nLarval stage of insects characterized by complete metamorphosis. Such insects pass through four stages: egg, larva or caterpillar, pupa, and adult. Bees, flies, moths, and butterflies all pass through a larval or caterpillar stage.<\/p>\nThe word “caterpillar” occurs three times in the nlt<\/span> (1 Kgs 8:37; 2 Chr 6:28; Ps 78:46). In the book of Joel that same Hebrew word is translated “locust” (1:4; 2:25, nlt<\/span>). The locust and grasshopper to which the Hebrew word refers have an incomplete type of metamorphosis with only three stages: egg, nymph, and adult. The nymph is a miniature adult in which the wings are not fully developed, though their outline may be present. There are several nymph stages known as instars. The reference is to one of the last instars, in which the wing structures are still folded together and enclosed in a sac but are nevertheless clearly recognizable. That form of the insect is about an inch (2.5 centimeters) long.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Locust (below).<\/p>\nCattle<\/p>\nDomestic animals of the bovine species (Bos primigenius).<\/em> The OT often emphasized the beauty of cattle. Egypt was rich in cattle, especially in the Nile River delta area (Goshen), where the Hebrews settled under Joseph.<\/p>\nSome scholars believe that milk rather than meat was the foremost consideration in the domestication of cattle and that in early civilizations meat supplies came chiefly from wild game. Cattle also supplied strong hides that supplanted wood in the manufacture of shields. Their dung was a source of fuel when wood was scarce (Ez 4:15). They were used as beasts of burden and for plowing. Development of wheeled transportation was associated more closely with cattle than with any other animal.<\/p>\nThe biblical term “cattle” often refers to all domesticated animals or livestock (Gn 1:24; 2:20; 7:23; 47:6, 16-17; Ex 9:3-7; Nm 3:41, 45). Occasionally, the term was used to refer to all large domestic animals (Nm 31:9; 32:26), although sometimes the word as used in the kjv<\/span> refers only to sheep and goats (Gn 30:32, 39, 43; 31:8, 10; Is 7:25; 43:23).<\/p>\nProbably several kinds of cattle were domesticated in the Holy Land. Small, short-legged, black or brown shorthorn cattle were found in the southern part of Judah; that type submitted easily to the yoke and was prominent in agricultural operations. Along the coast a larger variety was found, and the wild districts east of the Jordan River were populated with a breed of huge black cattle.<\/p>\nCattle breeding was widely practiced by the patriarchs (cf. Gn 32:15; Jb 21:10). Strict laws in Mesopotamia, as well as in Israel, penalized the owner of a bull that gored a man or other cattle (Ex 21:28-36). Bulls were sometimes employed figuratively as pictures of strength or violence (Dt 33:17; Pss 22:12; 68:30; Is 10:13). For breeding purposes one bull is normally adequate for about 30 cows, but many more were kept since bulls were widely used in Israel for sacrifices. They might be used as a general sacrifice (Lv 22:23; Nm 23:1) or for special sacrifices (Jgs 6:25; 1 Sm 1:24). Particular sacrifices were offered at the consecration of priests (Ex 29:1), consecration of an altar (Nm 7), purification of the Levites (Nm 8), sin offerings (Lv 16), day of the new moon (Nm 28:11-14), Passover (Nm 28:19), Feast of Weeks (Nm 28:27), Feast of Trumpets (Nm 29:1-2), Day of Atonement (Nm 29:7-9), and the Feast of Tabernacles (Nm 29:12-38). The Feast of Tabernacles required the largest number of bulls for burnt offerings of all the annual feasts, with a total of 71 being slaughtered during the course of eight days.<\/p>\nCalves were sometimes referred to as “sons of the herd” in the original Hebrew (Gn 18:8; 1 Sm 6:7; 14:32). The calf, a symbol of peacefulness (Is 11:6), was also used figuratively to refer to the weak (Ps 68:30). A calf’s head decorated the back of Solomon’s throne (1 Kgs 10:19). Calves were sometimes fattened in stalls to keep them from running off weight in the field (Am 6:4; Mal 4:2; Lk 15:23) or were kept around the house; the witch of Endor kept a calf in her house that she killed and served to Saul and his men (1 Sm 28:24-25). Calves supplied veal (Gn 18:7), considered a delicacy by the wealthy; Amos referred to stall-fattened calves in a denunciation of luxurious and careless living (Am 6:4). Calves also supplied meat for all Saul’s armies at the great slaughter of the Philistines (1 Sm 14:32). The “fatted calf” served roasted or boiled was gourmet fare, suitable for the finest banquet (Gn 18:7; Mt 22:4; Lk 15:23).<\/p>\nCattle were subject to the law of firstlings (Ex 13:12). They were a mark of wealth (Gn 13:2) and were considered proper booty of war (Jos 8:2). Aaron, the first high priest, made a golden calf as a rival to the ark of the covenant (Ex 32; Dt 9:16, 21). Even though he represented the calf as an image of the invisible God, it was especially offensive because the calf was a fertility symbol related to Egyptian and Canaanite practices. Two calves were later made by Jeroboam I of Israel (930–909 BC<\/span>) for his shrines at Bethel and Dan (1 Kgs 12:28-33). Hosea’s prophetic denunciations of calf worship were directed at those shrines (Hos 8:5-6; 13:2).<\/p>\nAn ox is an adult castrated bull. A steer is a young ox. Oxen were used to do work (Nm 7:3; Dt 22:10; 25:4), though for moving heavy objects, cows were typically favored over bulls because of their more docile nature. Oxen were also used as pack animals (1 Chr 12:40, although they did not have the endurance of the ass, camel, or mule. They usually fed on grass (Nm 22:4; Ps 106:20), but they also ate straw (Is 11:7) and salted fodder (Is 30:24) and could be kept in a stable (Lk 13:15). Oxen could not be offered as sacrifices because they had been castrated (Lv 22:24). They could be used for food but were rarely eaten. Possession of an ox and an ass was regarded as the bare minimum for existence in the ancient Palestinian agriculture economy (Jb 24:3; cf. Ex 20:17).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Agriculture; Food and Food Preparation; Offerings and Sacrifices.<\/p>\nChameleon<\/p>\nLizard characterized by its ability to change color according to its surroundings (Chameleon vulgaris).<\/em> To the Israelites the chameleon was ritually unclean (Lv 11:30). The Hebrew word for chameleon is derived from a word meaning “to pant.” A lizard’s lungs are very large, and in ancient times lizards were believed to live on air. A chameleon’s eyes move independently of each other; so at times one eye may be turned upward and the other downward. Chameleons live in trees and bushes, clinging to branches with their long tails.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Lizard (below).<\/p>\nCoral<\/p>\nCalcareous (lime-containing) skeletons of relatively simple marine organisms (Corallium rubrum).<\/em> Red coral from the Mediterranean and Red Seas is widely used for jewelry and for medicinal purposes. While the animal is alive, the coral is green in color and shrublike in appearance, looking rather like an underwater plant since the coral animals are immobil. When the coral is removed from the water, it becomes hard and red in color.<\/p>\nIn ancient times coral was sometimes used as money, along with precious stones, pearls, and gold. Some believe the biblical reference in Lamentations 4:7 (rsv<\/span>) is to pearls rather than to coral, but it is probable that the references in Job 28:18 and Ezekiel 27:16 are to the red coral (see nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nCricket<\/p>\nInsect of the order Orthptera related to grasshoppers and locusts. According to Leviticus 11:22, the cricket was edible. The reference may be to one of the growth stages of the locust.<\/p>\nThe kjv<\/span> translates the Hebrew word as “beetle.” Beetles are insects with chewing mouth parts and two pairs of wings, the fore pair being hard and sheathlike and the hind pair being membranous and folded under the fore pair. Some beetles are carnivorous, others are chiefly herbivorous. Some are aquatic, some produce a secretion that blisters the skin, some damage fabrics, some damage crops, and some feed on other insects that are harmful to humans. In ancient Egypt the beetle, or sacred scarab, was a symbol of the sun god Ra. Scarab seals and amulets were extremely popular in Egypt.<\/p>\nCrocodile<\/p>\nLargest of all existing reptiles (Crocodilus vulgaris),<\/em> attaining a length of well over 20 feet (6 meters). Crocodiles are characterized by large lizardlike bodies supported by short legs. The head terminates in a flattened snout armed with strong conical teeth, each of which is implanted in a distinct socket. New teeth growing from beneath continually replace those in use. The toes are webbed. The back and tail are protected by quadrangular horny shields of varying sizes arranged in regular rows and in contact with one another at the edges. The eyes are covered with movable lids that can be closed when the animal enters the water.<\/p>\nThe crocodile spends most of its time in the water where it feeds mainly on fish but also on aquatic birds and even small animals that come down to the water’s edge to drink. It is surprisingly fast and agile on dry land, even though its legs are so short that its belly and tail drag across the earth leaving a distinct path.<\/p>\nUntil the beginning of the 20th century, the crocodile was found in the marshes and small coastal rivers of western Palestine. A first-century Roman writer, Pliny, referred to a place in the Holy Land called Crocodeilopolis (“crocodile city”) to the south of Mt Carmel, and visitors to the Holy Land as late as the 19th century reported seeing crocodiles in that general region.<\/p>\nThe description of “Leviathan” in Job 41 seems to be based on the crocodile (thus the translation of the nlt<\/span>). The “dragon” of Ezekiel 29:3, used figuratively of the Egyptian pharaoh, may be a reference to the crocodile.<\/p>\nDeer<\/p>\nLarge ruminant (cud-chewing) animals. Only the males have antlers (branching horns). Deer antlers grow annually and are solid, in contrast to those of the antelope and the gazelle. Fully developed antlers are devoid of any covering of skin or horn and, for all practical purposes, may be regarded as a mass of dead bone carried for a certain time by the living animal.<\/p>\nThe end of the deer’s muzzle is naked in all species. The stomach is divided into a series of compartments, some of which are used to store partly chewed food. The food is later regurgitated, rechewed, and finally swallowed into a section of the stomach where true digestion takes place.<\/p>\nThree species of deer were known in Palestine: the red deer (Cervus elaphus),<\/em> the Persian fallow deer (Dama mesopotamica),<\/em> and the roe deer (Capreolus capreolus).<\/em> All are now extinct there. The last deer were hunted in the Holy Land in 1914. The red deer referred to in the Bible as “hart” (male), “stag” (male), or “hind” (female) stood about four feet (1.2 meters) high at the shoulder. It was gregarious (living in herds or flocks), each group remaining in a definite territory. Red deer grazed and browsed during the morning and late afternoon (Lam 1:6). The sexes remained in separate herds. The red deer was known for its leaping (Is 35:6) and sure-footedness in the mountains (Ps 18:33; Sg 2:8-9, 17; 8:14; Hb 3:19).<\/p>\nThe antlers of the Persian fallow deer (1 Kgs 4:23) were large, flattened, and palmated (shaped like an open palm with fingers extended), and its coat was a yellowbrown. It traveled in small groups, feeding mainly on grass in the morning and evening.<\/p>\nThe roe deer (Dt 14:5; 1 Kgs 4:23) was a small, graceful animal, dark reddish brown in summer and yellowish gray in winter. Its antlers were about a foot (30.5 centimeters) long and had three points. The roe deer preferred sparsely wooded valleys and the lower slopes of mountains, grazing in open grasslands. It usually associated in family groups made up of the doe and her offspring. They were shy, yet very curious. The roe deer barked like a dog when disturbed, and they were excellent swimmers.<\/p>\nThere is some question as to whether the roe deer is actually referred to in such passages as 1 Kings 4:23; references may be to the fallow deer, although that animal does not seem to have lived in the southern part of Palestine around the Sinai Desert because of its need for ample amounts of food and water. Fallow deer were found in northern Palestine.<\/p>\nThe hart (the male red deer) was listed among the clean beasts that Jewish law permitted as food (Dt 12:15, 22; 14:5), but deer were not listed among the animals appropriate for sacrifice. The hind (female red deer) normally gave birth to one calf at a time, though twins were born with some degree of regularity (Jb 39:1; Ps 29:9, kjv<\/span>; Jer 14:5). The gestation period was about 40 weeks. When it was about to give birth, the hind looked for a secure hiding place, preferably in the dense undergrowth of the forest where it could find natural protection for the tiny calf. During the first few days after birth, the mother never went far from her young. The fawn was able to stand on its own legs a few hours after birth. The solicitous care by the hind for her calf during the first days of its life is hinted at in a touching way in Jeremiah 14:4-5, where only a severe drought is said to drive the hind from her calf. Job 39:1-4 describes the calving of the hinds. The hind illustrated grace and charm (Gn 49:21; Prv 5:19), and its dark, gentle eyes and graceful limbs were used to describe the beauty of a woman (Prv 5:18-19).<\/p>\nDog<\/p>\nProbably the earliest domesticated animal (Canis familiaris),<\/em> used very early in hunting. The modern dog is believed to have come from the Indian wolf (Canis lupus pallipes).<\/em> The dogs of biblical times probably looked like a modern German shepherd, with short pointed ears, a pointed nose, and a long tail.<\/p>\nThe dog was generally looked down upon in biblical times (Prv 26:11; 2 Pt 2:22). The biblical writers did not share modern sentiments about dogs being man’s best friends. The dog was pictured as a scavenger, haunting streets and dumps (Ex 22:31; 1 Kgs 22:38; Mt 15:26; Lk 16:21). Human corpses could become the spoil of dogs (2 Kgs 9:35-36). In general, dogs served the same function as vultures and other birds of prey. Most of the 41 references in the Scriptures to dogs show strong disfavor. Dogs were considered cowardly, filthy creatures.<\/p>\nDogs used in hunting occur in paintings in Egyptian tombs, and there is a reference to dogs herding sheep in Job 30:1. One good quality of dogs highly esteemed by the Israelites was watchfulness (Is 56:10). In general, however, in biblical times “dog” was a term of contempt (1 Sm 17:43; 2 Sm 16:9) and was used of overly submissive persons (2 Sm 9:8; 2 Kgs 8:13) and of evil persons (Is 56:10-11; Mt 7:6; Phil 3:2; Rv 22:15).<\/p>\nDogs, like pigs, were voracious and omnivorous (eating any kind of food). In response to a Gentile woman’s request that he heal her daughter, Jesus used the metaphor of throwing household food scraps to dogs (Mt 15:22-28; Mk 7:25-30). At the time of Jesus, the word “dog” was a standard Jewish term of contempt for Gentiles who, like dogs, were considered unclean, although the diminutive form of the word, used by Jesus, softened this considerably. Seeing her faith, Jesus granted the woman’s request, giving a non-Jew some of “the children’s bread.”<\/p>\nDonkey<\/p>\nBeast of burden. The donkey of the Holy Land (Equus asinus)<\/em> was quite different from the European donkey of today, which is usually a small, stubborn animal. In biblical times the donkey was a beautiful, stately, friendly animal. Its color was usually reddish brown. Three wild races have been described, all from Africa. The race from northwest Africa is extinct; the one from northeast Africa, if not extinct, is close to extinction; the Somalian race, which survives, did not play an important part in domestication. The northeast African race, the Nubian donkey, was evidently domesticated in the Nile River region in early historic times. The donkey was used as a mount from the time of domestication on. It is first mentioned in the Bible among the animals that Abraham acquired in Egypt (Gn 12:16). The donkey was primarily a beast of burden, driven but not bridled. From the time of the Middle Kingdom on (c. 2040 BC<\/span>), it was used for riding in Egypt, but only the Jews and Nubians rode donkeys regularly. The donkey was also used for threshing grain and for pulling the plow. In Arab countries today peasants plow with a donkey and a cow or camel hitched together. In Israel the law forbade plowing with a donkey and an ox hitched together (Dt 22:10). Until the time of Solomon (960 BC<\/span>), horses were not used in Palestine. From that time on, the horse was ridden by warriors; the donkey was used by those who were traveling peaceably.<\/p>\nThe donkey was held in high regard by the Jews and was considered an economic asset. An individual had to have a donkey for minimum existence (Jb 24:3), and wealth was frequently counted by the number of donkeys one possessed (Gn 12:16; 24:35). The donkey was considered an acceptable gift (Gn 32:13-15). It was allowed to rest on the Sabbath (Dt 5:14). Women in biblical times often used the donkey as a riding animal (Jos 15:18; 1 Sm 25:23; 2 Kgs 4:24); often a special driver would help a woman guide the animal, running along at its side. If a married couple possessed only one donkey, the husband usually walked alongside while the wife rode (Ex 4:20).<\/p>\nThe people of Israel returning from Babylon had ten times as many donkeys as horses and camels (Ezr 2:66-67; Neh 7:68-69). Job’s wealth was indicated by the fact that he had 500 she-donkeys before catastrophe hit him (Jb 1:3); after his recovery he had 1,000 donkeys (Jb 42:12). Joseph’s brothers used donkeys to transport the grain they purchased in Egypt (Gn 42:26; 43:24). Abigail transported food on donkeys to David and his troops during their conflict with Saul (1 Sm 25:18). David assigned one of the 12 managers of his royal estates to look after his donkeys exclusively (1 Chr 27:30).<\/p>\nThe onager, or Syrian wild donkey (Equus hemionus hemihippus)<\/em>, is an intermediate between the true horse and the true donkey. Its ears are longer than those of a horse but shorter than those of a donkey. The front hooves are narrow; there are chestnuts (callouslike spots on the inside of the knees) on the front legs only, and the tail is short haired for a long distance from its root so that it appears to be tufted.<\/p>\nThe Sumerians (ancient Mesopotamians) were able to domesticate the onager, which was eventually replaced by the horse. It was used to draw chariots in Ur; a number of onagers were buried with their vehicles in a royal grave that dates from about 2500 BC<\/span>. Later the wild onager was a favorite hunter’s prize for Babylonian and Assyrian kings.<\/p>\nThe onager was very common in the steppe lands near Israel, where it was described as a freedom-loving desert animal (Jb 24:5; 39:5-8; Ps 104:11; Is 32:14; Jer 2:24; Hos 8:9). Ishmael was described as “free and untamed as a wild donkey” (Gn 16:12, nlt<\/span>)—that is, one who could not adjust to domestic life. Drought seems to have been responsible for the population decline of the onager in biblical times (Jer 14:6). The modern onager (Equus hemionus onager)<\/em> is slightly larger than the Syrian wild donkey that is extinct.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Travel.<\/p>\nDragon<\/p>\nAny one of a number of monstrous land and sea creatures. In biblical usage, “dragon” does not refer to the huge, fire-breathing, winged reptile of European folklore. The translators of the kjv<\/span> used the term to translate two Hebrew words that are usually rendered more precisely in modern translations. One word referred to desert animals; most scholars agree with the niv<\/span> that “jackals” is its proper meaning (Ps 44:19; Is 13:22; Jer 9:11; Mal 1:3). See<\/em> Jackal (below).<\/p>\nThe other Hebrew word translated “dragon” is harder to define. It was frequently used in reference to serpents (so translated in the rsv<\/span>: Ex 7:9-12; Dt 32:33; Ps 91:13). In other rsv<\/span> passages it is translated “sea monster” (Gn 1:21; Jb 7:12; Ps 148:7). The exact identity of such sea monsters is not known. Several rsv<\/span> passages retain the English “dragon.” In two of them (Ps 74:13; Is 27:1), the context indicates that sea monsters are meant. In three others (Is 51:9; Ez 29:3; 32:2) “dragon” seems to refer to the crocodile, a figurative reference to the Egyptian pharaoh at the time of the exodus. Jeremiah 51:34 (translated “monster” in the rsv<\/span>) may also refer to a voracious creature such as a crocodile. See<\/em> Crocodile (above).<\/p>\nBabylonian myths described monsters and dragons in primordial conflict with the god Marduk; they represented the principle of evil. In its figurative usages in Scripture, “dragon” has a similar significance, especially in the prophetic books. In the book of Revelation it is a symbol of Satan, the archenemy of God and his people (Rv 12:3-17; 13:2, 4, 11; 16:13; 20:2).<\/p>\nFish<\/p>\nAquatic animals frequently mentioned in the Bible without names or descriptions that enable us to identify the particular species. Since time immemorial, fish have constituted one of the staple foods of humanity, and they still serve as the chief source of protein in many parts of the world. The trade in fish was highly developed in biblical times. For example, one of the gates in Jerusalem was called the Fish Gate (Neh 3:3; Zep 1:10). The law in Leviticus 11:9-12 permitted the Jews to eat fish, but only those having both fins and scales. Scaleless fish such as catfish were forbidden, even though they had fins.<\/p>\nEgyptian paintings depict various methods of fishing, and the Philistines fished in the Mediterranean Sea. Since the people of Israel were not a seafaring nation, it is safe to assume that most of their fish came from freshwater lakes and rivers, especially the Sea of Galilee. Some 36 species of fish have been identified in that lake, including varieties of perch, carp, barbel, “sardine,” and catfish.<\/p>\nThe method of fishing characteristic of NT times was the dragnet. After a boat had put out into the deep (Lk 5:4), a large net would be thrown out from it and then dragged toward shore by the rowers in the boat, possibly with the help of a crew in another boat. The catch was sorted out on shore (Mt 13:47-48). Fishing was usually carried out at night when the coolness of the water brought fish closer to the surface and when they could not see the approaching nets.<\/p>\nThe Jews also fished by hook and line (Mt 17:27), a few by spear (Jb 41:7), and some by the throw net (Ez 47:10). Habakkuk refers to hook-and-line fishing, netting, and seining (1:15).<\/p>\nVery early in the history of the Christian church the fish became a symbol for Christ and the faith. It was scratched on the walls of Roman catacombs and may be seen today decorating walls, altars, pews, and vestments. The symbol came into use because the Greek word for “fish” (<\/em>ichthus<\/span>)<\/em> is composed of the first letter of each word in the Greek phrase “Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior.” See<\/em> Whale (below).<\/p>\nFlea<\/p>\nTiny, irritating insect (1 Sm 24:14; 26:20, nlt<\/span>). Many species of fleas occur in Palestine, the most common being Pulex irritans.<\/em> About a thousand species are known around the world. Fleas are wingless parasites that have sharp jaws and suck out blood from the bodies of humans and animals. The body is wedge shaped, enabling the flea to burrow into folds of skin and hide there. The eggs, laid by the female in dust heaps in the corners of rooms, hatch into small, white larvae that pupate (a nonfeeding stage) in a cocoon. Soon adult fleas appear that immediately attach themselves to the body of a host. The female requires blood for the development of her eggs.<\/p>\nA flea bite is painful and causes some swelling and itching. Fleas are attracted by warmth. With favorable moisture and temperature, adult fleas can live a year or longer without food, but they are voracious feeders. The most dangerous fleas are those of the rat that transmit the organism responsible for bubonic plague. There were 41 recorded epidemics of bubonic plague before the Christian era.<\/p>\nFly<\/p>\nInsects of the order Diptera, which have one pair of wings. Many winged insects of other orders, however, are also called flies, such as the dragonfly or butterfly.<\/p>\nAs in almost all parts of the world, flies are abundant in Palestine. One of the most numerous is the common housefly (Musca domestica),<\/em> found chiefly around dung heaps and garbage. The female lays her eggs, out of which emerge white maggots that feed on refuse. After a few days the maggot develops into a cocoon out of which emerges the adult housefly. In the summer the whole cycle lasts about 12 days, so that a fly can breed about 20 generations a year.<\/p>\nAnother fly common to Palestine is the botfly (family Oestridae). It causes much discomfort among livestock by irritating them and spreading diseases. Tabanid flies (family Tabanidae), including the horsefly (genus Tabanus<\/em>) and related species, are also found in Palestine. Both the botfly and horsefly are known as gadflies because of the persistent distress they inflict. Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar is spoken of as a gadfly in view of his invasion of Egypt (Jer 46:20).<\/p>\nThe fourth plague in Egypt just before the exodus featured “swarms of flies” (Ex 8:21-31, nlt<\/span>; cf. Pss 78:45; 105:31). Those swarms may have been made up of any or all the flies mentioned above. The maggots mentioned in Job 25:6 and Isaiah 14:11 and the worms in Exodus 16:24 and Job 7:5 and 17:14 were probably fly larvae.<\/p>\nA proverb quoted in Ecclesiastes 10:1 probably refers to the housefly, which would be attracted to an open, perfumed ointment bottle. Once inside it would drown and eventually decay, causing the ointment to spoil and stink. The fly is also referred to in Isaiah 7:18 where it symbolizes Egypt. Isaiah may have had in mind a horsefly (Tabanus arenivagus)<\/em> that attacks both humans and animals.<\/p>\nPhilistine inhabitants of the city of Ekron worshiped a god named Baal-zebul, meaning “Lord of the high places.” The Hebrews mockingly spoke of Baal-zebub, meaning “Lord of the flies” (2 Kgs 1:2). The NT form is Beelzebub (e.g., Mt 10:25; 12:24, 27).<\/p>\nFox<\/p>\nSmall, doglike carnivore with a bushy tail that is about half its body length. The red fox of the Holy Land (Vulpes palaetinae)<\/em> is similar to the North American red fox; it is smaller than a wolf and is normally a nocturnal solitary animal. The omnivorous fox eats almost any kind of food—fruits, plants, mice, beetles, and birds—but seldom touches carrion. It loves the sweet juice of grapes, but it also burrows underground tunnels that can destroy the vines (Sg 2:15). The fox is intelligent and known for its slyness (Lk 13:32). It has considerable endurance and can run at speeds up to 30 miles (48 kilometers) per hour. The Jews rebuilding Jerusalem’s wall were taunted by the wisecrack that even a fox jumping on their wall would knock it over (Neh 4:3).<\/p>\nThe Egyptian fox (Vulpes niloticus)<\/em> is found in the central and southern parts of the Holy Land. It is somewhat smaller than the common red fox. Its back is rust colored and its belly light. The Syrian fox (Vulpes flavescens)<\/em> that lives in the northern part of the Holy Land is shiny gold in color.<\/p>\nSome OT references such as Psalm 63:10 and Lamentations 5:18 are translated “fox” in the kjv<\/span> but probably refer to jackals. Jackals, not foxes, hunt in packs and tend to act as scavengers.<\/p>\nFrog<\/p>\nAmphibian (genus Rana<\/em>), living part of its life in the water and part on land.<\/p>\nFrogs and toads are covered with soft, hairless skin and lack a tail in the adult stage. The hind legs are much longer and more powerfully developed than the forelegs so that the animals are able to jump large distances. It has been suggested that the frog referred to in Scripture is an edible one, Rana ridibunda,<\/em> one of the aquatic frogs found in Egypt and in the stagnant waters of the Holy Land.<\/p>\nThe female frog lays her eggs in the water; after about a week the eggs hatch into tadpoles. Gradually through metamorphosis the tail is lost and limbs are acquired. Frogs must maintain a moist skin since they take oxygen through the skin as well as through their lungs; thus they must always remain close to water. They feed on insects and worms.<\/p>\nFrogs are found throughout the Palestinian lowlands, where their croaking is heard in the spring and on summer evenings. The Israelites seem to have associated frogs primarily with sliminess and foulness. They fell into the category of creeping or swarming creatures, which in general were ritually unclean (Lv 11:29-31). Since the frog was not specifically listed, however, rabbis did not consider it one of the animals that defiled human beings through contact.<\/p>\nIn Revelation 16:13 certain foul spirits are said to look like frogs. The ancient Egyptians made the frog a symbol of life and birth and an image of Heqet, the patron goddess of birth. She is depicted with a frog’s head giving life to the newborn. Thus that deity was discredited when the power of God afflicted Egypt in the second of the ten plagues on the Egyptians with the very animal that was her symbol (Ex 8:1-14; Pss 78:45; 105:30). The frog in question may have been the spotted frog of Egypt (Rana punctata,<\/em> or Rana ridibunda).<\/em><\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Plagues upon Egypt.<\/p>\nGazelle<\/p>\nSmall, dainty, graceful antelope with hollow recurved horns on both sexes. Two varieties exist in the Holy Land, the dorcas gazelle (Gazella dorcas),<\/em> which is pale fawn in color and up to 22 inches (56 centimeters) tall, and the Arabian gazelle (Gazella arabica),<\/em> which is a dark smoky color and up to 25 inches (63.5 centimeters) tall.<\/p>\nGazelles are still quite common throughout the desert and steppe areas of the Holy Land, especially in the Negev Desert. Herds usually consist of from 5 to 10 animals, but some varieties assemble in large migratory herds in the fall to relocate to lower elevations and new feeding grounds. Gazelles are herbivorous (plant eating). They are very shy and post guards to warn the herd of approaching danger.<\/p>\nIn biblical times the gazelle was probably the game animal most hunted by the Jews (Prv 6:5; Is 13:14). Pharaoh Tutankhamen hunted gazelles and ostriches. The gazelle is said to have graced Solomon’s table (1 Kgs 4:23). Gazelles were not easy to catch because of their great speed (2 Sm 2:18; 1 Chr 12:8; Prv 6:5); they surpass the deer in swiftness. They were trapped in various ways—encircled with nets, driven into enclosures with pitfalls, or forced into narrow valleys and shot with arrows. The Bedouin hunt gazelle with falcons and dogs; the falcon annoys the gazelle, striking it on the head and injuring it so that the dogs can overtake it.<\/p>\nThe gazelle is referred to in Song of Songs 2:9, 17; 4:5; 7:3; 8:14, where it is an image of feminine beauty.<\/p>\nGecko<\/p>\nReptile of the family Gekkonidae, referred to in Leviticus 11:30. In Jewish food law it was a ritually unclean lizard. There are seven species of geckos in the Holy Land (including Hemidactylus turcicus<\/em> and Ptyodactylus hasselquistii,<\/em> all insectivorous—insect eating). The gecko makes a low mourning sound by vibrating its tongue rapidly against the roof of its mouth. In legend the gecko was said to cause leprosy by crawling across a person’s body.<\/p>\nAnother name for the gecko is the wall lizard, so named because it can walk upside down on ceilings with the aid of the suction discs on its toes—but it often plops down into the middle of the home. Since it was considered unclean, such an intrusion would have been a disgusting nuisance to Jewish households (Lv 11:31-38).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Lizard (below).<\/p>\nGnat<\/p>\nAny very small fly, in common and biblical usage. According to the nlt<\/span>, the third plague in Egypt before the exodus consisted of gnats (Ex 8:16-18; Ps 105:31). The kjv<\/span> translates the Hebrew word there as “lice,” but the breeding pattern described in Exodus 8—insects rising from the dust—seems to fit gnats better than lice. Since “gnat” is a general term, the small flies of that plague may have included several small species such as mosquitos, harvester gnats, midges, or sand flies.<\/p>\nThe sand fly inflicts a far more painful bite than the mosquito. Further, it does not betray itself by a buzzing noise in flight and is so small that it penetrates most mosquito netting.<\/p>\nGnats were drawn to wine while it was fermenting. The Pharisees in particular would strain their wine to avoid consuming unclean insects (Mt 23:24).<\/p>\nGoat<\/p>\nCloven-hooved mammals (genus Capra<\/em>) with large eyes and big, floppy ears that constantly twitch. Both males and females have backward arching horns. The Palestinian goat is a ruminant (cud-chewing animal) of lighter build than the sheep.<\/p>\nThe goat was probably the earliest ruminant to be domesticated. Its wild ancestor seems to have been the Gezoar goat (Capra aegagrus).<\/em> Wild goats are believed to have been domesticated very early in Palestine. The goat of Bible times was probably the Syrian or Mamber variety (Capra hircus mambrica).<\/em> Domesticated goats may have as many as four kids in a litter, whereas wild goats bear only one or two.<\/p>\nThe Palestinian goat was commonly black. Speckled and spotted goats were a rarity, and for that reason Jacob’s request for those goats in Genesis 30:32 appeared very modest. There may also have been red goats (cf. 1 Sm 16:12; 19:13, where goat’s hair was used to imitate David’s hair, which was “ruddy” or auburn).<\/p>\nAlmost every part of the goat was used by the Israelites. The whole goat was used for sacrifice. Its flesh served as meat (Lv 7:23; Dt 14:4), and it was the principal source of milk (Prv 27:27). Goats were sheared in the late spring, and the goat hair was used for weaving tent cloth and for various domestic purposes (Ex 36:14; 1 Sm 19:13, 16). The tabernacle at Mt Sinai was made of goat’s hair blankets (Ex 26:7).<\/p>\nAdult male goats were generally not eaten because of their strong flavor and toughness and also because they were necessary to insure the flock’s increase. Young kids, however, were usually the chief meat for a feast and were offered to visitors as a symbol of hospitality. Goat milk is richer than the milk of cows and sheep and evidently had broader uses. A good goat gives three quarts of milk a day, from which a rich butter and buttermilk can be made. The average Hebrew family could have lived almost entirely on a single goat’s production.<\/p>\nGoatskin was tanned as leather, and the whole hide was turned into a skin bottle by sewing shut leg and neck apertures (Gn 21:14; Jos 9:4). Goatskin had many uses, including the construction of Hebrew musical instruments. The nebal, a large harp, was made with goatskin for its base sound. Drums had goatskin coverings.<\/p>\nGoats were herded with sheep in biblical times, but each group remained separate following its own bell-laden leader. Jesus was evidently referring to their common herding in his description of the Last Judgment (Mt 25:31-46).<\/p>\nBecause of their wool, sheep are valued more than goats. However, where pasture and water are scarce and thorny shrubs dominate over grass, sheep are difficult to keep and goats become important. They can live under conditions that suit neither cows nor sheep, producing large quantities of milk. The goat does not supply fat as the sheep does, and since its hair is coarse its wool is rather scarce. Goat-hair cloth called cilicium was used to make tents.<\/p>\nGoats have voracious appetites. They also were responsible for much damage done to the land of Palestine, breaking down terraces, destroying forests, and bringing about soil erosion by eating off all cover.<\/p>\nThe goat was recognized as a form of wealth, subject to the law of firstlings (Nm 18:17). It had to be eight days old before it could be offered as a sacrifice. A year-old male goat was one of the animals offered at the Passover (28:22), and two goats were offered on the Day of Atonement (Lv 16:7-10). The goat was also used for other specific sacrifices.<\/p>\nThe ibex, a type of wild goat (Capra ibex nubiana),<\/em> still lives in small numbers on the cliffs close to the Dead Sea. That it was known in ancient times is evident from rock carvings. It is distinguished from the true wild goat by having a more compact rump and horns that are slender and curved back. Its slender legs and sharp cloven hooves enable it to cling to narrow rock ledges, to jump between them, and to climb steep cliffs.<\/p>\nUsually the ibex is found in rugged mountain country among rocky crags and meadows just below the snow line (Ps 104:18). In Job 39:1 they are referred to as “mountain goats.” They frequently gather in herds of 5 to 20. They graze and browse, being active in the afternoon and sometimes feeding through the night. The large horn of the ibex was at one period made into the shofar that was blown in the second Jerusalem temple to announce the new year and the jubilee year.<\/p>\nThe goat was often used in a figurative and symbolic sense by the writers of the Bible: in Song of Songs 4:1 and 6:5 for the bride’s black hair; in Matthew 25:31-46 for the wicked; and in Ezekiel 34:17 and Daniel 8:5-8 for various human leaders.<\/p>\nGrasshopper<\/p>\nLarge insects of the Orthoptera order. They have chewing or biting mouth parts and two pairs of wings, the front pair of which is narrow and somewhat thickened and the hind pair membranous and used for flying. When not in use the flight wings are folded beneath the protective front wings like a fan against the body. By rubbing their wings together, male grasshoppers produce sounds that both males and females can detect. Grasshoppers pass through a partial metamorphosis; the egg hatches into a juvenile nymph that looks like an adult except for its smaller size and undeveloped wings. After several months the nymph becomes a winged adult.<\/p>\nThe terms “grasshopper” and “locust” are often used interchangeably. Actually the locust is a kind of grasshopper. Also confusing is the fact that other insects such as cicadas are sometimes called locusts. The difference between grasshoppers and locusts depends more on behavior than appearance. Grasshoppers are individual insects that lead solitary lives and do not migrate. The same insects when migrating in a swarm are called migratory grasshoppers or locusts. Elimination of their food supply by drought, flood, or fire may lead to migration. Climatic factors such as a warm dry winter also stimulate migrations.<\/p>\nGrasshoppers and locusts have been a staple food in the Middle East and also among the Indians of the American Southwest. To the Israelites the grasshopper was considered ritually clean and could be eaten (Lv 11:22).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Locust (below).<\/p>\nHare<\/p>\nAnimal of the genus and species Lepus europaeus judaeus, Lepus capensis,<\/em> and Lepus arabicus.<\/em> It is found in open country, often near or on cultivated lands, and in woods, usually deciduous rather than evergreen. It is an herbivorous rodent and is different from the rabbit, which is not found in Palestine. Although it is not a true ruminant according to modern classification (because it does not have a four-chambered stomach), the hare does rechew its food. It has a process of partial regurgitation of material too hard for the cells in the stomach to absorb initially; thus, the hare actually chews food previously swallowed.<\/p>\nNear Eastern hares have very long ears and large hind feet; their feet are well furred. They are similar to American jackrabbits, which are true hares. Hares do not dig or occupy burrows the way rabbits do. Hares are mainly nocturnal and spend their inactive hours hiding in vegetation. They eat grasses and herbaceous matter as well as twigs and young bark of woody plants. Hares breed with great rapidity—the young attaining sexual maturity at six months after birth.<\/p>\nThe hare was ceremonially unclean (Lv 11:6; Dt 14:7), evidently because although it appeared to chew its cud, it did not have cloven hooves. Consumption of hares has also been forbidden among the Arabs, Chinese, and Lapps, but the hare was widely hunted by other people in ancient and modern times. Its great speed, prolific breeding, timidity, and caution have saved it from extermination by its many enemies.<\/p>\nHippopotamus<\/p>\nLarge beast of problematic interpretation. Some early interpreters thought it referred to the elephant, others to the wild ox, the mammoth, or any large animal. It was called “behemoth” by the kjv<\/span> translators. Today it is generally agreed that the reference is to the hippopotamus (Hippopotamus amphibius),<\/em> a large, thick-skinned, amphibious mammal, an ungulate (having hooflike toenails) with a large head, a bulky, hairless body, and short legs.<\/p>\nThe description in Job 40:15-24 fits closely the modern hippopotamus (see nlt<\/span>), except for the depiction of the tail. At present the hippopotamus is found only in the rivers of Africa, but there is fossil evidence that it has existed in the Holy Land, perhaps in the swamps of northern Galilee and the Jordan Valley.<\/p>\nThe hippopotamus has highly developed sense organs, placed in such a way that it can see, hear, and smell almost without being seen; its eyes, ears, and nostrils can reach above water while the rest of the animal lies submerged. It has a large mouth, large tusks, and a short, heavy throat. The strong legs are so short that the belly almost reaches the ground when the animal is on the land. The hippopotamus lives on plants and herbs growing in rivers, but if food is scarce there, it forages on land, usually at night. In spite of its heavy body it is surprisingly agile on land.<\/p>\nHorse<\/p>\nPrzewalski’s horse (Equus przewalskii,<\/em> an eastern race that roamed about Mongolia until modern firearms destroyed most of them after World War I) and the tarpan (a western race of southern Russia that became extinct in the Ukraine in 1851). The domesticated horse (Equus caballus)<\/em> seems to have been derived from the tarpan. The original site of domestication is believed to have been Turkestan, a region north of Afghanistan and India, now in Russia. The horse differs from the donkey in that it has shorter ears, a longer mane with a forelock, a long hairy tail, and a soft, sensitive muzzle.<\/p>\nHorses were used in war not only for riding but also for pulling the heavy, springless war chariots. Two kinds of horses were needed for these different purposes, and the Hebrews distinguished between chariot horses and cavalry horses.<\/p>\n\nThe Lord warned the early Israelites against unnecessarily amassing military strength in the form of horses and thereby following the oppressive tactics of the powerful Egyptians (Dt 17:14-16), but the demands of war caused both David and Solomon to import horses from Egypt into their kingdoms and to breed them. Solomon greatly increased the number of horses in the Jewish kingdom and maintained large stables at various cities (1 Kgs 10:26) such as the regional defense centers of Megiddo, Hazor, and Gezer (1 Kgs 9:15-19). Ahab’s horses are mentioned in 1 Kings 18:5, and records of Shalmaneser III state that Ahab furnished 2,000 chariots to a coalition against Assyria.<\/p>\nIn early Israel, the horse was opposed as a symbol of pagan luxury and of dependence on physical power for defense (Dt 17:16; 1 Sm 8:11; Ps 20:7; Is 31:1). Horse trading, mentioned as early as Genesis 47:17, was carried on by Solomon between Egypt and the Syro-Hittite principalities (1 Kgs 10:28-29). Most biblical references to horses refer to their use in war, but horses were also used for transportation. Riding seems to have been less popular than the use of chariots. Cavalry units were not introduced until the 12th century BC<\/span> by the Medes. Joseph rode in Pharaoh’s second horse-drawn chariot (Gn 41:43), and Absalom made a display by riding a horse-drawn chariot (2 Sm 15:1). Naaman traveled by horse and chariot (2 Kgs 5:9). Later, horses were so common in Jerusalem that the royal palace had a special horse gate (2 Chr 23:15), and a gate of the city itself was known as the Horse Gate (Neh 3:28; Jer 31:40). Mordecai rode a royal horse of King Xerxes as a sign of honor (Est 6:8-11). Horses are often spoken of figuratively (Ps 32:9; “mare,” Sg 1:9; “stallions,” Jer 5:8; 12:5), especially in the context of judgment (Hb 3:8; Zec 1:8; 6:1-8; Rv 6:2-8; 9:17; 19:11-16).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Warfare; Travel.<\/p>\nHyena<\/p>\nStocky carnivore (Hyaena hyaena)<\/em> with coarse hair, an erect mane, and long hairs along the neck and back. Hyenas live in holes among rocks and banks. They are mainly nocturnal but are ordinarily neither noisy nor aggressive. Their cry, however, is a disagreeable, unearthly sound. Hyenas usually feed on carrion, crushing bones with their powerful jaws. If the carrion supply is inadequate, they will kill sheep, goats, or other small animals. When threatened, hyenas growl and erect their mane, but they rarely fight. They are massively built with forelegs longer than the hind legs.<\/p>\nKnown as scavengers in Africa, hyenas eat domestic refuse in the villages. In Palestine the striped hyena is a common predator, preferring rocky territory and even rock tombs. Since hyenas were notorious for raiding the graves of the dead, all Israelites who could afford it arranged for burial in tombs protected by massive stone doors. Absalom, King David’s son who was killed by Joab in the wild, was buried under a huge pile of stones to protect his corpse from molestation by hyenas (2 Sm 18:17).<\/p>\nJackal<\/p>\nCarnivore (Canis aureus)<\/em> smaller than the true wolf and with a shorter tail. It is similar to the fox but has a broader head, shorter ears, and longer legs. The fox is solitary; the jackal tends to be gregarious. Its tail can be drooping or erect, compared with the long horizontal tail of the fox. Jackals usually prowl at night, either singly, in pairs, or in packs through open savannah country. They eat small mammals, poultry, fruit, vegetables, and carrion. They spend their days in thickets and clumps of vegetation. Often they obtain scraps from kills by larger carnivores. Jackals can run at speeds of about 33 miles (53 kilometers) per hour.<\/p>\nThe jackal can reach a height of about 20 inches (51 centimeters), roughly the size of a German shepherd dog. Its back is pale yellow with dark, almost black, flanks. Its lips are black and its ears white on the inside. The howl of the jackal sounds like the crying of a child or the heartrending wail of the bereaved (Mi 1:8; cf. Jb 30:29). To other jackals the howl is merely an invitation calling the pack together for its nocturnal hunting.<\/p>\nOT references are chiefly to jackals prowling around ruined cities and wilderness areas (Neh 2:13; Ps 44:19; Is 13:22; 34:13; 35:7; Jer 9:11; 14:6; 49:33; 51:37; Lam 4:3; 5:18; Mal 1:3). Many such references are translated “dragon” in the kjv<\/span>, but “jackal” is more appropriate.<\/p>\nLeech<\/p>\nSegmented worm (class Hirundinea) up to five inches (12.7 centimeters) long with a flat body equipped with suction pads at each end. The mouth, located at the bottom of the front suction pad, has three teeth that the leech uses to pierce the skin of its host. The leech feeds on blood, and its glands secrete an anticoagulant to prevent the blood from clotting. The ordinary medicinal leech (Hirudo medicinalis) is abundant in springs and ponds from the Negev Desert to Galilee. It adheres to the bodies of human beings and animals that submerge themselves in water, injects its anticoagulant, and sucks their blood.<\/p>\nThe reference in Proverbs 30:15 is uncertain (see nlt<\/span>) but may be to the parasitic and greedy nature of the horse leech (genus Haemopis<\/em>). The small horse leech enters its host’s mouth and nostrils from water while the animal is drinking. A leech weighing one-half ounce (14.2 grams) has been known to gorge itself with two and a half ounces (71 grams) of concentrated blood and then to exist for 15 months with no more to eat.<\/p>\nLeopard<\/p>\nCalled Panthera pardus tulliana,<\/em> it is the most widespread of all the large wildcats. In rocky areas it lives in caves, but in forested regions it lives in thick vegetation. In OT times many lived in the vicinity of Mt Hermon (Sg 4:8).<\/p>\nThe leopard is somewhat smaller than the tiger, measuring up to 5 feet (1.5 meters) in length with a tail of about 30 inches (.8 meter). Its body is better proportioned than that of the tiger. The leopard takes its victim by surprise from a silent ambush, often concealing itself near villages or watering places and waiting for its prey, remaining in one spot for long spans of time. The leopard is swift on the ground (Hb 1:8), agile in trees, and very graceful in its movements. Its color is yellowish speckled with black spots (Jer 13:23). Daniel and John saw visions in which leopards were symbols of world powers (Dn 7:6; Rv 13:2).<\/p>\nThe leopard is a wary and cunning animal, formidable and ferocious (Jer 5:6; Hos 13:7; cf. Is 11:6). The leopard is dangerous not only to domestic animals but also to humans. With its natural camouflage it can hide on the forest floor, blending into the changing light and shadows. The Israelites were terrified of the leopard because it constantly ravaged their sheep and goats. Several biblical place names suggest that they were known for the leopards in their vicinity: Nimrah, Beth-nimrah, and Nimrim, a district northeast of the Dead Sea. It has survived in the Holy Land into the present century; a few leopards still exist in remote areas near Mt Tabor and Mt Carmel.<\/p>\nLeviathan<\/p>\nSea monster mentioned several times in the Bible (Pss 74:14; 104:26; Is 27:1, nlt<\/span>). It may refer to any of the larger marine animals such as large jellyfish, whales, or sharks, or to a large reptile like the crocodile. Some scholars think “Leviathan” may refer to animals now extinct, such as ichthyosaurs and plesiosaurs (marine reptiles similar to dinosaurs). The scriptural term might also refer to certain dinosaurs that spent part of their lives half-submerged in shallow lakes and oceans. Other scholars believe that most of the references are to the crocodile.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Crocodile (above).<\/p>\nLion<\/p>\nLarge, tawny-colored carnivore (Panthera leo)<\/em> that preys chiefly on hoofed mammals and charges by a series of leaps and bounds. Within historic times the lion ranged in Africa, Europe, and the Holy Land. In ancient times the territories of the African and Persian lions met in the Middle East. The lion of the Holy Land was the Asiatic or Persian lion (Panthera leo persica).<\/em><\/p>\nThe males have heavy manes that stop at the shoulders but cover much of the chest. The Persian lion cannot climb and is mainly nocturnal, returning to its lair or a thicket by day (Jer 4:7; 25:38; Na 2:11-12). This lion is about 5 feet (1.5 meters) long with a tasseled tail 30 inches (.8 meter) or so long; its shoulders may reach a height of 35 inches (.9 meter). It is one of the smallest of the lion breeds.<\/p>\nLions are usually found in pairs, though sometimes in larger numbers. A small group is known as a pride. They generally prefer open country but in Palestine evidently prowled the subtropical vegetation of the Jordan River valley. Lions, which usually hunt at dusk, kill smaller animals by a blow of the paw, larger ones by a bite in the throat. A lion does not remain in the same place for more than a few days. The animal is in its prime at about seven years of age, when it weighs from 400 to 600 pounds (181.6 to 272.4 kilograms).<\/p>\nThe lion does not characteristically attack humans, though like other great cats it may become a man-eater (1 Kgs 13:24-28; 20:36; 2 Kgs 17:25-26; Ps 57:4; Dn 6:7-27). Ordinarily, it attacks only out of great hunger or in self-defense. A very young lion that attacks humans can become dangerous if it develops a taste for human flesh. A very old lion, expelled from the pride because it can no longer keep up in the pursuit of antelope or gazelles, may choose humans as a relatively slow-moving prey.<\/p>\nA lion generally roars only on a full stomach—that is, after it has consumed its prey (Ps 22:13; Ez 22:25; Am 3:4). Nevertheless, its roaring arouses fear (Am 3:8; 1 Pt 5:8). The lion is a bold (2 Sm 17:10; Prv 28:1), destructive animal (Ps 7:2; Jer 2:30; Hos 5:14; Mi 5:8), and the enemy of flocks (Am 3:12).<\/p>\nLions were common in biblical times in all parts of the Holy Land. Hebrew has at least seven words for lion and young lion. The lion is referred to about 130 times in the OT—more than any other wild animal. Lions were evidently much less common in NT times. After gradually declining, they became extinct in Palestine shortly after AD<\/span> 1300. The lion was present in Mesopotamia, however, until the end of the 19th century.<\/p>\nLions played an important part in the political and religious symbolism of the Near East (1 Kgs 10:19-20). In Assyria and Babylonia the lion was regarded as a royal beast (Dn 7:4). Oriental monarchs maintained artificial lion pits as places of execution (Ez 19:1-9; Dn 6:7-16). Animals for these were captured in camouflaged nets or pits. To the Jews, the lion was the mightiest of beasts (Prv 30:29-31). Thus, it symbolized leadership (Gn 49:9-10; Nm 24:9) and hence eventually became a title for Christ (Rv 5:5). It was also the ensign of Judah’s tribe and was used by King Solomon in the decoration of his house and the temple.<\/p>\nLizard<\/p>\nReptiles of the suborder Lacertilia. Their skin is covered with scales. The lizard is a useful creature because it captures harmful insects and worms. Like other reptiles, it lays eggs with shells softer than those of a bird and with no clear division between the yolk and the white. Lizards are “cold-blooded” organisms without a temperature-maintenance mechanism; hence, they become inactive in cold weather.<\/p>\nLizards can survive in barren parched countryside. In the Near East they are encountered in great numbers in the Arabian Desert, the Sinai Peninsula, and the Judean wilderness. There may be as many as 44 different species of lizards in the Holy Land.<\/p>\nThe Dabb lizard (genus Uromastyx<\/em>), which attains a length of about 24 inches (61 centimeters), is found in the Negev Desert. It is omnivorous, an unusual trait since most lizards are insectivorous. It has a hard, rough skin, green with brown spots; a short, rounded head; and a powerful tail encircled with a row of strong spines that it uses as a weapon of defense.<\/p>\nLizards are listed as ceremonially unclean in Jewish law (Lv 11:29-31). The fact that lizards crawl on their bellies made them unclean. Contact with a lizard’s carcass defiled a law-abiding Jew (Lv 11:32-36). The nlt<\/span> translates the “lizards” of Leviticus 11 as “great lizard,” “gecko,” “monitor lizard,” “sand lizard,” and “chameleon.” The monitor lizard is a large lizard that lives in the deserts of southern Palestine, Sinai, and Egypt. It is up to 55 inches (1.4 meters) long with a long snout and sharp teeth. Other translators and commentators render the original Hebrew in a wide variety of ways, including “tortoise,” “ferret,” “lizard,” “snail,” “mole,” and even “water hen.” The fact that most of the original Hebrew words occur only once in Scripture makes it very difficult to be certain about their appropriate translation.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Gecko (above).<\/p>\nLocust<\/p>\nAn insect of the family Acridiidae.<\/em> It is referred to by at least 12 different names in Scripture. The various Hebrew words may refer to different stages of its development from larva to adult or to the type of damage that it causes. Locusts are characterized by swarming and mass migration. In modern times they have caused extensive and disastrous destruction to vegetation. Grasshoppers do not swarm or migrate en masse, differentiating them from the true locusts.<\/p>\nThe OT mentions several different species of locusts. Leviticus 11:22 seems to refer to the slant-faced (bald) locust and also to the katydid, or long-horned grasshopper. The reference in Deuteronomy 28:42 may be to the mole cricket. In Joel 1:4 and 2:25 and in Nahum 3:16-17, successive stages of the insect’s development are described. The cutting locust (kjv<\/span> “palmerworm”) of Joel is probably the first instar (stage of development), the swarming locusts (kjv<\/span> “locust”) are middle stages, and the hopping locusts (kjv<\/span> “cankerworm”) later instars but not yet fully matured insects. In the adult stage, called destroying locusts (kjv<\/span> “caterpillar”), the color of the locust is reddish brown, which turns to yellow with a brownish network on the wings.<\/p>\nOnly three of the hundreds of varieties of locusts found in Bible lands are capable of multiplying into great swarms, and only the desert locust (Schistocerca gergaria)<\/em> can be considered widespread in all the Bible lands. The desert locust is native to the Sudan (Africa). It is a little over two inches (5 centimeters) long and has a wingspread of some five inches (12.7 centimeters). It shows two phases, a solitary phase and a gregarious phase, with a possible third phase known as transiens. There are differences in the immature and adult forms of the phases in color and physiology.<\/p>\nThe quantity and distribution of rains are important factors in the extent of swarming. Moist soil is needed for depositing the eggs and permitting them to develop. Each female deposits from one to six egg pods, containing 28 to 146 eggs each. The larvae emerge in 15 to 43 days.<\/p>\nIn the gregarious phase (from the second stage of metamorphosis onward), the locust is driven by a strong wandering instinct. Masses of them form a random procession of overflowing locust bodies that ignore any obstruction. They swarm over everything (Jl 2:4-9). The only regulator of their activities is temperature; they are immobilized by high or low temperatures. Taking to wing they may move 1,200 miles (1,930.8 kilometers) from their native home. They fly in compact formations large enough to blot out the light of the sun. Their movement seems to be controlled by hormones, but the direction is influenced by the wind. The swarms consume almost every plant in their path, sparing only the carob, sycamore, castor tree, and oleander bush.<\/p>\nA locust plague was one of the most severe evils to come upon the ancient world (Dt 28:38). Joel 2:1-11 describes a locust plague in graphic terms, using it as a symbol of God’s destroying judgment. Special days of prayer, fasting, and trumpet blowing were prescribed to remove locust plagues (1 Kgs 8:37-38; 2 Chr 6:28-29; Jl 2:12-17). Locusts symbolized powerful and merciless enemies that completely destroyed the earnings of human toil (Jgs 6:5; Is 33:4; Jer 46:23; 51:27; Na 3:15).<\/p>\nBedouins eat locusts raw, roasted, or boiled, preserving them by drying and threading. They are also crushed and ground, and the grist used in cooking or eaten with bread, sometimes mixed with honey and dates. Such was the diet of John the Baptist (Mk 1:6). The Greeks ground locusts in stone mortars to make flour of them.<\/p>\nThe ancients considered the two large hind legs, or jumping legs, as separate limbs and had a special name for them. Hence locusts were described as having four legs, a reference to the four smaller walking legs. “Going on all fours” thus referred to creeping or walking as opposed to jumping and did not mean that the unclean insects had only four legs in all. Because of its two hind jumping legs, the locust was exempted from the prohibition against unclean insects (Lv 11:20-23).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Plagues upon Egypt.<\/p>\nMole<\/p>\nRodent (Spalax ehrenbergi)<\/em> from six to nine inches (15 to 23 centimeters) long, which burrows in any area where the soil is suitable for digging; it should be called a mole rat. Common in the Holy Land, large numbers are found in the vicinity of Jerusalem. Isaiah 2:20 refers to the mole, as does Leviticus 11:29-30 (nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nThe mole rat has no tail and is molelike in appearance, but neither true moles nor shrews have ever been found in the Holy Land. The mole rat’s teeth are strong and protruding like those of a squirrel. The neck is short and thick with a plump body shaped like a sausage. The short legs have broad paws with claws adapted for burrowing. The fur is soft, thick, and ashen gray. Its ears and almost sightless eyes, which are no larger than poppyseeds, are hidden in the fur. Folklore taught that touching a mole rat would result in blindness.<\/p>\nIn the wet winter season the mole rat builds breeding mounds resembling those of pocket gophers. It builds less complex resting mounds in the summer, although both have rather elaborate tunnel systems. The mole rat feeds on roots, bulbs, tubers, and various other subterranean plant parts, often doing extensive damage to agriculture.<\/p>\nMoth<\/p>\nInsect of the genus Tineola<\/em> that lays its eggs on wool or furs, its larvae feeding on those materials. The destructive qualities of moths are referred to in several biblical passages (Jb 13:28; Ps 39:11; Is 50:9; Hos 5:12; Mt 6:19-20; Lk 12:33; Jas 5:2). In Isaiah 51:8 “worm” (nlt<\/span>) refers specifically to the larva of the clothes moth. The moth symbolizes disintegration, decay, and weakening. It is only the larvae that do the damage. The adult is quite harmless and feeds mainly on the nectar of flowers. It is easily crushed (Jb 4:19). The clothes moth reproduces in May or June. It enters human dwellings in the evening. A week after the eggs are laid the larvae appear and immediately begin their work of destruction, eating anything within reach made of animal fibers.<\/p>\nThe moth’s destructive activity is done in secret without any sound and without any dramatic appearance, such as a swarm that blots out the sun. In an age when wealth was counted more in possessions than in money, and when among those possessions wool clothing was highly valued, moths could literally cause economic disaster; hence the words of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 6:19-20).<\/p>\nThere are hundreds of species of moths other than the clothes moth in the Holy Land; they are harmless to leaves, flowers, fruit, trees, and seeds. As with the clothes moth, the larvae inflict the damage.<\/p>\nMouse<\/p>\nRodent of the family Muridae, especially genus Mus.<\/em> The mouse was regarded as unclean because, being short legged, it was considered one of the creeping creatures (Lv 11:29). Mice known as commensals live in dwellings and tend to have longer tails and to be darker in color than wild mice, which are active chiefly at night. Mice are good climbers and even good swimmers. Wild mice eat many kinds of vegetation, including seeds, fleshy roots, leaves, and stems. At times they store food.<\/p>\nThe Hebrew word for “mouse” (Lv 11:29; 1 Sm 6:4-5; Is 66:17) is probably a general term for various rats and mice. The root meaning of the Hebrew word “mouse” is “destruction of corn,” a reference to the damage mice do to field crops. At least 23 varieties of mouselike rodents are known in the Holy Land. They cause food spoilage, damage household articles, and transport the host fleas that spread typhus, spotted fever, and bubonic plague. Plague bacteria may have caused the tumors or swellings among the Philistines (1 Sm 6:5). Isaiah 66:17 refers to a pre-exilic Canaanite cultic practice in which mice were eaten; the reference may actually be to the hamster. A number of rodents are eaten by Arabs of the Near East; the gerbil is considered a special delicacy. See<\/em> Mole (above).<\/p>\nMule<\/p>\nHybrid offspring of a male ass and a female horse (Equus asinus mulus),<\/em> ordinarily sterile. The offspring of a female donkey and a stallion (male horse) is known as a hinny and is of little value because of its inferior size.<\/p>\nBecause crossbreeding was forbidden in the law (Lv 19:19), the Israelites procured mules from the Gentiles, perhaps from the Phoenicians, since Tyre (a Phoenician seaport in what is now southern Lebanon) imported horses and mules (Ez 27:14). Mules did not appear in Israel until David’s reign (2 Sm 13:29), possibly because of the rarity of horses among the Hebrews. Mules were used chiefly by members of the royal court and by other nobles. King David rode on a mule, and Solomon rode to his inaugaration on King David’s mule (1 Kgs 1:33). Absalom met his death riding on a mule (2 Sm 18:9). Mules were less common than horses, camels, and asses in the postexilic community (Ezr 2:66). In antiquity Asia Minor was especially noted for breeding fine mules.<\/p>\nMules have long enjoyed a reputation for obstinacy, but that trait is not mentioned in the Bible. The mule is prized for riding and for carrying heavy burdens, especially in warm mountainous regions. They are sure-footed and thrive best in hot, dry climates. The mule has the frugality, endurance, and steady gait of an ass along with the size, strength, swiftness, and courage of a horse. Mules are almost never sick. They live longer than horses. They can carry a load of up to 300 pounds (136 kilograms) as far as 30 miles (48.3 kilometers) a day.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Travel.<\/p>\nPig<\/p>\nMost properly, newborn swine. “Swine” is technically the better name for the species, but it is rarely used in common speech today. The domestic pigs of the Middle East derived from the wild pig (Sus scrofa).<\/em> The pig is the most prolific and abundant supplier of meat and fat for food. A thick layer of fat just under the skin is especially pronounced in domestic breeds. Pigs cannot be driven, so they are of value only to the settled farmer. The Hebrews were originally a nomadic people; therefore, they had little use for an animal closely associated with settled life. An Egyptian prince of about 1500 BC<\/span>, however, is recorded as owning a herd of 1,500 swine.<\/p>\nThe pig is clumsily built, yet lively and able to move with agility and speed. The most conspicuous characteristic of the pig is a truncated, mobile snout terminating in a disc-shaped surface on which the nostrils are located. Most pigs have large tusks in both jaws which grow continuously in life. The tusks of the upper jaw are unique in that they curve upward instead of pointing downward as in most animals. The excrement of a pig has an almost unbearable odor, which clings not only to the pig itself but also to swineherds, who can be identified a long way off.<\/p>\nPigs were never raised in the Holy Land by Jews. The great herd into which Jesus drove the unclean spirits was encountered in the land of the Gadarenes, a non-Jewish area east of the Jordan. The Gadarene demons took refuge in a herd of pigs feeding on a bluff overlooking the Sea of Galilee (Mt 8:28-32).<\/p>\nWild pigs were found in the Holy Land as in many countries today. Psalm 80:13 refers to the destructiveness of a wild boar (the male, or hog) attacking growing crops. A party of wild boars can destroy an entire vineyard or a field of crops in a single night. They devour, trample, and ravage everything within reach.<\/p>\nBoar hunts were common in ancient Mesopotamia. Wild boars do not attack unless molested, but they are dangerous when aroused. They travel in bands of from 6 to 50 and are most active in the evening and early morning hours. The body is covered with stiff bristles and usually some finer hair, but the body covering is often quite scanty. Wild pigs are mainly vegetarian, feeding on roots, nuts, grains, and plant stems. Wild boars were particularly abundant in the mountainous regions of Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon, in the Jordan River valley, and in wooded sections such as Mt Tabor.<\/p>\nStrict Jews would not even mention swine by name but would always substitute the term “the abomination.” Israelites considered themselves polluted if they were even touched by a swine’s bristle. To the Jews, the pig symbolized filth and ugliness. Pigs will eat fecal material, vermin, rodents, carrion, and the like (2 Pt 2:22). Proverbs 11:22 refers to the incongruity of a golden ring in the nose of an animal showing such characteristics. A similar metaphor occurs in Jesus’ statement about casting pearls before swine (Mt 7:6). The prodigal son’s degeneration was shown by his being forced in his poverty to feed pigs and eat their food (Lk 15:15-16).<\/p>\nEating the flesh of pigs was forbidden to the Jews (Lv 11:7; Dt 14:8). The Canaanites in the Holy Land killed and ate pigs freely. In intertestamental times Antiochus IV (Epiphanes), a Syrian king whose territories included Israel, used the pig to “Hellenize” the Jews. He first tested their loyalty to the Jewish faith by requiring the consumption of pork, considered a delicacy by the Greeks (2 Macc 6:18). The act of desecration that drove the Jews to rebellion, however, was the sprinkling of pig blood on the temple altar in a sacrifice to Zeus (1 Macc 1:47).<\/p>\nPigs were frequently used in pagan worship (Is 65:4; 66:3, 17), which may account for their being forbidden to the Jews as food. Evidence in the Holy Land shows that pigs were sacrificed long before Hellenistic times. Pig bones were found in a grotto below the rock-cut place of sacrifice at Gezer. A similar underground chamber with vessels containing piglet bones at Tirzah dates to the middle Bronze Age (about 2000 BC<\/span>).<\/p>\nAlabaster fragments of a statuette of a pig ready to be sacrificed have been unearthed. Swine were sacrificed to Aphrodite (Venus) in Greece and Asia Minor. In addition, pigs were sacrificed in connection with oaths and treaties; in the Iliad,<\/em> Agamemnon sacrificed a boar to Zeus and Helios. So it is not surprising that among the Jews the pig became a symbol of filthiness and paganism.<\/p>\nIt is possible that eating pork was forbidden primarily because the pig may carry many worm parasites such as trichina, though that is also true of some “clean” animals. Another reason for forbidding their consumption may have been that pigs eat carrion. Some people are allergic to pork in hot weather—another suggested reason behind the Jewish taboo. The same taboo exists among the Muslims and existed in certain social strata in Egypt.<\/p>\nPorcupine<\/p>\nRodent, Hystrix cristata,<\/em> which lives in forested areas, rocky hills, ravines, and valleys. The porcupine is still found in the Holy Land today. It has long quills that can be raised to give the appearance of a crest. It is almost entirely nocturnal. It burrows by day into a natural cavity or crevice. The Old World porcupine rarely climbed trees, although the New World porcupine frequently does. A porcupine may weigh as much as 60 pounds (27.2 kilograms). It eats fruit, bark, roots, and other vegetation, and carrion as well. Although its flesh is edible, the porcupine was not classed among the clean animals for the Israelites. The reference in Isaiah 34:11 (rsv<\/span>) is probably to the porcupine, as is Isaiah 14:23 in the nlt<\/span>. See<\/em> Hedgehog.<\/p>\nScorpion<\/p>\nArthropod of the same group as spiders (arachnids). A dozen species of scorpions (order Scorpionida) are found in the Holy Land, but 90 percent of the scorpions are yellow scorpions, usually three to five inches (7.6 to 12.7 centimeters) long. The rock scorpion, also common to the Holy Land, is as thick as a man’s finger and from five to seven inches (12.7 to 17.8 centimeters) in length. Scorpions are slow, nocturnal invertebrates that rest beneath stones by day and prey on insects and other arachnids by night. At the end of its long tail the scorpion carries a poisonous sting that is fatal to most prey and extremely painful to humans (Rv 9:3, 5, 10; cf. 1 Kgs 12:11, 14). Scorpions symbolize Ezekiel’s evil countrymen (Ez 2:6) and the demonic forces of Satan (Lk 10:19). The scorpion is referred to as frequenting the Sinai Desert (Dt 8:15).<\/p>\nA scorpion has from six to eight eyes. It has eight legs like a spider and two lobsterlike claws with which it catches and holds its prey. It feeds particularly on locusts and beetles. In many species the female scorpion eats the male after mating. Scorpions lay eggs that hatch very shortly after laying. Scorpions prefer warmer climates, and because of their desire for warmth, enter houses, especially at night, hiding in beds, blankets, footwear, and clothing.<\/p>\nSheep<\/p>\nDomestic animal, Ovis orientalis,<\/em> referred to directly or by some term such as ewe, lamb, ram, or by some fact concerning them over 700 times in Scripture.<\/p>\nSheep represented the chief wealth and total livelihood of pastoral peoples, providing food to eat, milk to drink, wool for the making of cloth, and hides and bones for other uses. In addition, the sheep was a medium of exchange and a sacrificial animal. The number of sheep raised in ancient times was prodigious. Mesha, king of Moab, paid a tribute annually of 100,000 lambs and the wool of 100,000 rams (2 Kgs 3:4). The Israelites took 250,000 sheep from the Hagrites (1 Chr 5:21).<\/p>\nSheep shearing was often done for festivals (2 Sm 13:23). The sheep was held down on its side and its legs were tied together; then it lay docilely while its wool was clipped (Is 53:7). Sheep reserved for burnt offerings were not shorn; nothing could be held back from a sacrifice to the Lord.<\/p>\nWool had to be processed before it could be used for clothing. First it was washed, sometimes while still on the sheep, then carded and perhaps weighed for the market. The spinning of wool was regarded as a woman’s work (Prv 31:19), but weaving the spun thread into cloth on a loom was primarily a man’s occupation.<\/p>\nThe Bible reports that Abel kept sheep (Gn 4:2). The first sheep to be domesticated was probably the argali (Ovis ammon),<\/em> a variety of the urial (Ovis vignei),<\/em> a mountainous species still existing in Turkestan and Mongolia. Five breeds had reached Mesopotamia by 2000 BC<\/span>; all were of the urial stock.<\/p>\nThe sheep known in Israel was the broad-tailed sheep (Ovis orientalis vignei<\/em> or laticaudata),<\/em> of which the tail weighs from 10 to 15 pounds (4.5 to 6.8 kilograms) and has always been considered a delicacy. Thus the Lord asked for this choice part as a sacrifice (Ex 29:22-25).<\/p>\nOnly the ram of the broad-tailed sheep has horns, but in other varieties of sheep in the Holy Land the ewe also has horns. The horns, two to three inches (5 to 8 centimeters) in diameter, can be potent weapons. Rams’ horns could be used as trumpets (Jos 6:4) or as oil containers (1 Sm 16:1).<\/p>\nAlthough the sheep is very similar to the goat, it is differentiated by a lower forehead, its angulated spiral horns marked with transverse wrinkles and curved slightly outward, its covering of wool, and its lack of a “goatee.” Most sheep are white (Ps 147:16; Is 1:18; Dn 7:9; Rv 1:14).<\/p>\nThe flesh of sheep was a luxury in the biblical culture. King Solomon required a daily provision of 100 sheep for his table (1 Kgs 4:23), but the common people ate lamb or mutton only on festive occasions. A young ram was usually chosen because the ewes were more important to the future prospects of the herd. The meat was boiled in large caldrons. The milk of the sheep is extremely rich; in biblical times it was usually allowed to curdle before drinking. Possibly some Israelites kept lambs in their houses as pets (2 Sm 12:3-4).<\/p>\nTo protect the flock at night against predatory attacks, the shepherd tried to provide a fold. In meadows near villages, folds were built and watchmen were hired to relieve the shepherds. The shepherds of the nativity story were out in the field (Lk 2:8); they had no fold but probably had set up a tent for shelter, consisting simply of goat-hair blankets spread across sapling supports. The scarcity of springs in the Holy Land made the watering of the flock a crucial problem for the shepherd (Gn 13:8-11).<\/p>\nWild mountain sheep, varieties of Ovis orientalis,<\/em> are known in the Mediterranean area (Dt 14:5). The Deuteronomy passage (kjv<\/span> “chamois”) might also refer to Ovis traelaphus,<\/em> a sheep about five feet high (1.5 meters) with long, curved horns. Another possibility is the Barbary sheep that lives in small flocks in rugged mountain areas in Barbary, Egypt, and Mt Sinai. The true chamois is unknown in Palestine.<\/p>\nThe sheep is also used figuratively in Scripture. The ram represented great strength and fittingly symbolized Medo-Persia in Daniel’s vision (Dn 8:3). It is the nature of sheep to be gentle and submissive (Is 53:7; Jer 11:19), defenseless (Mi 5:8; Mt 10:16), and in constant need of guidance and care (Nm 27:17; Mt 9:36). Such qualities are regarded as desirable in the lives of believers in Christ; hence the many figurative references to sheep in the NT and to Jesus as shepherd (Mk 6:34; Jn 10:1-30; Rom 8:35-37; Heb 13:20-21; 1 Pt 2:25). The resurrected Christ told the apostle Peter to “feed my lambs” and “tend my sheep” (Jn 21:15-17).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Offerings and Sacrifices.<\/p>\nSnail<\/p>\nInvertebrate gastropods (mollusks). Land snails are very numerous in the Near East. Some freshwater forms serve as hosts for the schistosome worm, the fluke parasite causing the dread disease bilharzia (schistosomiasis).<\/p>\nPurple dyes of all shades were highly valued in the ancient world. A royal purple dye was obtained from secretions of a sea snail (Murex trunculus<\/em> and Murex brandaris).<\/em> Evidently, that process was developed by Phoenicians, Egyptians, and Assyrians as early as 1500 BC<\/span>. The “purple” fishermen had their own guild during the time of the Roman Empire. The snails were harvested during the fall and winter seasons; in the spring, when egg laying took place, little dye was available. The snails tended to remain concealed in the summer. They inhabited the waters off Crete and Phoenicia. Tyrian purple, produced in the Phoenician city of Tyre, the center of the purple-dye industry, was obtained by a double dyeing. Large deposits of murex shells from dyeing operations have been found along the Mediterranean shoreline. The Israelites had to import purple goods (Ez 27:16). Lydia was a “seller of purple” or of cloth so dyed (Acts 16:14). Purple was a sign of distinction, royalty, and wealth (cf. Ex 25:4; 28:5-6, 15; Nm 15:38; 2 Chr 2:7; Est 8:15; Prv 31:22; Sg 3:10; Ez 27:7; Dn 5:7).<\/p>\nExodus 30:34-35 refers to “onycha,” which was an important ingredient of incense. Onycha is the horny, clawlike operculum (the plate that closes off the opening of its shell when a snail is retracted) of a Near Eastern member of the molluskan family Strombidae. The operculum is sometimes used for offense or locomotion as well as for defense. When burned, the operculum gives off a sharp, strong scent, and when mixed with more fragrant but less powerful substances is even more potent. The name “onycha” is derived from a Greek word (onyx)<\/em> for a fingernail or a claw.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Dye, Dyeing, Dyer.<\/p>\nSnake<\/p>\nVarious species of snake, suborder Ophidia (Serpentes). In the Bible nine Hebrew words and four Greek ones refer to snakes. The most common Hebrew word is onomatopoeic—that is, it is an imitation of a snake hissing or of the sound it produces as it scrapes its scales along the ground (cf. Jer 46:22). Many types of snakes lay eggs (Is 59:5), although some retain the eggs in the body until ready to hatch.<\/p>\nSnakes are among the most widespread reptiles and are found on all continents except Antarctica; they decrease in numbers and species toward the poles but increase as one approaches the equator. Thirty-three species of snakes are known in Palestine and neighboring countries, 20 of which are poisonous. Two dangerous characteristics of the snake noted by biblical writers are its inconspicuous way of moving and the ease with which it hides itself.<\/p>\nMany snakes are able to swallow animals several times their own diameter because of their unusually flexible jaw mechanism. They lack not only legs but also movable eyelids. Snakes periodically shed their skins. The tongue is actually a hearing apparatus sensitive to airborne vibrations and probably to heat waves.<\/p>\nThe venom of poisonous species is a clear, thin secretion, transmitted to the victim’s bloodstream by means of fangs. Two types of venom are known: that of the vipers, which affects respiration and disintegrates red blood cells, and that of the cobras, which paralyzes the nervous system.<\/p>\nThe “asp” referred to in the Bible is probably the cobra; the “adder” is the viper. The “cockatrice” (kjv<\/span>) is probably the adder. Serpents were associated with worship in Canaanite religion and symbolized evil deities among many other peoples. Steles (upright stones bearing inscriptions) have been unearthed at several sites in the Holy Land and Syria depicting a god or worshiper with a snake winding about the legs or body. Because the Israelites were burning incense in pagan worship of Moses’ bronze serpent (Nm 21:8-9), King Hezekiah destroyed it in his religious reform (2 Kgs 18:4).<\/p>\nAlthough snakes have been an object of veneration in some religions, in the Judeo-Christian tradition snakes represent evil and, more specifically, the devil. That association began in the Garden of Eden (Gn 3:1-15) and is also found in the book of Revelation (12:9; 20:2-3).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Adder (above); Asp (above).<\/p>\nSpider<\/p>\nAnimal of the order Araneida. Between 600 and 700 different species inhabit the Holy Land. Spiders are different from insects in that, like scorpions, they have four pairs of legs instead of three. Spiders are equipped with poison glands—the effectiveness varying from species to species. A few can kill only insects, but others can also kill birds and mice.<\/p>\nMost spiders have a pair of spinnerets attached to silk glands on the underside of the abdomen; from them a web is extruded. In the Bible the spider’s web is referred to as a symbol of frailty and insecurity (Jb 8:14; Is 59:5-6).<\/p>\nSponge<\/p>\nSimple marine animals, phylum Porifera. The term “sponge” also refers to those animals’ skeletal remains. The sponge has a porous body composed of tubules and cells.<\/p>\nSponge fishing was well known in the Mediterranean area in ancient times. It was practiced particularly along the Anatolian and Syrian coasts. Sponges were harvested by divers. The use of sponges in absorbing liquids is referred to in the Bible (Mt 27:48; Mk 15:36).<\/p>\nUnicorn<\/p>\nSee<\/em> Wild Ox (below).<\/p>\nWasp<\/p>\nInsects of the family Vespidae. Hornets are social wasps that build large aerial apartment houses in which 1,000 or more individuals may live. In the Bible the hornet is used as a metaphor for God’s use of military forces (Ex 23:28; Dt 7:20; Jos 24:12).<\/p>\nWhale<\/p>\nLargest of all living creatures, including those that have become extinct. Whales are air-breathing mammals of the order Cetacea.<\/p>\nTwo varieties of whales visit the shores of the Holy Land at times. The finback whale (Balaenoptera physalus)<\/em> weighs about 200 tons (181 metric tons) and lives mainly in the Arctic region but sometimes passes through the Straits of Gibraltar to reach the eastern Mediterranean Sea. It feeds on small marine organisms that it strains through its whale bone; it does not have teeth. The finback whale’s esophagus is narrow.<\/p>\nThe sperm whale (Physeter catodon),<\/em> about 60 feet (18.3 meters) long, has a curiously shaped head that looks like a battering ram. The teeth in the lower jaw of the male sperm whale are about seven inches (17.8 centimeters) long. It feeds on big fish, even on sharks. It has a large throat opening.<\/p>\nWhales are referred to in Genesis 1:21 and Job 7:12 (kjv<\/span> only). The “great fish” of Jonah 2:1 need not have been a whale but could have been a large shark, such as the whale shark (Rhineodon),<\/em> which grows 70 feet (21.3 meters) long and lacks the terrible teeth of other sharks. Whatever the actual marine organism, Jonah’s deliverance was miraculous. The Greek word for “whale” is sometimes used as a general term for “sea monster” or huge fish and may be used in that sense in Matthew 12:40.<\/p>\nWild Ox<\/p>\nLarge, fierce, fleet, intractable animal (Bos primigenius).<\/em> It had a long, lean rump with a straight back and a long, narrow head. The animal described in Job 39:9-12 is clearly the wild ox. The two horns (Dt 33:17), its outstanding characteristic, were straight and as long as the head (Nm 23:22; 24:8; Ps 22:21). Kings often symbolized their dominion by wearing a helmet with two wild ox horns (cf. Pss 92:10; 132:17-18). The horns were often used as drinking vessels by the Israelites; some were large enough to hold four gallons (15 liters).<\/p>\nHunting the wild ox was a favorite sport of Assyrian kings. Tiglath-pileser I hunted it in the Lebanon Mountains about 1100 BC<\/span> (cf. Ps 29:6). At one time the animal referred to in Job 39:9-12 was thought to be the oryx or antelope because of the similarity between the Hebrew word in Job and the Arabian name for oryx. The translators of the kjv<\/span> called the wild ox a “unicorn” because of representations found on Babylonian mosaics and Egyptian drawings. Those representations showed it in strict profile, showing only one horn—hence, “unicorn.” Jerome’s Vulgate, a Latin Bible translation (fourth century AD<\/span>) and Martin Luther’s German version translated it similarly.<\/p>\nWolf<\/p>\nLarge doglike mammal (Canis lupus)<\/em> that travels in bands of up to 30 animals. From the nose to the rump, the wolf measures about 3 feet (.9 meter); its drooping tail is about 18 inches (.5 meter) long. It looks much like a skinny German shepherd dog. The grayish yellow pelt is coarse and short haired.<\/p>\nWolves hunt singly or in relays, usually at night (Jer 5:6). Wolves have acute hearing and sight but rely chiefly on scent and usually catch their prey in a swift, open chase. The wolf has a reputation for boldness, fierceness, and voracity (Gn 49:27; Hb 1:8). It commonly kills more than it can eat or drag away and thus is known for its greediness.<\/p>\nThe wolf is a restless animal, always on the move; hunger drives it from one place to another in constant search of new hunting grounds. During spring and fall, wolves usually roam singly or in pairs, whereas in summer they may travel in family groups. In winter, several such groups may join to form a large pack. Wolves are intelligent, social creatures, faithful to their own kind. They mate for life. Individually, the wolf is a rather timid animal; it would much rather avoid human beings. But collectively wolves can be among the most dangerous animals alive.<\/p>\nIn Egypt, Rome, and Greece the wolf was considered sacred. Wolves were well known in the Holy Land and are still found there and also in many places in Asia Minor. Shepherds continually battled with wolves that plundered their flocks (Jn 10:12).<\/p>\nThe Bible refers to wolves in a literal sense in only three places (Is 11:6; 65:25; Jn 10:12), all other references being figurative. Usually the wolf is a symbol of enemies or the wicked (e.g., Ez 22:27; Zep 3:3; Acts 20:29). Both the wolf’s courage and its cruelty were probably in the mind of the patriarch Jacob when he predicted the fate of Benjamin’s tribe (Gn 49:27).<\/p>\nWorm<\/p>\nActually insect larvae in most biblical references, usually maggots, the larvae of flies (see Fly, above). For example, maggots are evidently referred to in accounts of worms feeding on spoiled manna (Ex 16:19-20), corpses (Jb 21:26; Is 14:11), or open wounds (Jb 7:5). Mark 9:48 refers to a maggot that eats dead flesh. In Acts 12:23 a fatal, worm-induced abdominal disease of King Herod is mentioned. In other cases, the reference is to the larvae of other insects (Is 51:8). In Deuteronomy 28:39 and Jonah 4:7 the vine weevil (Cochylis ambiguella)<\/em> is probably referred to; it destroys vines by boring into their stems. Comparing a man to a worm is a metaphor for abasement (Jb 25:6; Ps 22:6).<\/p>","summary_ro":"ANIMALS In biblical usage, all members of the animal kingdom. Animals are mentioned throughout the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. Animals figured in many important biblical events, including the Creation, the fall of man, the Flood, the ten plagues in Egypt, the Hebrew worship system, and the life of Jesus Christ. The people of both OT and NT times lived close to the land and were well acquainted with various animals so that the scriptural writers and Jesus himself frequently used animals ...","summary_en":"ANIMALS In biblical usage, all members of the animal kingdom. Animals are mentioned throughout the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. Animals figured in many important biblical events, including the Creation, the fall of man, the Flood, the ten plagues in Egypt, the Hebrew worship system, and the life of Jesus Christ. The people of both OT and NT times lived close to the land and were well acquainted with various animals so that the scriptural writers and Jesus himself frequently used animals ...","source":"Articles\/A.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":38541,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Woman","title_en":"Woman","content_ro":"<h3>WOMAN<\/h3>\nMan’s companion created by God.<\/p>\nHer Creation<\/p>\nGenesis provides two accounts of the creation of the first man and woman. In the first, Genesis 1:26-28, God created humans in his image, as male and female. Hence, the female shares with the male the image of God, reflects his power and majesty on earth, and is commanded to multiply and bring dominion to the earth. From Genesis 1:26-28 there is no suggestion of inferiority of the female to the male, nor is there any suggestion of her submission to his dominance. Rather, they are pictured together, the male and the female, as the representation of their Maker.<\/p>\nGenesis 2:20-25 is the second portrayal of the creation of the first woman. In Genesis 2 the male was made before the female, a point that seems to give him some precedence. This may not be pressed too far, however, as the pattern in the creation texts is to move progressively from the lesser to the finer work! Yet it is because of his prior creation that the male is given the prerogative to name the female (Gn 2:23). In Semitic thought, the giving of names signifies dominion or ownership. This means that Adam’s naming of his wife was an act of lordship. However, the name that he gives her is the equivalent to his own, meaning the male affirmed her equality with him. Paradoxically, then, this hierarchical relationship is also a relationship of equals.<\/p>\nThe situation in Genesis 1 and 2 reveals a balanced relationship between the man and the woman who were the parents of all mankind: two persons who were altogether equal in status as coheirs of the mystery of the image of God and yet who dwell in a delicate one-to-one relationship in which one is the leader of the other. In Eden before the fall, this delicate balance was possible.<\/p>\nHer Downfall and Plight<\/p>\nGenesis 3, the story of the fall of mankind, speaks of the breaking of the delicate balance between the man and the woman and the ensuing struggles that have been passed down through the ages. In God’s words to the woman, he announced the pain that would accompany her childbearing (Gn 3:16) and the conflict of interests that would affect her relationship with her husband: “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you” (niv<\/span>). The Hebrew term “desire” (<\/em>teshuqah<\/span>)<\/em> in the Genesis 3 and 4 passages is not a sexual longing but a desire to control, to master, to be in charge (the use of teshuqah<\/span> meaning sexual desire is seen in Sg 7:10). Consequently, after the fall, the desire of woman has been to dominate her husband. Her determination to reject his leadership in their relationship of equals is a breaking of the balance in their relationship. For his part, the man tends to tyrannize the woman.<\/p>\nTo the women who attempt to dominate their husbands, the apostle Paul says, “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord” (Eph 5:22, niv<\/span>). Her natural inclination needs transformation, so that she can submit to her husband as she submits to the Lord. For, Paul argues, the husband is to the wife as Christ is to the church (v 23). The husbands who tend to dominate their wives also need transformation so that they can love their wives, “just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (v 25, niv<\/span>). By these words, the apostle Paul was presenting a means whereby couples could regain the bliss in their relationship that was the mark of Eden before the fall. Paul’s citation of Genesis 2:24 in Ephesians 5:31 is a case in point: here a couple may regain the original oneness that God intended for them. The relationship of equal persons in a hierarchy of responsiveness is stated in the context of mutual submission, which is a mark of their greater submission to the Lord Jesus.<\/p>\nHer Role in Life according to the Bible<\/p>\nA woman is a person in every respect as a man; she shares in the image of God and has the potential of varied ranges of response to culture, community, and life about her. It is a fact of Scripture that women are regularly associated with, and find their sense of worth in, childbearing. Yet the same Scriptures show that the nature of woman is not exhausted by associations with childbearing: she has her own identity in the community, in the church, and before the Lord in the whole of her life, not just when (or if) she bears and nourishes a child. Further, the biblical concept of childbearing always involves the husband, who is her partner at conception, at her side during delivery, and partner with her in the ongoing task of nourishing the child.<\/p>\nThe image of the woman as the childbearer begins with the promise of God in Genesis 3:15, where he announced the ultimate victory over the evil one, Satan, by the offspring of the woman. This promise respecting the offspring of the woman became the universal blessing of God upon woman as the childbearer. Ultimately, through one born of a woman, there would come the final deliverance. There is a sense in which each birth experience is a participation in the continuity of this promise (see 1 Tm 2:15 and its possible relationship to this continuity of women, salvation, and childbearing).<\/p>\nFurther, in the culture of the OT world, a woman’s genuine worth was solely, or largely, perceived in terms of childbearing. Yet it is not in childbearing alone that she finds worth and dignity before God. For the woman, as for the man, the issue of faith in the Lord is central. A woman who has a household of children but no faith in God might regard herself as a fulfilled person. Yet her care of her children is no substitute for piety to God. A woman who has no children, and perhaps no husband, may have her full identity and worth in her relationship with the God in whose image she is made and whose tasks she is commissioned by him to do. The gifts of God in a woman’s life may lead her to find opportunities in the community to express her devotion to God. Women apparently had the same opportunities as men to take a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:2; see also ch 30).<\/p>\nCertain notable women in the Bible led lives of public service. Miriam, the sister of Moses and Aaron (Ex 15:20-21), was a prophetess, musician, and national leader (Nm 12). Long after her time, God spoke through his prophets of the gift he had given to Israel in the person of the national leader Miriam (Mi 6:4). There were other magnificent women who had exemplary lives: Deborah, the prophetess of God and the only named woman judge of Israel (Jgs 4–5); Esther, the Hebrew queen of Xerxes who saved her people from the rash acts of the Persian king, a result of a frightful conspiracy; and Huldah, the prophetess who was the agent of the Lord’s word to Josiah at the inception of his revival (2 Chr 34:22-28). Huldah’s reception and transmission of the word of the Lord is the more remarkable because she was a contemporary with Jeremiah and Zephaniah. In this case God chose to speak through a woman.<\/p>\nIn the NT, certain women were noted for their public ministries: the daughters of Philip, Phoebe, Priscilla, Junias, Tryphena, Tryphosa, Persis, Euodia, and Syntyche. These women mark the beginning of the fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy of a day in which women as well as men would be the instruments of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Jl 2:28-29). Women such as Sarah, Ruth, and Hannah exercised their faith in God in the context of the home and family as well. And preeminently there is Mary, mother of Jesus, in whom the ideal of womanhood is conjoined to the fulfillment of the ancient promise to Eve that she would one day be the great victor over the enemy of mankind.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Eve; Man.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>WOMAN<\/h3>\nMan’s companion created by God.<\/p>\nHer Creation<\/p>\nGenesis provides two accounts of the creation of the first man and woman. In the first, Genesis 1:26-28, God created humans in his image, as male and female. Hence, the female shares with the male the image of God, reflects his power and majesty on earth, and is commanded to multiply and bring dominion to the earth. From Genesis 1:26-28 there is no suggestion of inferiority of the female to the male, nor is there any suggestion of her submission to his dominance. Rather, they are pictured together, the male and the female, as the representation of their Maker.<\/p>\nGenesis 2:20-25 is the second portrayal of the creation of the first woman. In Genesis 2 the male was made before the female, a point that seems to give him some precedence. This may not be pressed too far, however, as the pattern in the creation texts is to move progressively from the lesser to the finer work! Yet it is because of his prior creation that the male is given the prerogative to name the female (Gn 2:23). In Semitic thought, the giving of names signifies dominion or ownership. This means that Adam’s naming of his wife was an act of lordship. However, the name that he gives her is the equivalent to his own, meaning the male affirmed her equality with him. Paradoxically, then, this hierarchical relationship is also a relationship of equals.<\/p>\nThe situation in Genesis 1 and 2 reveals a balanced relationship between the man and the woman who were the parents of all mankind: two persons who were altogether equal in status as coheirs of the mystery of the image of God and yet who dwell in a delicate one-to-one relationship in which one is the leader of the other. In Eden before the fall, this delicate balance was possible.<\/p>\nHer Downfall and Plight<\/p>\nGenesis 3, the story of the fall of mankind, speaks of the breaking of the delicate balance between the man and the woman and the ensuing struggles that have been passed down through the ages. In God’s words to the woman, he announced the pain that would accompany her childbearing (Gn 3:16) and the conflict of interests that would affect her relationship with her husband: “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you” (niv<\/span>). The Hebrew term “desire” (<\/em>teshuqah<\/span>)<\/em> in the Genesis 3 and 4 passages is not a sexual longing but a desire to control, to master, to be in charge (the use of teshuqah<\/span> meaning sexual desire is seen in Sg 7:10). Consequently, after the fall, the desire of woman has been to dominate her husband. Her determination to reject his leadership in their relationship of equals is a breaking of the balance in their relationship. For his part, the man tends to tyrannize the woman.<\/p>\nTo the women who attempt to dominate their husbands, the apostle Paul says, “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord” (Eph 5:22, niv<\/span>). Her natural inclination needs transformation, so that she can submit to her husband as she submits to the Lord. For, Paul argues, the husband is to the wife as Christ is to the church (v 23). The husbands who tend to dominate their wives also need transformation so that they can love their wives, “just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (v 25, niv<\/span>). By these words, the apostle Paul was presenting a means whereby couples could regain the bliss in their relationship that was the mark of Eden before the fall. Paul’s citation of Genesis 2:24 in Ephesians 5:31 is a case in point: here a couple may regain the original oneness that God intended for them. The relationship of equal persons in a hierarchy of responsiveness is stated in the context of mutual submission, which is a mark of their greater submission to the Lord Jesus.<\/p>\nHer Role in Life according to the Bible<\/p>\nA woman is a person in every respect as a man; she shares in the image of God and has the potential of varied ranges of response to culture, community, and life about her. It is a fact of Scripture that women are regularly associated with, and find their sense of worth in, childbearing. Yet the same Scriptures show that the nature of woman is not exhausted by associations with childbearing: she has her own identity in the community, in the church, and before the Lord in the whole of her life, not just when (or if) she bears and nourishes a child. Further, the biblical concept of childbearing always involves the husband, who is her partner at conception, at her side during delivery, and partner with her in the ongoing task of nourishing the child.<\/p>\nThe image of the woman as the childbearer begins with the promise of God in Genesis 3:15, where he announced the ultimate victory over the evil one, Satan, by the offspring of the woman. This promise respecting the offspring of the woman became the universal blessing of God upon woman as the childbearer. Ultimately, through one born of a woman, there would come the final deliverance. There is a sense in which each birth experience is a participation in the continuity of this promise (see 1 Tm 2:15 and its possible relationship to this continuity of women, salvation, and childbearing).<\/p>\nFurther, in the culture of the OT world, a woman’s genuine worth was solely, or largely, perceived in terms of childbearing. Yet it is not in childbearing alone that she finds worth and dignity before God. For the woman, as for the man, the issue of faith in the Lord is central. A woman who has a household of children but no faith in God might regard herself as a fulfilled person. Yet her care of her children is no substitute for piety to God. A woman who has no children, and perhaps no husband, may have her full identity and worth in her relationship with the God in whose image she is made and whose tasks she is commissioned by him to do. The gifts of God in a woman’s life may lead her to find opportunities in the community to express her devotion to God. Women apparently had the same opportunities as men to take a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:2; see also ch 30).<\/p>\nCertain notable women in the Bible led lives of public service. Miriam, the sister of Moses and Aaron (Ex 15:20-21), was a prophetess, musician, and national leader (Nm 12). Long after her time, God spoke through his prophets of the gift he had given to Israel in the person of the national leader Miriam (Mi 6:4). There were other magnificent women who had exemplary lives: Deborah, the prophetess of God and the only named woman judge of Israel (Jgs 4–5); Esther, the Hebrew queen of Xerxes who saved her people from the rash acts of the Persian king, a result of a frightful conspiracy; and Huldah, the prophetess who was the agent of the Lord’s word to Josiah at the inception of his revival (2 Chr 34:22-28). Huldah’s reception and transmission of the word of the Lord is the more remarkable because she was a contemporary with Jeremiah and Zephaniah. In this case God chose to speak through a woman.<\/p>\nIn the NT, certain women were noted for their public ministries: the daughters of Philip, Phoebe, Priscilla, Junias, Tryphena, Tryphosa, Persis, Euodia, and Syntyche. These women mark the beginning of the fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy of a day in which women as well as men would be the instruments of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Jl 2:28-29). Women such as Sarah, Ruth, and Hannah exercised their faith in God in the context of the home and family as well. And preeminently there is Mary, mother of Jesus, in whom the ideal of womanhood is conjoined to the fulfillment of the ancient promise to Eve that she would one day be the great victor over the enemy of mankind.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Eve; Man.<\/p>","summary_ro":"WOMAN Man’s companion created by God. Her Creation Genesis provides two accounts of the creation of the first man and woman. In the first, Genesis 1:26-28, God created humans in his image, as male and female. Hence, the female shares with the male the image of God, reflects his power and majesty on earth, and is commanded to multiply and bring dominion to the earth. From Genesis 1:26-28 there is no suggestion of inferiority of the female to the male, nor is there any suggestion of her submiss...","summary_en":"WOMAN Man’s companion created by God. Her Creation Genesis provides two accounts of the creation of the first man and woman. In the first, Genesis 1:26-28, God created humans in his image, as male and female. Hence, the female shares with the male the image of God, reflects his power and majesty on earth, and is commanded to multiply and bring dominion to the earth. From Genesis 1:26-28 there is no suggestion of inferiority of the female to the male, nor is there any suggestion of her submiss...","source":"Articles\/W.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"21":[{"id":11316,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Eve","title_en":"Eve","content_ro":"<h3>EVE<\/h3>\nFirst woman, “the mother of all living” (Gn 3:20). The book of Genesis recounts that after God had finished his creation of Adam, he saw that it was not good for Adam to be alone. He decided to create “a helper fit for him” (2:18). The woman is called ezer<\/span> (in Hebrew lit. “help”), a word that appears elsewhere in the OT in reference to God as Israel’s help. Causing Adam to fall into a deep sleep, God took one of his ribs and used it to fashion Eve (vv 21-25).<\/p>\nEve was given two names by Adam. The first was “woman,” a generic designation with theological connotations that denote her relationship to man (Gn 2:23). The second, Eve (“life”), was given after the fall and refers to her role in the procreation of the human race (3:20).<\/p>\nAdam and Eve are pictured as living in Eden, serving God and fulfilling each other’s needs. Then evil entered when Eve was tempted by the serpent to disobey God’s command, which forbade their eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gn 2:17; 3:3). Tricked by the serpent’s subtle persuasion, Eve transgressed God’s will by eating the fruit. Adam did the same when she brought some to him, although he was not deceived as she had been. Both then recognized their nakedness and made garments of fig leaves.<\/p>\nWhen God came to commune with them, they hid from him. When he demanded an account, Adam blamed Eve, and Eve blamed the serpent. God told Eve that as a result of their sin, childbirth would be a painful experience and her husband would rule over her (Gn 3:16). Eve later became the mother of Cain, Abel, Seth, and other children (4:1-2, 25; 5:4).<\/p>\nEve is mentioned twice in the NT. In his letter to Timothy, the apostle Paul referred to her when discussing whether or not women could teach (1 Tm 2:13). He said that a woman could not teach or have authority over a man because of man’s priority in creation and Eve’s responsibility for the original transgression (see 2 Cor 11:3).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Adam (Person); Garden of Eden.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>EVE<\/h3>\nFirst woman, “the mother of all living” (Gn 3:20). The book of Genesis recounts that after God had finished his creation of Adam, he saw that it was not good for Adam to be alone. He decided to create “a helper fit for him” (2:18). The woman is called ezer<\/span> (in Hebrew lit. “help”), a word that appears elsewhere in the OT in reference to God as Israel’s help. Causing Adam to fall into a deep sleep, God took one of his ribs and used it to fashion Eve (vv 21-25).<\/p>\nEve was given two names by Adam. The first was “woman,” a generic designation with theological connotations that denote her relationship to man (Gn 2:23). The second, Eve (“life”), was given after the fall and refers to her role in the procreation of the human race (3:20).<\/p>\nAdam and Eve are pictured as living in Eden, serving God and fulfilling each other’s needs. Then evil entered when Eve was tempted by the serpent to disobey God’s command, which forbade their eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gn 2:17; 3:3). Tricked by the serpent’s subtle persuasion, Eve transgressed God’s will by eating the fruit. Adam did the same when she brought some to him, although he was not deceived as she had been. Both then recognized their nakedness and made garments of fig leaves.<\/p>\nWhen God came to commune with them, they hid from him. When he demanded an account, Adam blamed Eve, and Eve blamed the serpent. God told Eve that as a result of their sin, childbirth would be a painful experience and her husband would rule over her (Gn 3:16). Eve later became the mother of Cain, Abel, Seth, and other children (4:1-2, 25; 5:4).<\/p>\nEve is mentioned twice in the NT. In his letter to Timothy, the apostle Paul referred to her when discussing whether or not women could teach (1 Tm 2:13). He said that a woman could not teach or have authority over a man because of man’s priority in creation and Eve’s responsibility for the original transgression (see 2 Cor 11:3).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Adam (Person); Garden of Eden.<\/p>","summary_ro":"EVE First woman, “the mother of all living” (Gn 3:20). The book of Genesis recounts that after God had finished his creation of Adam, he saw that it was not good for Adam to be alone. He decided to create “a helper fit for him” (2:18). The woman is called ezer (in Hebrew lit. “help”), a word that appears elsewhere in the OT in reference to God as Israel’s help. Causing Adam to fall into a deep sleep, God took one of his ribs and used it to fashion Eve (vv 21-25). Eve was given two names by Ad...","summary_en":"EVE First woman, “the mother of all living” (Gn 3:20). The book of Genesis recounts that after God had finished his creation of Adam, he saw that it was not good for Adam to be alone. He decided to create “a helper fit for him” (2:18). The woman is called ezer (in Hebrew lit. “help”), a word that appears elsewhere in the OT in reference to God as Israel’s help. Causing Adam to fall into a deep sleep, God took one of his ribs and used it to fashion Eve (vv 21-25). Eve was given two names by Ad...","source":"Articles\/E.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":13527,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Book of Genesis","title_en":"Book of Genesis","content_ro":"<h3>GENESIS, Book of<\/h3>\nFirst book of the Bible.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Name<\/p>\n• Author<\/p>\n• Date<\/p>\n• Purpose<\/p>\n• Structure<\/p>\n• Content<\/p>\nName<\/p>\nThe name Genesis comes into English as a transliteration of the Greek word meaning “origin” or “beginning.” This name was given to the book in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, known as the Septuagint. Genesis reflects both the content of the book and the Hebrew name for it, which is taken from its first word, bere’shith<\/span>,<\/em> “in the beginning.”<\/p>\nAuthor<\/p>\nThe authorship of Genesis is closely related to the authorship of the entire Pentateuch (lit. “five-volumed,” the first five books of the Bible, which in Hebrew are called the Torah). It is clear that the Bible regards the human author of these books as Moses. On several occasions the Lord commanded Moses to write down various things: “in a book” (Ex 17:14) “write these words” (34:27). The Pentateuch reports that “Moses wrote all the words of the Lord<\/span>” (24:4); he wrote the itinerary of the exodus wanderings (Nm 33:2); “Moses wrote this law” (Dt 31:9). (Here it is not certain that all five books are meant, but it must refer to at least the greater part of Deuteronomy.) In Exodus 24:7 it is said that Moses read the Book of the Covenant, which he must have just completed.<\/p>\nThe rest of the OT bears witness to the writing of the Pentateuch by Moses. David referred to “the law of Moses” (1 Kgs 2:3). In the time of Josiah, there was found in the temple the “Book of the Law of the Lord<\/span> . . . given through Moses” (2 Chr 34:14, nlt<\/span>). Day by day Ezra read from “the Book of the Law of God” (Neh 8:18, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nIn the NT, Jesus refers to “the book of Moses” (Mk 12:26; Lk 20:37) and otherwise mentions the commands or statements of Moses (Mt 8:4; 19:8; Mk 7:10; cf. Lk 16:31; 24:44). The Jews also quoted from the Torah as coming from Moses, and Jesus did not contradict them.<\/p>\nOf Genesis in particular, it may be said that Moses had the opportunity and ability to write the book. He could have written it during his years in Egypt or while exiled with the Kenites. As the recognized leader of the Israelites, he would have had access to, or perhaps even custody of, the records that Jacob brought from Canaan. He was “instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians” (Acts 7:22) and probably could have written in several languages and in several scripts (hieroglyphic, cuneiform, Old Hebrew). Although Moses was admirably fitted for the task of writing, one must remember that he was not putting together a human composition but was writing under the inspiration of God (2 Pt 1:21). We may with confidence conclude that Moses was the human author of Genesis.<\/p>\nThe liberal view of the authorship of Genesis is that the book is an editorial composite—a view first put forward by a French physician, Jean Astruc, who suggested that the different names for God indicated different documents or sources for the writing of the book. The German higher critics expanded the view of the use of documents in the writing of Genesis and developed it into the Graf-Wellhausen-Kuenen, or Documentary, Hypothesis, which may also be called the JEDP theory of the authorship of the book. This view holds that there were four basic documents: (1) J, which uses the name YHWH (Jehovah or Yahweh) for God, dates from about the ninth century BC<\/span> and comes from Judah; (2) E uses the name Elohim, dates from the eighth century, and comes from the northern kingdom; (3) D is Deuteronomy and is supposed to come from the time of Josiah, about 621 BC<\/span>; and (4) P is the priestly element, which deals with matters of the priesthood and ritual, dating to the fifth century BC<\/span> or later. Some may date portions of Genesis as late as the Hellenistic period. According to this theory, the various documents were blended together by editors, so that there was a JE, JED, and so on.<\/p>\nThe science of archaeology discredited many of the extreme postulations of these critics, and the work of W. F. Albright and his followers did much to restore confidence in the historicity of Genesis. Within the last several decades, the patriarchal narratives and the account of Joseph have again come under strong attack, but these views are extreme, and much of the evidence adduced by Albright and earlier scholars like R. D. Wilson, W. H. Green, and others still has validity.<\/p>\nDate<\/p>\nThe date of the book is also a matter of debate. Even among those who accept Mosaic authorship there is debate as to when Moses lived. Based on the biblical data, Moses should have lived in the 15th century BC<\/span> (cf. Jgs 11:26; 1 Kgs 6:1), but many scholars incline toward a 13th-century date. As outlined above, the liberal view of the date of Genesis would be from the ninth to the fifth centuries BC<\/span>, with the final editing coming around the fifth century or perhaps even later.<\/p>\nPurpose<\/p>\nGenesis sketches the origin of many things: the universe, the earth, plants, animals, and mankind. It gives the beginnings of human institutions, professions, and crafts. It describes the origin of sin and death, and illustrates the insidious working of Satan in human life. Above all, Genesis relates the beginning of the history of redemption with the announcement of a Redeemer who was to come (Gn 3:15). It names the early progenitors in the lineage of the Messiah and the beginning of the Hebrew people through whom the Bible and the Savior came. Genesis also gives a selective history of people and events as viewed from the perspective of the purposes of God.<\/p>\nStructure<\/p>\nThe book is divided into 11 parts of uneven length, each set off by the expression “these are the generations [descendants, history] of” (2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1; 37:2). Only three times does the formula coincide with the first verse of a chapter. Usually called a heading or superscription, the expression serves as a kind of link between what precedes and what follows.<\/p>\n\nContent<\/p>\n<h5>The Creation (1:1–2:25)<\/h5>\nThese two chapters have been a scientific-theological battleground for many years, as researchers and students have tried to probe the origins of the universe and of life. Much of the evidence is not subject to scientific scrutiny, for science by definition requires that the evidence must be reproducible by experiment.<\/p>\nThe statement of Genesis 1:1 remains the grandest, most precise, and most accurate statement of origins: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” He did this ex nihilo<\/em> (“out of nothing”) by his word (Heb 11:3); he spoke the word of command and it was done (Gn 1:3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20; Ps 33:6, 9).<\/p>\nThe date of the beginning is unknown. Uniformitarian cosmogonists (students of the origins of the universe who believe that natural events have always followed a uniform pattern; cf. 2 Pt 3:3-7) have speculated that the beginning of the universe was billions of years ago. But some creationists posit a world thousands of years old.<\/p>\nTo accommodate geological ages and the existence of extinct animals, some interpreters have proposed a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, with Genesis 1:2–2:3 representing a second or new creation. But this is conjecture. So is the idea that each day represents a geological age.<\/p>\nAs the text stands, there is a correlation between the first three days and the second three days. Day one saw the creation of light; day four, the light bearers. Day two was the time of the creation of the firmament (better, “expanse”), which divided the waters; day five, birds and swarming water creatures. On day three, God made the dry land and plants; on day six he created the land animals and man. He made man in the image of God (Gn 1:26), “a little less than God” (Ps 8:5), and gave him dominion over the earth. He made everything “according to their kinds,” so that each kind is distinct and unique. The perfection of his work is affirmed in that “God saw that it was good” (Gn 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21; “very good,” v 31). The seventh day was a time of cessation from the activity of creating and served as a type for mankind’s day of rest (2:1-3).<\/p>\nCritical scholarship eyes 2:4-25 as a doublet in conflict with Genesis 1:1–2:3. To conservative scholars, the second chapter is the same account from a different perspective. Chapter 1 gives the Creation from the standpoint of sequence; chapter 2 shows it in view of the centrality of mankind in God’s creative work.<\/p>\nChapter 2 gives details of the creation of man of “dust from the ground” (v 7) and woman from a rib of the man (vv 21-22). She was created to be “a companion who will help him” (vv 18-20). They were created as mature adults, with the gift of speech and with great intelligence. Adam had imagination and vocabulary sufficient for naming all of the animal species (v 19).<\/p>\nThe location of the Garden of Eden is given (vv 10-14). Two of the four rivers, the Tigris and the Euphrates, can be identified with certainty. So man lived in this beautiful garden in the bliss of innocence.<\/p>\n<h5>The History of Humankind from Eden to Babel (3:1–11:26)<\/h5>\n<h6>The Fall<\/h6>\nThe loss of Eden and the break in fellowship with God is the saddest chapter in human history. The serpent, the devil, approached Eve with the same philosophy he always uses: doubt of God’s word (Gn 3:1), denial of death (v 4), and the suggestion of equality with God (v 5). He gained access to her will by deceiving her with the promise that the fruit would make her as wise as God is (Gn 3:5; cf. 1 Jn 2:16). Eve was deceived, but when she offered the fruit to Adam, he took it willingly, knowing what he was doing (Gn 3:6; cf. 1 Tm 2:14). Later, he tried to blame God for giving him the wife who gave him the fruit (Gn 3:12). Fellowship with God was broken (v 8), yet God came seeking Adam and found him.<\/p>\nWith sin came judgment, and the Lord pronounced righteous judgment on the serpent, the woman, and the man. The earth was also “subjected to frustration” and now groans as it awaits renewal (Rom 8:21-22). God gave hope to man and a promise of a Redeemer (Gn 3:15), who was to bruise the serpent’s head. Adam and Eve were forced out of the Garden, and it was made inaccessible to them.<\/p>\nThe impatience of humankind is shown in Eve’s expectation that her son Cain was the promised Deliverer. Instead, he developed a wrong-hearted attitude toward God and became so jealous of his younger brother that he murdered him. Apprehended by God and confronted with his crime, Cain showed only self-pity and went east from Eden, where he built a city (4:1-16). Chapter 4 closes with another contrast: the brazen Lamech, who called for vengeance, while others began to call upon the name of the Lord.<\/p>\n<h6>The Generations of Adam<\/h6>\nThis genealogical table (5:1-32) brings humankind to the time of Noah and the Flood. The longevity of the antediluvian patriarchs seems very striking to us, but one must remember that the earth had not yet been subjected to pollution and that the effects of sin on the human race were still nominal. The refrain “and he died” reminds us of man’s mortality. For Enoch, however, there was something better: “He enjoyed a close relationship with God throughout his life. Then, suddenly, he disappeared because God took him” (5:24, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h6>The Flood<\/h6>\nWith increased population came an eruption of sin (6:1-5). As men multiplied, so did their corruption. The universal condemnation of verse 5 shows a world ripe for judgment. Noah, however, “found favor with the Lord<\/span>,” for he was a righteous and blameless man who walked with God (6:8-9).<\/p>\nThe Lord planned to annihilate the human race, but he determined to save Noah and his family. Intending to flood the earth, God instructed Noah to build an ark. Noah was directed to take animals aboard the ark, two by two, male and female, for the preservation of each species. When all was in readiness, the Flood came: “the underground waters burst forth on the earth, and the rain fell in mighty torrents from the sky” (7:11, nlt<\/span>). It rained for 40 days and 40 nights. The highest mountains were covered, and life outside the ark perished. “But God remembered Noah” and sent a wind to evaporate the waters (8:1). Eventually the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat (v 4). Noah made a sacrifice to the Lord, and the Lord determined that he would never again bring such destruction upon the earth.<\/p>\nThe Flood is another of God’s acts that has been much debated. Many have argued for a local flood, which affected only part of Mesopotamia. Archaeologists have pointed to various flood strata in the excavation of Mesopotamian city-mounds as evidence for the account of the flood and have cited the various flood stories from that area as the source of the Genesis record. The epic of Gilgamesh gives an interesting tale of this hero, who went on a mission to visit Utnapishtim, the cuneiform Noah, in quest of eternal life. The flood story told by Utnapishtim has many parallels to Genesis, but there are greater contrasts, which demonstrate that the Bible preserves the true account.<\/p>\nBoth the Genesis account and the references to it in the NT (cf. 2 Pt 3:6) favor the view that the deluge was not a minor episode in the Tigris-Euphrates area but was an unprecedented worldwide catastrophe. Christian geologists affirm that the Flood had far-reaching effects on the earth itself. Flood stories are almost universally known, lending support to the conclusion that the Flood covered the whole earth. Following the Flood, God blessed Noah and his sons, Ham, Shem, and Japheth. God made a covenant with Noah, promising that he would never again send a worldwide flood. As a sign of this, he established the rainbow.<\/p>\nNoah was the first tiller of the soil, and he planted a vineyard (9:20). Noah became drunk from wine he made and lay uncovered in his tent. Ham saw him and reported this to his brothers, who discreetly covered him. Ham and his son Canaan were cursed; Shem and Japheth were blessed.<\/p>\n<h6>The History of the Nations<\/h6>\n“This is the history of the families of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, the three sons of Noah. Many children were born to them after the Flood” (10:1, nlt<\/span>). This chapter lists the descendants of Noah’s three sons, in the order of Japheth (vv 2-5), Ham (vv 6-20), and Shem (vv 21-31). Many of the names of their descendants are preserved in tribes and nations of the world.<\/p>\n<h6>The Tower of Babel<\/h6>\nThe building of the Tower of Babel (“Gate of God”) illustrates man’s perversity and his tendency to want independence from God. The desire of man to displace God follows the fateful example of Lucifer and is a basic tenet of many cults. God thwarted the designs of the builders of Babel by confusing their languages, so that the project came to a halt (11:1-9). The site of this tower is not known with certainty. Some associate it with Birs Nimrud, not far from the ruins of the city of Babylon. Genesis 11:10-25 picks up the line of Shem and carries it down to Terah, the father of Abram.<\/p>\n<h5>The History of Abraham (11:27–25:10) and Isaac (21:1–28:5)<\/h5>\nAbram came from Ur of the Chaldees, a prosperous city. The city had an imposing ziggurat (temple-tower), with many temples, storehouses, and residences. Abram and Sarai, his half sister and wife, went with his father to Haran in Syria, which like Ur was a center of the worship of the moon god, Sin (or Annar).<\/p>\n<h6>Abram’s Call<\/h6>\nThe call of God came to Abram directing him to leave his relatives and move to a land that the Lord would show him (12:1; cf. Acts 7:2-3). Abram obeyed. At the age of 75, he, Sarai, and his nephew Lot left Haran and went to Shechem, where the Lord appeared to him and promised that land to his descendants.<\/p>\nFamine drove Abram down to Egypt (Gn 12:10-20). Because of Sarai’s beauty, he feared that someone might kill him to get her, so he passed her off as his sister. She was taken into the pharaoh’s harem. When the Lord plagued Pharaoh because of this, Abram’s lie was discovered and Sarai was returned to him.<\/p>\n<h6>Abram and Lot<\/h6>\nAbram and Lot returned to Canaan, where strife broke out between Abram’s herdsmen and those of Lot. Abram suggested that they should separate, and he gave Lot the choice of territory. Lot chose the well-watered Jordan Valley and the cities of the plain, Sodom and Gomorrah (ch 13).<\/p>\n<h6>The Invasion of the Four Kings from the East<\/h6>\nThe four kings who invaded along the King’s Highway in Transjordan cannot be identified with certainty. Those kings were successful in their attack against the five cities of the plain, and they moved off with much booty and many captives, including Lot. Abram took 318 retainers, born in his household, and set off after them. By surprise attack, Abram recovered both Lot and the loot. On his return he was met by Melchizedek, king of Jerusalem, to whom Abram paid tithes (ch 14).<\/p>\n<h6>The Covenant<\/h6>\nThe Lord promised Abram a son as heir, and in an impressive nighttime ceremony, God made a covenant with Abram and promised him the land from the River of Egypt (Wadi el Arish) to the Euphrates (ch 15). Because of her own barrenness, Sarai gave her Egyptian maid, Hagar, to Abram. Hagar gave birth to Ishmael, the progenitor of the Arab peoples. When trouble arose between the women, Sarai sent Hagar away, which was her right according to Near Eastern customs (as illustrated by the Nuzi tablets). God showed mercy to Hagar and promised that she would have a great posterity (ch 16).<\/p>\nGod repeated his promise to Abram concerning his descendants and changed the names of Abram (“exalted father”) and Sarai to Abraham (“father of many”) and Sarah (“princess”). A covenant sign of circumcision was given to Abraham (ch 17). This operation had already been practiced among the Egyptians for several centuries.<\/p>\n<h6>The Destruction of the Cities of the Plain<\/h6>\nThe Lord and two angels appeared to Abraham and announced the birth of the promised heir within a year, as well as proclaimed the impending destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, concerning which Abraham bargained with God (18:22-33). Lot and his immediate family were rescued from Sodom, and the cities were destroyed by God with brimstone and fire (19:24-25). Lot’s two daughters, wishing to preserve their family line, got their father drunk and had sexual relations with him. Moab and Ammon, enemies of Israel in later times, were the result.<\/p>\nIn Genesis 20:1-18, Abraham again represented Sarah as his sister and got into trouble with Abimelech, king of Gerar.<\/p>\n<h6>Isaac<\/h6>\nWhen Isaac was born (21:1-3), trouble again broke out between Sarah and Hagar. Hagar was driven out a second time, and once more was befriended by the Lord.<\/p>\nA disagreement arose between Abraham and Abimelech concerning a well, but they made a covenant of peace at Beersheba (21:25-34).<\/p>\nGod tested Abraham’s faith by asking him to sacrifice Isaac on Mt Moriah, which probably is the same site David later bought from Araunah the Jebusite (2 Sm 24:16-25), the place where the temple was to stand. As Abraham was about to use the knife, God called to him and showed him a ram caught in a thicket. Isaac was freed and the animal was sacrificed in his stead.<\/p>\nSarah died at Hebron, and Abraham purchased the cave of Machpelah as a burial place from Ephron the Hittite (ch 23), in a transaction typical of Near Eastern business dealings. To find a wife for Isaac, Abraham sent his servant Eliezer back to the area of Haran, and the Lord directed Eliezer to Rebekah (ch 24).<\/p>\nChapter 25 records the marriage of Abraham to Keturah, who bore him a number of children. Abraham died at the age of 175 years and was buried in the cave of Machpelah by his two sons, Isaac and Ishmael.<\/p>\n<h5>The History of Jacob and Esau (25:19–37:1)<\/h5>\nRebekah gave birth to twin sons, Esau and Jacob. When the boys were grown, Esau sold his birthright to Jacob for a meal of red pottage (25:27-34).<\/p>\nWhen famine came to the land, Isaac went to Gerar, as his father had done (ch 20), and repeated his father’s lie by calling his wife his sister (26:1-11). Trouble arose with the Philistines over wells, but Isaac was a peaceable man and preferred digging new wells rather than fighting over old ones (vv 17-33).<\/p>\nIn Isaac’s old age, when his sight had failed, Rebekah connived with Jacob to trick Isaac into giving to Jacob the blessing of the firstborn, which was rightfully Esau’s. This oral blessing had legal validity and was irrevocable, according to the ancient Nuzi tablets. Fearing for Jacob’s life at the hands of Esau, Rebekah arranged to send Jacob to Haran to find a wife from among her own people. At Bethel, God appeared to Jacob in a dream of a ladder leading up to heaven; God renewed with Jacob the promise made to Abraham and Isaac (28:10-22).<\/p>\nJacob reached Haran, found his uncle Laban, and was employed by him (ch 29). His wages for seven years of labor were to be Laban’s younger daughter, Rachel, as his wife. But Laban substituted Leah, so that Jacob had to work another seven years for Rachel. The Lord prospered Jacob, but he continually had difficulties with Laban. The Lord directed Jacob back to Canaan (31:3), so he left secretly with his wives, children, and property. Laban pursued them because his household gods were missing (possession of these “gods” made the holder heir to the owner’s estate, according to Nuzi custom). Rachel had taken them but successfully concealed them from her father, and Laban went back to Haran.<\/p>\nFearing a meeting with Esau as they passed through Edom, Jacob sent gifts to his brother and divided his own party into two camps for security. On this return journey, Jacob had an unexpected wrestling bout with the Angel of the Lord, and he was left with a limp and a new name, Israel (ch 32).<\/p>\nThe meeting with Esau was friendly, and Jacob went on to Shechem (ch 33), where his sons killed the male Shechemites because of the rape of their sister Dinah (ch 34). God told Jacob to go to Bethel and build an altar to the Lord. All idols of foreign gods were buried (35:1-4). At Bethel, God reaffirmed his promise of a posterity and the land (vv 9-15). Rachel died on the way to Bethlehem, while giving birth to Benjamin, Jacob’s 12th and last son. Isaac died at Hebron at age 180 and was buried in the cave of Machpelah by Esau and Jacob.<\/p>\nGenesis 36 records “the generations of Esau” (v 1). Here Esau is also named Edom (“Red”; cf. 25:30).<\/p>\n<h5>The History of Joseph (37:2–50:26)<\/h5>\nJoseph was Jacob’s favorite son and thus incurred the jealousy of his brothers. This was heightened by Joseph’s dreams of lordship over them. Their resentment of Joseph came to a climax when Jacob gave Joseph a beautiful coat. The brothers determined to kill Joseph, but they compromised by selling him to a caravan of merchants, who took him to Egypt and sold him as a slave to Potiphar, an Egyptian captain of the guard (37:36; 39:1).<\/p>\nChapter 38 relates a historic case of levirate marriage. Judah failed to give his widowed daughter-in-law to his third son. She deceived him into fathering twin sons and forced him to acknowledge his faults. The elder son, Perez, is named in Luke’s genealogy of Jesus (Lk 3:33).<\/p>\nThe Lord blessed Joseph, who soon was put in charge of Potiphar’s household (Gn 39). The young man attracted the attention of Potiphar’s wife, who, after many attempts to seduce him, at last accused him of attempted rape. Sentenced on this charge, Joseph met with favor in prison, where he had opportunity to interpret dreams for two of the pharaoh’s servants (ch 40). When the king had dreams that his magicians and wise men could not interpret, Joseph was summoned from jail. Joseph told Pharaoh that the dreams meant seven years of plenty, followed by seven years of famine. Joseph was then exalted to the office of vizier, or prime minister, second only to the king, and put in charge of the administration of the land (41:37-44).<\/p>\nWhen the famine came to Palestine, Jacob sent his sons to Egypt to purchase grain. Joseph recognized his brothers but did not reveal his identity to them. Joseph put them to the test by accusing them of being spies (42:9), by keeping one of the brothers (Simeon) hostage (v 19), and by demanding that if they came to Egypt again, they must bring their youngest brother with them (42:20; 43:3). The famine became so severe in Canaan (43:1) that Jacob at last allowed Benjamin to go with his brothers to Egypt. The brothers were again set up by Joseph, who had his silver cup put into Benjamin’s grain sack and then had him apprehended as a thief (ch 44).<\/p>\nAt this point Joseph revealed his identity to his brothers (45:4-15) and there was much rejoicing. Joseph pointed out that it was God who had sent him to Egypt (vv 7-8), in order to preserve the lives of all the family. Jacob was then sent for (46:1), and Joseph met him in the land of Goshen (46:28-29). The Israelites were assigned land in the region of Goshen, where they prospered (47:27).<\/p>\nIn Jacob’s final illness, Joseph brought his two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, to his father for his blessing. Jacob gave the primary blessing to the second-born, Ephraim (48:13-20). Jacob blessed each of his own sons and then died at the age of at least 130 years. Joseph arranged for Jacob’s body to be prepared for burial according to Egyptian custom (50:2-3). After the burial of their father in the cave of Machpelah at Hebron, Joseph’s brothers worried about vengeance, but Joseph declared, “As far as I am concerned, God turned into good what you meant for evil. He brought me to the high position I have today so I could save the lives of many people” (v 20, nlt<\/span>). Joseph died at age 110 with the prophetic request that when the Israelites went up from Egypt they would take his bones with them (50:25; cf. Ex 13:19; Jos 24:32).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Abraham; Adam (Person); Covenant; Creation; Eve; Fall of Man; Flood, The; Isaac; Jacob #1; Joseph #1; Nations; Noah #1; Patriarchs, Period of the.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>GENESIS, Book of<\/h3>\nFirst book of the Bible.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Name<\/p>\n• Author<\/p>\n• Date<\/p>\n• Purpose<\/p>\n• Structure<\/p>\n• Content<\/p>\nName<\/p>\nThe name Genesis comes into English as a transliteration of the Greek word meaning “origin” or “beginning.” This name was given to the book in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, known as the Septuagint. Genesis reflects both the content of the book and the Hebrew name for it, which is taken from its first word, bere’shith<\/span>,<\/em> “in the beginning.”<\/p>\nAuthor<\/p>\nThe authorship of Genesis is closely related to the authorship of the entire Pentateuch (lit. “five-volumed,” the first five books of the Bible, which in Hebrew are called the Torah). It is clear that the Bible regards the human author of these books as Moses. On several occasions the Lord commanded Moses to write down various things: “in a book” (Ex 17:14) “write these words” (34:27). The Pentateuch reports that “Moses wrote all the words of the Lord<\/span>” (24:4); he wrote the itinerary of the exodus wanderings (Nm 33:2); “Moses wrote this law” (Dt 31:9). (Here it is not certain that all five books are meant, but it must refer to at least the greater part of Deuteronomy.) In Exodus 24:7 it is said that Moses read the Book of the Covenant, which he must have just completed.<\/p>\nThe rest of the OT bears witness to the writing of the Pentateuch by Moses. David referred to “the law of Moses” (1 Kgs 2:3). In the time of Josiah, there was found in the temple the “Book of the Law of the Lord<\/span> . . . given through Moses” (2 Chr 34:14, nlt<\/span>). Day by day Ezra read from “the Book of the Law of God” (Neh 8:18, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nIn the NT, Jesus refers to “the book of Moses” (Mk 12:26; Lk 20:37) and otherwise mentions the commands or statements of Moses (Mt 8:4; 19:8; Mk 7:10; cf. Lk 16:31; 24:44). The Jews also quoted from the Torah as coming from Moses, and Jesus did not contradict them.<\/p>\nOf Genesis in particular, it may be said that Moses had the opportunity and ability to write the book. He could have written it during his years in Egypt or while exiled with the Kenites. As the recognized leader of the Israelites, he would have had access to, or perhaps even custody of, the records that Jacob brought from Canaan. He was “instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians” (Acts 7:22) and probably could have written in several languages and in several scripts (hieroglyphic, cuneiform, Old Hebrew). Although Moses was admirably fitted for the task of writing, one must remember that he was not putting together a human composition but was writing under the inspiration of God (2 Pt 1:21). We may with confidence conclude that Moses was the human author of Genesis.<\/p>\nThe liberal view of the authorship of Genesis is that the book is an editorial composite—a view first put forward by a French physician, Jean Astruc, who suggested that the different names for God indicated different documents or sources for the writing of the book. The German higher critics expanded the view of the use of documents in the writing of Genesis and developed it into the Graf-Wellhausen-Kuenen, or Documentary, Hypothesis, which may also be called the JEDP theory of the authorship of the book. This view holds that there were four basic documents: (1) J, which uses the name YHWH (Jehovah or Yahweh) for God, dates from about the ninth century BC<\/span> and comes from Judah; (2) E uses the name Elohim, dates from the eighth century, and comes from the northern kingdom; (3) D is Deuteronomy and is supposed to come from the time of Josiah, about 621 BC<\/span>; and (4) P is the priestly element, which deals with matters of the priesthood and ritual, dating to the fifth century BC<\/span> or later. Some may date portions of Genesis as late as the Hellenistic period. According to this theory, the various documents were blended together by editors, so that there was a JE, JED, and so on.<\/p>\nThe science of archaeology discredited many of the extreme postulations of these critics, and the work of W. F. Albright and his followers did much to restore confidence in the historicity of Genesis. Within the last several decades, the patriarchal narratives and the account of Joseph have again come under strong attack, but these views are extreme, and much of the evidence adduced by Albright and earlier scholars like R. D. Wilson, W. H. Green, and others still has validity.<\/p>\nDate<\/p>\nThe date of the book is also a matter of debate. Even among those who accept Mosaic authorship there is debate as to when Moses lived. Based on the biblical data, Moses should have lived in the 15th century BC<\/span> (cf. Jgs 11:26; 1 Kgs 6:1), but many scholars incline toward a 13th-century date. As outlined above, the liberal view of the date of Genesis would be from the ninth to the fifth centuries BC<\/span>, with the final editing coming around the fifth century or perhaps even later.<\/p>\nPurpose<\/p>\nGenesis sketches the origin of many things: the universe, the earth, plants, animals, and mankind. It gives the beginnings of human institutions, professions, and crafts. It describes the origin of sin and death, and illustrates the insidious working of Satan in human life. Above all, Genesis relates the beginning of the history of redemption with the announcement of a Redeemer who was to come (Gn 3:15). It names the early progenitors in the lineage of the Messiah and the beginning of the Hebrew people through whom the Bible and the Savior came. Genesis also gives a selective history of people and events as viewed from the perspective of the purposes of God.<\/p>\nStructure<\/p>\nThe book is divided into 11 parts of uneven length, each set off by the expression “these are the generations [descendants, history] of” (2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1; 37:2). Only three times does the formula coincide with the first verse of a chapter. Usually called a heading or superscription, the expression serves as a kind of link between what precedes and what follows.<\/p>\n\nContent<\/p>\n<h5>The Creation (1:1–2:25)<\/h5>\nThese two chapters have been a scientific-theological battleground for many years, as researchers and students have tried to probe the origins of the universe and of life. Much of the evidence is not subject to scientific scrutiny, for science by definition requires that the evidence must be reproducible by experiment.<\/p>\nThe statement of Genesis 1:1 remains the grandest, most precise, and most accurate statement of origins: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” He did this ex nihilo<\/em> (“out of nothing”) by his word (Heb 11:3); he spoke the word of command and it was done (Gn 1:3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20; Ps 33:6, 9).<\/p>\nThe date of the beginning is unknown. Uniformitarian cosmogonists (students of the origins of the universe who believe that natural events have always followed a uniform pattern; cf. 2 Pt 3:3-7) have speculated that the beginning of the universe was billions of years ago. But some creationists posit a world thousands of years old.<\/p>\nTo accommodate geological ages and the existence of extinct animals, some interpreters have proposed a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, with Genesis 1:2–2:3 representing a second or new creation. But this is conjecture. So is the idea that each day represents a geological age.<\/p>\nAs the text stands, there is a correlation between the first three days and the second three days. Day one saw the creation of light; day four, the light bearers. Day two was the time of the creation of the firmament (better, “expanse”), which divided the waters; day five, birds and swarming water creatures. On day three, God made the dry land and plants; on day six he created the land animals and man. He made man in the image of God (Gn 1:26), “a little less than God” (Ps 8:5), and gave him dominion over the earth. He made everything “according to their kinds,” so that each kind is distinct and unique. The perfection of his work is affirmed in that “God saw that it was good” (Gn 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21; “very good,” v 31). The seventh day was a time of cessation from the activity of creating and served as a type for mankind’s day of rest (2:1-3).<\/p>\nCritical scholarship eyes 2:4-25 as a doublet in conflict with Genesis 1:1–2:3. To conservative scholars, the second chapter is the same account from a different perspective. Chapter 1 gives the Creation from the standpoint of sequence; chapter 2 shows it in view of the centrality of mankind in God’s creative work.<\/p>\nChapter 2 gives details of the creation of man of “dust from the ground” (v 7) and woman from a rib of the man (vv 21-22). She was created to be “a companion who will help him” (vv 18-20). They were created as mature adults, with the gift of speech and with great intelligence. Adam had imagination and vocabulary sufficient for naming all of the animal species (v 19).<\/p>\nThe location of the Garden of Eden is given (vv 10-14). Two of the four rivers, the Tigris and the Euphrates, can be identified with certainty. So man lived in this beautiful garden in the bliss of innocence.<\/p>\n<h5>The History of Humankind from Eden to Babel (3:1–11:26)<\/h5>\n<h6>The Fall<\/h6>\nThe loss of Eden and the break in fellowship with God is the saddest chapter in human history. The serpent, the devil, approached Eve with the same philosophy he always uses: doubt of God’s word (Gn 3:1), denial of death (v 4), and the suggestion of equality with God (v 5). He gained access to her will by deceiving her with the promise that the fruit would make her as wise as God is (Gn 3:5; cf. 1 Jn 2:16). Eve was deceived, but when she offered the fruit to Adam, he took it willingly, knowing what he was doing (Gn 3:6; cf. 1 Tm 2:14). Later, he tried to blame God for giving him the wife who gave him the fruit (Gn 3:12). Fellowship with God was broken (v 8), yet God came seeking Adam and found him.<\/p>\nWith sin came judgment, and the Lord pronounced righteous judgment on the serpent, the woman, and the man. The earth was also “subjected to frustration” and now groans as it awaits renewal (Rom 8:21-22). God gave hope to man and a promise of a Redeemer (Gn 3:15), who was to bruise the serpent’s head. Adam and Eve were forced out of the Garden, and it was made inaccessible to them.<\/p>\nThe impatience of humankind is shown in Eve’s expectation that her son Cain was the promised Deliverer. Instead, he developed a wrong-hearted attitude toward God and became so jealous of his younger brother that he murdered him. Apprehended by God and confronted with his crime, Cain showed only self-pity and went east from Eden, where he built a city (4:1-16). Chapter 4 closes with another contrast: the brazen Lamech, who called for vengeance, while others began to call upon the name of the Lord.<\/p>\n<h6>The Generations of Adam<\/h6>\nThis genealogical table (5:1-32) brings humankind to the time of Noah and the Flood. The longevity of the antediluvian patriarchs seems very striking to us, but one must remember that the earth had not yet been subjected to pollution and that the effects of sin on the human race were still nominal. The refrain “and he died” reminds us of man’s mortality. For Enoch, however, there was something better: “He enjoyed a close relationship with God throughout his life. Then, suddenly, he disappeared because God took him” (5:24, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h6>The Flood<\/h6>\nWith increased population came an eruption of sin (6:1-5). As men multiplied, so did their corruption. The universal condemnation of verse 5 shows a world ripe for judgment. Noah, however, “found favor with the Lord<\/span>,” for he was a righteous and blameless man who walked with God (6:8-9).<\/p>\nThe Lord planned to annihilate the human race, but he determined to save Noah and his family. Intending to flood the earth, God instructed Noah to build an ark. Noah was directed to take animals aboard the ark, two by two, male and female, for the preservation of each species. When all was in readiness, the Flood came: “the underground waters burst forth on the earth, and the rain fell in mighty torrents from the sky” (7:11, nlt<\/span>). It rained for 40 days and 40 nights. The highest mountains were covered, and life outside the ark perished. “But God remembered Noah” and sent a wind to evaporate the waters (8:1). Eventually the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat (v 4). Noah made a sacrifice to the Lord, and the Lord determined that he would never again bring such destruction upon the earth.<\/p>\nThe Flood is another of God’s acts that has been much debated. Many have argued for a local flood, which affected only part of Mesopotamia. Archaeologists have pointed to various flood strata in the excavation of Mesopotamian city-mounds as evidence for the account of the flood and have cited the various flood stories from that area as the source of the Genesis record. The epic of Gilgamesh gives an interesting tale of this hero, who went on a mission to visit Utnapishtim, the cuneiform Noah, in quest of eternal life. The flood story told by Utnapishtim has many parallels to Genesis, but there are greater contrasts, which demonstrate that the Bible preserves the true account.<\/p>\nBoth the Genesis account and the references to it in the NT (cf. 2 Pt 3:6) favor the view that the deluge was not a minor episode in the Tigris-Euphrates area but was an unprecedented worldwide catastrophe. Christian geologists affirm that the Flood had far-reaching effects on the earth itself. Flood stories are almost universally known, lending support to the conclusion that the Flood covered the whole earth. Following the Flood, God blessed Noah and his sons, Ham, Shem, and Japheth. God made a covenant with Noah, promising that he would never again send a worldwide flood. As a sign of this, he established the rainbow.<\/p>\nNoah was the first tiller of the soil, and he planted a vineyard (9:20). Noah became drunk from wine he made and lay uncovered in his tent. Ham saw him and reported this to his brothers, who discreetly covered him. Ham and his son Canaan were cursed; Shem and Japheth were blessed.<\/p>\n<h6>The History of the Nations<\/h6>\n“This is the history of the families of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, the three sons of Noah. Many children were born to them after the Flood” (10:1, nlt<\/span>). This chapter lists the descendants of Noah’s three sons, in the order of Japheth (vv 2-5), Ham (vv 6-20), and Shem (vv 21-31). Many of the names of their descendants are preserved in tribes and nations of the world.<\/p>\n<h6>The Tower of Babel<\/h6>\nThe building of the Tower of Babel (“Gate of God”) illustrates man’s perversity and his tendency to want independence from God. The desire of man to displace God follows the fateful example of Lucifer and is a basic tenet of many cults. God thwarted the designs of the builders of Babel by confusing their languages, so that the project came to a halt (11:1-9). The site of this tower is not known with certainty. Some associate it with Birs Nimrud, not far from the ruins of the city of Babylon. Genesis 11:10-25 picks up the line of Shem and carries it down to Terah, the father of Abram.<\/p>\n<h5>The History of Abraham (11:27–25:10) and Isaac (21:1–28:5)<\/h5>\nAbram came from Ur of the Chaldees, a prosperous city. The city had an imposing ziggurat (temple-tower), with many temples, storehouses, and residences. Abram and Sarai, his half sister and wife, went with his father to Haran in Syria, which like Ur was a center of the worship of the moon god, Sin (or Annar).<\/p>\n<h6>Abram’s Call<\/h6>\nThe call of God came to Abram directing him to leave his relatives and move to a land that the Lord would show him (12:1; cf. Acts 7:2-3). Abram obeyed. At the age of 75, he, Sarai, and his nephew Lot left Haran and went to Shechem, where the Lord appeared to him and promised that land to his descendants.<\/p>\nFamine drove Abram down to Egypt (Gn 12:10-20). Because of Sarai’s beauty, he feared that someone might kill him to get her, so he passed her off as his sister. She was taken into the pharaoh’s harem. When the Lord plagued Pharaoh because of this, Abram’s lie was discovered and Sarai was returned to him.<\/p>\n<h6>Abram and Lot<\/h6>\nAbram and Lot returned to Canaan, where strife broke out between Abram’s herdsmen and those of Lot. Abram suggested that they should separate, and he gave Lot the choice of territory. Lot chose the well-watered Jordan Valley and the cities of the plain, Sodom and Gomorrah (ch 13).<\/p>\n<h6>The Invasion of the Four Kings from the East<\/h6>\nThe four kings who invaded along the King’s Highway in Transjordan cannot be identified with certainty. Those kings were successful in their attack against the five cities of the plain, and they moved off with much booty and many captives, including Lot. Abram took 318 retainers, born in his household, and set off after them. By surprise attack, Abram recovered both Lot and the loot. On his return he was met by Melchizedek, king of Jerusalem, to whom Abram paid tithes (ch 14).<\/p>\n<h6>The Covenant<\/h6>\nThe Lord promised Abram a son as heir, and in an impressive nighttime ceremony, God made a covenant with Abram and promised him the land from the River of Egypt (Wadi el Arish) to the Euphrates (ch 15). Because of her own barrenness, Sarai gave her Egyptian maid, Hagar, to Abram. Hagar gave birth to Ishmael, the progenitor of the Arab peoples. When trouble arose between the women, Sarai sent Hagar away, which was her right according to Near Eastern customs (as illustrated by the Nuzi tablets). God showed mercy to Hagar and promised that she would have a great posterity (ch 16).<\/p>\nGod repeated his promise to Abram concerning his descendants and changed the names of Abram (“exalted father”) and Sarai to Abraham (“father of many”) and Sarah (“princess”). A covenant sign of circumcision was given to Abraham (ch 17). This operation had already been practiced among the Egyptians for several centuries.<\/p>\n<h6>The Destruction of the Cities of the Plain<\/h6>\nThe Lord and two angels appeared to Abraham and announced the birth of the promised heir within a year, as well as proclaimed the impending destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, concerning which Abraham bargained with God (18:22-33). Lot and his immediate family were rescued from Sodom, and the cities were destroyed by God with brimstone and fire (19:24-25). Lot’s two daughters, wishing to preserve their family line, got their father drunk and had sexual relations with him. Moab and Ammon, enemies of Israel in later times, were the result.<\/p>\nIn Genesis 20:1-18, Abraham again represented Sarah as his sister and got into trouble with Abimelech, king of Gerar.<\/p>\n<h6>Isaac<\/h6>\nWhen Isaac was born (21:1-3), trouble again broke out between Sarah and Hagar. Hagar was driven out a second time, and once more was befriended by the Lord.<\/p>\nA disagreement arose between Abraham and Abimelech concerning a well, but they made a covenant of peace at Beersheba (21:25-34).<\/p>\nGod tested Abraham’s faith by asking him to sacrifice Isaac on Mt Moriah, which probably is the same site David later bought from Araunah the Jebusite (2 Sm 24:16-25), the place where the temple was to stand. As Abraham was about to use the knife, God called to him and showed him a ram caught in a thicket. Isaac was freed and the animal was sacrificed in his stead.<\/p>\nSarah died at Hebron, and Abraham purchased the cave of Machpelah as a burial place from Ephron the Hittite (ch 23), in a transaction typical of Near Eastern business dealings. To find a wife for Isaac, Abraham sent his servant Eliezer back to the area of Haran, and the Lord directed Eliezer to Rebekah (ch 24).<\/p>\nChapter 25 records the marriage of Abraham to Keturah, who bore him a number of children. Abraham died at the age of 175 years and was buried in the cave of Machpelah by his two sons, Isaac and Ishmael.<\/p>\n<h5>The History of Jacob and Esau (25:19–37:1)<\/h5>\nRebekah gave birth to twin sons, Esau and Jacob. When the boys were grown, Esau sold his birthright to Jacob for a meal of red pottage (25:27-34).<\/p>\nWhen famine came to the land, Isaac went to Gerar, as his father had done (ch 20), and repeated his father’s lie by calling his wife his sister (26:1-11). Trouble arose with the Philistines over wells, but Isaac was a peaceable man and preferred digging new wells rather than fighting over old ones (vv 17-33).<\/p>\nIn Isaac’s old age, when his sight had failed, Rebekah connived with Jacob to trick Isaac into giving to Jacob the blessing of the firstborn, which was rightfully Esau’s. This oral blessing had legal validity and was irrevocable, according to the ancient Nuzi tablets. Fearing for Jacob’s life at the hands of Esau, Rebekah arranged to send Jacob to Haran to find a wife from among her own people. At Bethel, God appeared to Jacob in a dream of a ladder leading up to heaven; God renewed with Jacob the promise made to Abraham and Isaac (28:10-22).<\/p>\nJacob reached Haran, found his uncle Laban, and was employed by him (ch 29). His wages for seven years of labor were to be Laban’s younger daughter, Rachel, as his wife. But Laban substituted Leah, so that Jacob had to work another seven years for Rachel. The Lord prospered Jacob, but he continually had difficulties with Laban. The Lord directed Jacob back to Canaan (31:3), so he left secretly with his wives, children, and property. Laban pursued them because his household gods were missing (possession of these “gods” made the holder heir to the owner’s estate, according to Nuzi custom). Rachel had taken them but successfully concealed them from her father, and Laban went back to Haran.<\/p>\nFearing a meeting with Esau as they passed through Edom, Jacob sent gifts to his brother and divided his own party into two camps for security. On this return journey, Jacob had an unexpected wrestling bout with the Angel of the Lord, and he was left with a limp and a new name, Israel (ch 32).<\/p>\nThe meeting with Esau was friendly, and Jacob went on to Shechem (ch 33), where his sons killed the male Shechemites because of the rape of their sister Dinah (ch 34). God told Jacob to go to Bethel and build an altar to the Lord. All idols of foreign gods were buried (35:1-4). At Bethel, God reaffirmed his promise of a posterity and the land (vv 9-15). Rachel died on the way to Bethlehem, while giving birth to Benjamin, Jacob’s 12th and last son. Isaac died at Hebron at age 180 and was buried in the cave of Machpelah by Esau and Jacob.<\/p>\nGenesis 36 records “the generations of Esau” (v 1). Here Esau is also named Edom (“Red”; cf. 25:30).<\/p>\n<h5>The History of Joseph (37:2–50:26)<\/h5>\nJoseph was Jacob’s favorite son and thus incurred the jealousy of his brothers. This was heightened by Joseph’s dreams of lordship over them. Their resentment of Joseph came to a climax when Jacob gave Joseph a beautiful coat. The brothers determined to kill Joseph, but they compromised by selling him to a caravan of merchants, who took him to Egypt and sold him as a slave to Potiphar, an Egyptian captain of the guard (37:36; 39:1).<\/p>\nChapter 38 relates a historic case of levirate marriage. Judah failed to give his widowed daughter-in-law to his third son. She deceived him into fathering twin sons and forced him to acknowledge his faults. The elder son, Perez, is named in Luke’s genealogy of Jesus (Lk 3:33).<\/p>\nThe Lord blessed Joseph, who soon was put in charge of Potiphar’s household (Gn 39). The young man attracted the attention of Potiphar’s wife, who, after many attempts to seduce him, at last accused him of attempted rape. Sentenced on this charge, Joseph met with favor in prison, where he had opportunity to interpret dreams for two of the pharaoh’s servants (ch 40). When the king had dreams that his magicians and wise men could not interpret, Joseph was summoned from jail. Joseph told Pharaoh that the dreams meant seven years of plenty, followed by seven years of famine. Joseph was then exalted to the office of vizier, or prime minister, second only to the king, and put in charge of the administration of the land (41:37-44).<\/p>\nWhen the famine came to Palestine, Jacob sent his sons to Egypt to purchase grain. Joseph recognized his brothers but did not reveal his identity to them. Joseph put them to the test by accusing them of being spies (42:9), by keeping one of the brothers (Simeon) hostage (v 19), and by demanding that if they came to Egypt again, they must bring their youngest brother with them (42:20; 43:3). The famine became so severe in Canaan (43:1) that Jacob at last allowed Benjamin to go with his brothers to Egypt. The brothers were again set up by Joseph, who had his silver cup put into Benjamin’s grain sack and then had him apprehended as a thief (ch 44).<\/p>\nAt this point Joseph revealed his identity to his brothers (45:4-15) and there was much rejoicing. Joseph pointed out that it was God who had sent him to Egypt (vv 7-8), in order to preserve the lives of all the family. Jacob was then sent for (46:1), and Joseph met him in the land of Goshen (46:28-29). The Israelites were assigned land in the region of Goshen, where they prospered (47:27).<\/p>\nIn Jacob’s final illness, Joseph brought his two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, to his father for his blessing. Jacob gave the primary blessing to the second-born, Ephraim (48:13-20). Jacob blessed each of his own sons and then died at the age of at least 130 years. Joseph arranged for Jacob’s body to be prepared for burial according to Egyptian custom (50:2-3). After the burial of their father in the cave of Machpelah at Hebron, Joseph’s brothers worried about vengeance, but Joseph declared, “As far as I am concerned, God turned into good what you meant for evil. He brought me to the high position I have today so I could save the lives of many people” (v 20, nlt<\/span>). Joseph died at age 110 with the prophetic request that when the Israelites went up from Egypt they would take his bones with them (50:25; cf. Ex 13:19; Jos 24:32).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Abraham; Adam (Person); Covenant; Creation; Eve; Fall of Man; Flood, The; Isaac; Jacob #1; Joseph #1; Nations; Noah #1; Patriarchs, Period of the.<\/p>","summary_ro":"GENESIS, Book of First book of the Bible. Preview • Name • Author • Date • Purpose • Structure • Content Name The name Genesis comes into English as a transliteration of the Greek word meaning “origin” or “beginning.” This name was given to the book in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, known as the Septuagint. Genesis reflects both the content of the book and the Hebrew name for it, which is taken from its first word, bere’shith, “in the beginning.” Author The authorship of Gene...","summary_en":"GENESIS, Book of First book of the Bible. Preview • Name • Author • Date • Purpose • Structure • Content Name The name Genesis comes into English as a transliteration of the Greek word meaning “origin” or “beginning.” This name was given to the book in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, known as the Septuagint. Genesis reflects both the content of the book and the Hebrew name for it, which is taken from its first word, bere’shith, “in the beginning.” Author The authorship of Gene...","source":"Articles\/G.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":35638,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Sleep","title_en":"Sleep","content_ro":"<h3>SLEEP<\/h3>\nSleep is spoken of in three ways in the Bible: (a) to speak of natural sleep, (b) to refer to moral or spiritual inactivity, and (c) to refer to death.<\/p>\nNatural Sleep<\/p>\nThe sleep that the human body needs is seen as a precious gift of God (Pss 4:8; 127:2). Sleep may be withheld, as God chooses and to serve his purposes (Est 6:1; Dn 6:18). God may also, to fulfill his purposes, give people deep sleep (Gn 2:21; 15:12; 1 Sm 26:12), and during a person’s sleep, God may make his will known by a dream or vision (e.g., Gn 28:11-16; Jb 4:13-17; Mt 1:20-24).<\/p>\nSeveral statements in the book of Proverbs rebuke the lack of discipline of life shown in the undue love of sleep. For example, one proverb says, “If you love sleep, you will end in poverty. Keep your eyes open, and there will be plenty to eat!” (Prv 20:13, nlt<\/span>; see also 6:9-11; 10:5; 24:32-34).<\/p>\nMoral or Spiritual Inactivity<\/p>\nIn a figurative way, sleep is used as a symbol of laziness, carelessness, or inactivity. Isaiah 56:10 speaks of those who failed in their responsibility as leaders of God’s people: “They love to lie there, love to sleep, to dream” (tlb<\/span>). In the NT those who are the Lord’s servants are called to watch and to be sure that when their Master comes he will not find them sleeping (Mk 13:35-37; see also Mt 25:1-13; 26:40-46). Likewise, the challenge to maintain spiritual alertness and to refrain from sleep comes in a number of places in the epistles: “Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give you light” (Eph 5:14, rsv<\/span>); “So be on your guard, not asleep like the others. Watch for his return and stay sober” (1 Thes 5:6, tlb<\/span>).<\/p>\nDeath<\/p>\nVery frequently, the Bible speaks of death as sleep. Commonly in the OT, when a person dies, he is said to go to sleep with his fathers (e.g., Dt 31:16; 2 Sm 7:12). Jesus spoke of death as sleep (Mt 9:24; Jn 11:11). So did the apostle Paul (1 Cor 11:30; 15:20, 51; 1 Thes 4:13-14). In some of these references, it would seem that it is the temporary nature of death that is the reason why it is spoken of as sleep. Even in Daniel 12:2 it is said that death is a sleep, until the dead “rise up, some to everlasting life and some to shame and everlasting contempt” (tlb<\/span>). This is made more specific in many passages in the NT. When, however, we consider the full teaching of the Bible on the meaning of death for the Christian, we need to give full weight to such passages as Luke 23:43, 2 Corinthians 5:8, and Philippians 1:23, and especially 1 Thessalonians 5:13-14. In the first of these Jesus says to the dying thief on the cross, “Today you will be with me in paradise,” and in the second Paul speaks of death for him as going to “be with Christ.”<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SLEEP<\/h3>\nSleep is spoken of in three ways in the Bible: (a) to speak of natural sleep, (b) to refer to moral or spiritual inactivity, and (c) to refer to death.<\/p>\nNatural Sleep<\/p>\nThe sleep that the human body needs is seen as a precious gift of God (Pss 4:8; 127:2). Sleep may be withheld, as God chooses and to serve his purposes (Est 6:1; Dn 6:18). God may also, to fulfill his purposes, give people deep sleep (Gn 2:21; 15:12; 1 Sm 26:12), and during a person’s sleep, God may make his will known by a dream or vision (e.g., Gn 28:11-16; Jb 4:13-17; Mt 1:20-24).<\/p>\nSeveral statements in the book of Proverbs rebuke the lack of discipline of life shown in the undue love of sleep. For example, one proverb says, “If you love sleep, you will end in poverty. Keep your eyes open, and there will be plenty to eat!” (Prv 20:13, nlt<\/span>; see also 6:9-11; 10:5; 24:32-34).<\/p>\nMoral or Spiritual Inactivity<\/p>\nIn a figurative way, sleep is used as a symbol of laziness, carelessness, or inactivity. Isaiah 56:10 speaks of those who failed in their responsibility as leaders of God’s people: “They love to lie there, love to sleep, to dream” (tlb<\/span>). In the NT those who are the Lord’s servants are called to watch and to be sure that when their Master comes he will not find them sleeping (Mk 13:35-37; see also Mt 25:1-13; 26:40-46). Likewise, the challenge to maintain spiritual alertness and to refrain from sleep comes in a number of places in the epistles: “Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give you light” (Eph 5:14, rsv<\/span>); “So be on your guard, not asleep like the others. Watch for his return and stay sober” (1 Thes 5:6, tlb<\/span>).<\/p>\nDeath<\/p>\nVery frequently, the Bible speaks of death as sleep. Commonly in the OT, when a person dies, he is said to go to sleep with his fathers (e.g., Dt 31:16; 2 Sm 7:12). Jesus spoke of death as sleep (Mt 9:24; Jn 11:11). So did the apostle Paul (1 Cor 11:30; 15:20, 51; 1 Thes 4:13-14). In some of these references, it would seem that it is the temporary nature of death that is the reason why it is spoken of as sleep. Even in Daniel 12:2 it is said that death is a sleep, until the dead “rise up, some to everlasting life and some to shame and everlasting contempt” (tlb<\/span>). This is made more specific in many passages in the NT. When, however, we consider the full teaching of the Bible on the meaning of death for the Christian, we need to give full weight to such passages as Luke 23:43, 2 Corinthians 5:8, and Philippians 1:23, and especially 1 Thessalonians 5:13-14. In the first of these Jesus says to the dying thief on the cross, “Today you will be with me in paradise,” and in the second Paul speaks of death for him as going to “be with Christ.”<\/p>","summary_ro":"SLEEP Sleep is spoken of in three ways in the Bible: (a) to speak of natural sleep, (b) to refer to moral or spiritual inactivity, and (c) to refer to death. Natural Sleep The sleep that the human body needs is seen as a precious gift of God (Pss 4:8; 127:2). Sleep may be withheld, as God chooses and to serve his purposes (Est 6:1; Dn 6:18). God may also, to fulfill his purposes, give people deep sleep (Gn 2:21; 15:12; 1 Sm 26:12), and during a person’s sleep, God may make his will known by a...","summary_en":"SLEEP Sleep is spoken of in three ways in the Bible: (a) to speak of natural sleep, (b) to refer to moral or spiritual inactivity, and (c) to refer to death. Natural Sleep The sleep that the human body needs is seen as a precious gift of God (Pss 4:8; 127:2). Sleep may be withheld, as God chooses and to serve his purposes (Est 6:1; Dn 6:18). God may also, to fulfill his purposes, give people deep sleep (Gn 2:21; 15:12; 1 Sm 26:12), and during a person’s sleep, God may make his will known by a...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"22":[{"id":9775,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Divorce","title_en":"Divorce","content_ro":"<h3>DIVORCE<\/h3>\nBiblical provisions regulating divorce are closely bound up with the various definitions given to marriage within the successive phases of God’s progressive revelation in history.<\/p>\nIn the Genesis Creation account, marriage is defined as the “one flesh” union established by God in the context of a sinless environment (Gn 2:24). Given such conditions, the dissolution of the marriage relationship was inconceivable. During his ministry, Jesus affirmed this aspect of God’s original design for marriage. He described the implications of the “one flesh” relationship as the abrogation of the separatedness of the spouses and the creation of an inviolable union (Mt 19:6).<\/p>\nThe Old Testament’s View on Divorce<\/p>\nThe disruptions brought about by the fall had grievous consequences for the male\/female relationship. Having allowed sin to sever their primary dependency on God, man and woman became respectively subject to the elements from which they had been originally made. Man became subject to the dust of the ground whence he had come (Gn 2:7; 3:19), and woman became subject to the man from whom she had been formed (2:22; 3:16). Prior to the fall, man and woman had enjoyed a relationship of equality as cosharers in the divine image (1:27) and as partners in the divine mandate to exercise dominion over creation (v 28). After the fall man became ruler over woman, and woman became subject to man (3:16).<\/p>\nAs a result of these new conditions, man assumed rights of disposition over woman that he did not possess prior to the fall. The “one flesh” relation was violated when the right of rulership opened the way for the male ruler to multiply the number of his female subjects. This disparity between male and female resulted in the practice of polygamy (Gn 4:19; 16:3; 29:30) and of serial monogamy, which required the termination of each successive marriage by an act of divorce (Dt 24:1-4). Thus, the emergence of the practice of divorce appeared as the inevitable consequence of the principle of male rulership. Neither rulership nor divorce was part of God’s original design for the marriage relationship. The Mosaic regulation on divorce was a concession made by God to the fallen condition of mankind (Mt 19:8). Characteristically, the option of divorce was a right available only to the male rulers. As subjects of their male rulers, wives became the victims of divorce. Men could divorce their wives; women could not divorce their husbands.<\/p>\nAs unfair as it may seem, the Deuteronomic provisions for divorce were actually intended to offer a modicum of protection for its female victims. A husband had to justify a divorce action against his wife by citing something indecent about her. He was to give his divorced wife a bill of divorce that accounted for her marriage to him (Dt 24:1). Moreover, a divorced husband was forbidden to remarry his ex-wife after her subsequent marriage, since his original divorce was viewed as a defilement of her (v 4).<\/p>\nAlthough the Mosaic dispositions on divorce were granted as a divine concession to Israel’s hardness of heart, the OT emphatically states that God hates divorce (Mal 2:16). The right of divorce was grudgingly granted as an accommodation to the principle of male rulership that had resulted from the fall. But God’s original design, reflected in the “one flesh” marital relation, remained the standard for the union of man and woman in marriage.<\/p>\nJesus’ Teaching on Divorce<\/p>\nInasmuch as Christ’s ministry of redemption signaled a return to God’s original purposes in Creation, the old covenant regulations on divorce were abrogated in the Christian community. In order to justify the inviolability of the marriage bond among his followers, Jesus directed them to the creational model. Referring negatively to the intervening Mosaic allowance for divorce, Jesus upheld God’s original creation order by stating that “from the beginning it was not so” (Mt 19:8). Christ repudiated the fall and affirmed the Creation design.<\/p>\nIn Matthew 5:31-32 Jesus explicitly abrogated the Mosaic legislation that allowed men to divorce their wives. He viewed the practice as a violation of the integrity of women. Adulterous men who divorce their wives reduce them to the status of whores, using them as commodities to be passed around through the expediency of easy divorce. By divorcing their wives, men treat them as adulteresses. By marrying a woman discarded from a previous marriage, a man perpetuates the demeaning process and becomes guilty of adultery.<\/p>\nJesus deliberately withdrew from men the ruler’s right of discarding a wife at will and reinstated the creational pattern of the lifelong “one flesh” union. His disciples understood his intent accurately. But the principle of male privilege was so deeply ingrained in their mentality that they declared the freedom available in celibacy preferable to a commitment to lifelong monogamous marriage (Mt 19:10).<\/p>\nNot only did Jesus reaffirm the validity of the “one flesh” union for the community of redemption, but the NT reinforced the inviolability of the marriage bond by defining it as an earthly copy of the relationship between Christ and the church (Eph 5:25).<\/p>\nDespite such strong sanctions for the permanency of the marriage bond, the NT permits divorce as an exception intended to protect the innocent spouse in the case of immorality and desertion. Jesus made exceptions that established the right of a spouse wronged by an unfaithful mate to press for divorce (Mt 5:32; 19:9). Obviously, the wronged spouse has the option of maintaining the marriage bond despite the breach of commitment by the unfaithful mate. But in view of the exception allowed by Scripture, the obligation to maintain or reinstate the disrupted marriage may not be imposed upon the innocent spouse.<\/p>\nThe other exception that justifies divorce, according to the NT, is desertion. Although the provisions of 1 Corinthians 7:15 refer primarily to desertion by an unbelieving spouse, it should be noted that a believer guilty of desertion is to be treated as an unbeliever (1 Tm 5:8). Behavior equivalent to the abandonment of the marriage relationship constitutes a breach of conjugal commitment and becomes subject to the provision stated in 1 Corinthians 7:15.<\/p>\nIn either case, adultery or desertion, the aggrieved party has the right to seek divorce from the offending spouse and, having obtained it, becomes again a single person. Should repentance and reconciliation fail to restore the violated union, the aggrieved spouse is not bound to the marriage. According to Scripture, a person who is not bound is free to remarry, but only “in the Lord,” meaning to another Christian (1 Cor 7:39). The injunction for a single person who does not have the gift of celibacy to marry (v 9) applies to a person formerly married but who has become single by a scripturally legitimate divorce. In keeping with Christ’s teaching in Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18, the remarriage of believers may not be approved when the divorce has been used as a means of changing mates, since such intent makes the divorce adulterous.<\/p>\nMany factors usually combine to destroy a marriage; therefore, the church must deal with each case of divorce and remarriage on an individual basis, taking into account God’s inexhaustible capacity to forgive sin and to restore broken lives. Obviously, the scriptural restrictions on divorce do not apply to believers whose broken marriages predate their conversion, since God’s forgiveness wipes clean the sin of their pre-Christian past and makes them new creatures in Christ.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Adultery; Civil Law and Justice; Marriage, Marriage Customs; Sex, Sexuality.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>DIVORCE<\/h3>\nBiblical provisions regulating divorce are closely bound up with the various definitions given to marriage within the successive phases of God’s progressive revelation in history.<\/p>\nIn the Genesis Creation account, marriage is defined as the “one flesh” union established by God in the context of a sinless environment (Gn 2:24). Given such conditions, the dissolution of the marriage relationship was inconceivable. During his ministry, Jesus affirmed this aspect of God’s original design for marriage. He described the implications of the “one flesh” relationship as the abrogation of the separatedness of the spouses and the creation of an inviolable union (Mt 19:6).<\/p>\nThe Old Testament’s View on Divorce<\/p>\nThe disruptions brought about by the fall had grievous consequences for the male\/female relationship. Having allowed sin to sever their primary dependency on God, man and woman became respectively subject to the elements from which they had been originally made. Man became subject to the dust of the ground whence he had come (Gn 2:7; 3:19), and woman became subject to the man from whom she had been formed (2:22; 3:16). Prior to the fall, man and woman had enjoyed a relationship of equality as cosharers in the divine image (1:27) and as partners in the divine mandate to exercise dominion over creation (v 28). After the fall man became ruler over woman, and woman became subject to man (3:16).<\/p>\nAs a result of these new conditions, man assumed rights of disposition over woman that he did not possess prior to the fall. The “one flesh” relation was violated when the right of rulership opened the way for the male ruler to multiply the number of his female subjects. This disparity between male and female resulted in the practice of polygamy (Gn 4:19; 16:3; 29:30) and of serial monogamy, which required the termination of each successive marriage by an act of divorce (Dt 24:1-4). Thus, the emergence of the practice of divorce appeared as the inevitable consequence of the principle of male rulership. Neither rulership nor divorce was part of God’s original design for the marriage relationship. The Mosaic regulation on divorce was a concession made by God to the fallen condition of mankind (Mt 19:8). Characteristically, the option of divorce was a right available only to the male rulers. As subjects of their male rulers, wives became the victims of divorce. Men could divorce their wives; women could not divorce their husbands.<\/p>\nAs unfair as it may seem, the Deuteronomic provisions for divorce were actually intended to offer a modicum of protection for its female victims. A husband had to justify a divorce action against his wife by citing something indecent about her. He was to give his divorced wife a bill of divorce that accounted for her marriage to him (Dt 24:1). Moreover, a divorced husband was forbidden to remarry his ex-wife after her subsequent marriage, since his original divorce was viewed as a defilement of her (v 4).<\/p>\nAlthough the Mosaic dispositions on divorce were granted as a divine concession to Israel’s hardness of heart, the OT emphatically states that God hates divorce (Mal 2:16). The right of divorce was grudgingly granted as an accommodation to the principle of male rulership that had resulted from the fall. But God’s original design, reflected in the “one flesh” marital relation, remained the standard for the union of man and woman in marriage.<\/p>\nJesus’ Teaching on Divorce<\/p>\nInasmuch as Christ’s ministry of redemption signaled a return to God’s original purposes in Creation, the old covenant regulations on divorce were abrogated in the Christian community. In order to justify the inviolability of the marriage bond among his followers, Jesus directed them to the creational model. Referring negatively to the intervening Mosaic allowance for divorce, Jesus upheld God’s original creation order by stating that “from the beginning it was not so” (Mt 19:8). Christ repudiated the fall and affirmed the Creation design.<\/p>\nIn Matthew 5:31-32 Jesus explicitly abrogated the Mosaic legislation that allowed men to divorce their wives. He viewed the practice as a violation of the integrity of women. Adulterous men who divorce their wives reduce them to the status of whores, using them as commodities to be passed around through the expediency of easy divorce. By divorcing their wives, men treat them as adulteresses. By marrying a woman discarded from a previous marriage, a man perpetuates the demeaning process and becomes guilty of adultery.<\/p>\nJesus deliberately withdrew from men the ruler’s right of discarding a wife at will and reinstated the creational pattern of the lifelong “one flesh” union. His disciples understood his intent accurately. But the principle of male privilege was so deeply ingrained in their mentality that they declared the freedom available in celibacy preferable to a commitment to lifelong monogamous marriage (Mt 19:10).<\/p>\nNot only did Jesus reaffirm the validity of the “one flesh” union for the community of redemption, but the NT reinforced the inviolability of the marriage bond by defining it as an earthly copy of the relationship between Christ and the church (Eph 5:25).<\/p>\nDespite such strong sanctions for the permanency of the marriage bond, the NT permits divorce as an exception intended to protect the innocent spouse in the case of immorality and desertion. Jesus made exceptions that established the right of a spouse wronged by an unfaithful mate to press for divorce (Mt 5:32; 19:9). Obviously, the wronged spouse has the option of maintaining the marriage bond despite the breach of commitment by the unfaithful mate. But in view of the exception allowed by Scripture, the obligation to maintain or reinstate the disrupted marriage may not be imposed upon the innocent spouse.<\/p>\nThe other exception that justifies divorce, according to the NT, is desertion. Although the provisions of 1 Corinthians 7:15 refer primarily to desertion by an unbelieving spouse, it should be noted that a believer guilty of desertion is to be treated as an unbeliever (1 Tm 5:8). Behavior equivalent to the abandonment of the marriage relationship constitutes a breach of conjugal commitment and becomes subject to the provision stated in 1 Corinthians 7:15.<\/p>\nIn either case, adultery or desertion, the aggrieved party has the right to seek divorce from the offending spouse and, having obtained it, becomes again a single person. Should repentance and reconciliation fail to restore the violated union, the aggrieved spouse is not bound to the marriage. According to Scripture, a person who is not bound is free to remarry, but only “in the Lord,” meaning to another Christian (1 Cor 7:39). The injunction for a single person who does not have the gift of celibacy to marry (v 9) applies to a person formerly married but who has become single by a scripturally legitimate divorce. In keeping with Christ’s teaching in Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18, the remarriage of believers may not be approved when the divorce has been used as a means of changing mates, since such intent makes the divorce adulterous.<\/p>\nMany factors usually combine to destroy a marriage; therefore, the church must deal with each case of divorce and remarriage on an individual basis, taking into account God’s inexhaustible capacity to forgive sin and to restore broken lives. Obviously, the scriptural restrictions on divorce do not apply to believers whose broken marriages predate their conversion, since God’s forgiveness wipes clean the sin of their pre-Christian past and makes them new creatures in Christ.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Adultery; Civil Law and Justice; Marriage, Marriage Customs; Sex, Sexuality.<\/p>","summary_ro":"DIVORCE Biblical provisions regulating divorce are closely bound up with the various definitions given to marriage within the successive phases of God’s progressive revelation in history. In the Genesis Creation account, marriage is defined as the “one flesh” union established by God in the context of a sinless environment (Gn 2:24). Given such conditions, the dissolution of the marriage relationship was inconceivable. During his ministry, Jesus affirmed this aspect of God’s original design f...","summary_en":"DIVORCE Biblical provisions regulating divorce are closely bound up with the various definitions given to marriage within the successive phases of God’s progressive revelation in history. In the Genesis Creation account, marriage is defined as the “one flesh” union established by God in the context of a sinless environment (Gn 2:24). Given such conditions, the dissolution of the marriage relationship was inconceivable. During his ministry, Jesus affirmed this aspect of God’s original design f...","source":"Articles\/D.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":67497,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church","title_en":"Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church","content_ro":"<h3>Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church<\/h3>\nPaul’s words in 1 Timothy regarding women’s roles in the church were intended to correct what was happening in Ephesus, but the extent to which this passage applies to other situations is a subject of discussion. The possible understandings include the following three:<\/p>\nUniversal Interpretation.<\/em> Galatians 3:28 (“There is no longer . . . male and female”) does not negate creational gender distinctions and roles. Even if Galatians 3:28 represents the ideal of equality in God’s eternal Kingdom, gender roles should still be ordered as outlined in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 for as long as this creation continues. By way of comparison, Matthew 22:30 discusses the status of marriage in the new creation—it differs from the structure of this creation outlined in Genesis 2:23-24, and it applies to the present life only in a special and limited sense (see 1 Tim 4:3-5; Matt 19:11-12; 1 Cor 7:29-35). The structure of the new creation will be fully realized in the coming age, and it is not the ideal for the present time. Therefore, Christian women in all times and places must recognize their role in the created order of God. They must not teach men or exercise authority over men in the church (see also 1 Cor 11:2-16; 14:34-35).<\/p>\nPolemical Interpretation.<\/em> Paul was addressing a particular situation created by the false teaching within the Ephesian church (see 1 Tim 1:18-20; 4:1-5; cp. 2 Tim 3:6-9). Evidence suggests that this teaching was disturbing family relationships (see 1 Tim 4:3; Titus 1:11). It is possible that Ephesian women, caught up in the local heresy, were abusing Genesis 1–3 in their teaching. They might have been asserting female domination in the final resurrection (which, according to some of the Ephesians, had already occurred; 2 Tim 2:18) and accentuated Adam’s blame for the Fall. Paul corrects their misreadings by alluding to the biblical text, but his point is not to make a universal statement about the status of women in the church. His concern is merely to silence the false teachers in Ephesus, including the women among them. First Timothy 2:11-15 entails a rebuke with loss of privilege specifically for those false teachers.<\/p>\nCultural Interpretation.<\/em> Paul’s argument was not necessarily directed to a local problem in Ephesus, but it presupposes a strongly patriarchal society, both in concern for public decorum (women in their place, showing proper honor to men) and in handling Genesis 2:7, 22. This shows that Christians must respect cultural norms insofar as possible in their evangelistic mission (1 Cor 9:19-23). In addition, most women in that society had limited training as teachers. Their society, in contrast to many twenty-first-century societies, usually educated women poorly. Because of that culture’s patriarchal structure, women would not normally have qualified as teachers and leaders. First Timothy 2:11-15, therefore, reflects the notion that properly qualified people should lead and teach. At the same time, there are examples in Paul’s writings and in the early church of women participating in various facets of ministry (e.g., Acts 18:26; Rom 16:1-7; 1 Cor 11:5). This leads to questions about the universal applicability of Paul’s statements on women in the church.<\/p>\nChristians continue to discuss these complex issues. Many Christians today subscribe to a complementarian viewpoint, affirming distinct gender roles in the church, while many others take an egalitarian position, supporting the notion that men and women share equal roles in the church. All Christians affirm, however, the equality of men and women with respect to their identity as beloved children of God (see Galatians 3:26-28).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:23-24; Acts 18:26; Rom 16:1-7; 1 Cor 11:2-16; 14:34-35; Gal 3:28; 1 Tim 2:11-15<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church<\/h3>\nPaul’s words in 1 Timothy regarding women’s roles in the church were intended to correct what was happening in Ephesus, but the extent to which this passage applies to other situations is a subject of discussion. The possible understandings include the following three:<\/p>\nUniversal Interpretation.<\/em> Galatians 3:28 (“There is no longer . . . male and female”) does not negate creational gender distinctions and roles. Even if Galatians 3:28 represents the ideal of equality in God’s eternal Kingdom, gender roles should still be ordered as outlined in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 for as long as this creation continues. By way of comparison, Matthew 22:30 discusses the status of marriage in the new creation—it differs from the structure of this creation outlined in Genesis 2:23-24, and it applies to the present life only in a special and limited sense (see 1 Tim 4:3-5; Matt 19:11-12; 1 Cor 7:29-35). The structure of the new creation will be fully realized in the coming age, and it is not the ideal for the present time. Therefore, Christian women in all times and places must recognize their role in the created order of God. They must not teach men or exercise authority over men in the church (see also 1 Cor 11:2-16; 14:34-35).<\/p>\nPolemical Interpretation.<\/em> Paul was addressing a particular situation created by the false teaching within the Ephesian church (see 1 Tim 1:18-20; 4:1-5; cp. 2 Tim 3:6-9). Evidence suggests that this teaching was disturbing family relationships (see 1 Tim 4:3; Titus 1:11). It is possible that Ephesian women, caught up in the local heresy, were abusing Genesis 1–3 in their teaching. They might have been asserting female domination in the final resurrection (which, according to some of the Ephesians, had already occurred; 2 Tim 2:18) and accentuated Adam’s blame for the Fall. Paul corrects their misreadings by alluding to the biblical text, but his point is not to make a universal statement about the status of women in the church. His concern is merely to silence the false teachers in Ephesus, including the women among them. First Timothy 2:11-15 entails a rebuke with loss of privilege specifically for those false teachers.<\/p>\nCultural Interpretation.<\/em> Paul’s argument was not necessarily directed to a local problem in Ephesus, but it presupposes a strongly patriarchal society, both in concern for public decorum (women in their place, showing proper honor to men) and in handling Genesis 2:7, 22. This shows that Christians must respect cultural norms insofar as possible in their evangelistic mission (1 Cor 9:19-23). In addition, most women in that society had limited training as teachers. Their society, in contrast to many twenty-first-century societies, usually educated women poorly. Because of that culture’s patriarchal structure, women would not normally have qualified as teachers and leaders. First Timothy 2:11-15, therefore, reflects the notion that properly qualified people should lead and teach. At the same time, there are examples in Paul’s writings and in the early church of women participating in various facets of ministry (e.g., Acts 18:26; Rom 16:1-7; 1 Cor 11:5). This leads to questions about the universal applicability of Paul’s statements on women in the church.<\/p>\nChristians continue to discuss these complex issues. Many Christians today subscribe to a complementarian viewpoint, affirming distinct gender roles in the church, while many others take an egalitarian position, supporting the notion that men and women share equal roles in the church. All Christians affirm, however, the equality of men and women with respect to their identity as beloved children of God (see Galatians 3:26-28).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:23-24; Acts 18:26; Rom 16:1-7; 1 Cor 11:2-16; 14:34-35; Gal 3:28; 1 Tim 2:11-15<\/p>","summary_ro":"Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church Paul’s words in 1 Timothy regarding women’s roles in the church were intended to correct what was happening in Ephesus, but the extent to which this passage applies to other situations is a subject of discussion. The possible understandings include the following three: Universal Interpretation. Galatians 3:28 (“There is no longer . . . male and female”) does not negate creational gender distinctions and roles. Even if Galatians 3:28 represents the ide...","summary_en":"Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church Paul’s words in 1 Timothy regarding women’s roles in the church were intended to correct what was happening in Ephesus, but the extent to which this passage applies to other situations is a subject of discussion. The possible understandings include the following three: Universal Interpretation. Galatians 3:28 (“There is no longer . . . male and female”) does not negate creational gender distinctions and roles. Even if Galatians 3:28 represents the ide...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":95123,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church","title_en":"Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church","content_ro":"<h3>Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church<\/h3>\nPaul’s words in 1 Timothy regarding women’s roles in the church were intended to correct what was happening in Ephesus, but the extent to which this passage applies to other situations is a subject of discussion. The possible understandings include the following three:<\/p>\nUniversal Interpretation.<\/em> Galatians 3:28 (“There is no longer . . . male and female”) does not negate creational gender distinctions and roles. Even if Galatians 3:28 represents the ideal of equality in God’s eternal Kingdom, gender roles should still be ordered as outlined in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 for as long as this creation continues. By way of comparison, Matthew 22:30 discusses the status of marriage in the new creation—it differs from the structure of this creation outlined in Genesis 2:23-24, and it applies to the present life only in a special and limited sense (see 1 Tim 4:3-5; Matt 19:11-12; 1 Cor 7:29-35). The structure of the new creation will be fully realized in the coming age, and it is not the ideal for the present time. Therefore, Christian women in all times and places must recognize their role in the created order of God. They must not teach men or exercise authority over men in the church (see also 1 Cor 11:2-16; 14:34-35).<\/p>\nPolemical Interpretation.<\/em> Paul was addressing a particular situation created by the false teaching within the Ephesian church (see 1 Tim 1:18-20; 4:1-5; cp. 2 Tim 3:6-9). Evidence suggests that this teaching was disturbing family relationships (see 1 Tim 4:3; Titus 1:11). It is possible that Ephesian women, caught up in the local heresy, were abusing Genesis 1–3 in their teaching. They might have been asserting female domination in the final resurrection (which, according to some of the Ephesians, had already occurred; 2 Tim 2:18) and accentuated Adam’s blame for the Fall. Paul corrects their misreadings by alluding to the biblical text, but his point is not to make a universal statement about the status of women in the church. His concern is merely to silence the false teachers in Ephesus, including the women among them. First Timothy 2:11-15 entails a rebuke with loss of privilege specifically for those false teachers.<\/p>\nCultural Interpretation.<\/em> Paul’s argument was not necessarily directed to a local problem in Ephesus, but it presupposes a strongly patriarchal society, both in concern for public decorum (women in their place, showing proper honor to men) and in handling Genesis 2:7, 22. This shows that Christians must respect cultural norms insofar as possible in their evangelistic mission (1 Cor 9:19-23). In addition, most women in that society had limited training as teachers. Their society, in contrast to many twenty-first-century societies, usually educated women poorly. Because of that culture’s patriarchal structure, women would not normally have qualified as teachers and leaders. First Timothy 2:11-15, therefore, reflects the notion that properly qualified people should lead and teach. At the same time, there are examples in Paul’s writings and in the early church of women participating in various facets of ministry (e.g., Acts 18:26; Rom 16:1-7; 1 Cor 11:5). This leads to questions about the universal applicability of Paul’s statements on women in the church.<\/p>\nChristians continue to discuss these complex issues. Many Christians today subscribe to a complementarian viewpoint, affirming distinct gender roles in the church, while many others take an egalitarian position, supporting the notion that men and women share equal roles in the church. All Christians affirm, however, the equality of men and women with respect to their identity as beloved children of God (see Galatians 3:26-28).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:23-24; Acts 18:26; Rom 16:1-7; 1 Cor 11:2-16; 14:34-35; Gal 3:28; 1 Tim 2:11-15<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church<\/h3>\nPaul’s words in 1 Timothy regarding women’s roles in the church were intended to correct what was happening in Ephesus, but the extent to which this passage applies to other situations is a subject of discussion. The possible understandings include the following three:<\/p>\nUniversal Interpretation.<\/em> Galatians 3:28 (“There is no longer . . . male and female”) does not negate creational gender distinctions and roles. Even if Galatians 3:28 represents the ideal of equality in God’s eternal Kingdom, gender roles should still be ordered as outlined in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 for as long as this creation continues. By way of comparison, Matthew 22:30 discusses the status of marriage in the new creation—it differs from the structure of this creation outlined in Genesis 2:23-24, and it applies to the present life only in a special and limited sense (see 1 Tim 4:3-5; Matt 19:11-12; 1 Cor 7:29-35). The structure of the new creation will be fully realized in the coming age, and it is not the ideal for the present time. Therefore, Christian women in all times and places must recognize their role in the created order of God. They must not teach men or exercise authority over men in the church (see also 1 Cor 11:2-16; 14:34-35).<\/p>\nPolemical Interpretation.<\/em> Paul was addressing a particular situation created by the false teaching within the Ephesian church (see 1 Tim 1:18-20; 4:1-5; cp. 2 Tim 3:6-9). Evidence suggests that this teaching was disturbing family relationships (see 1 Tim 4:3; Titus 1:11). It is possible that Ephesian women, caught up in the local heresy, were abusing Genesis 1–3 in their teaching. They might have been asserting female domination in the final resurrection (which, according to some of the Ephesians, had already occurred; 2 Tim 2:18) and accentuated Adam’s blame for the Fall. Paul corrects their misreadings by alluding to the biblical text, but his point is not to make a universal statement about the status of women in the church. His concern is merely to silence the false teachers in Ephesus, including the women among them. First Timothy 2:11-15 entails a rebuke with loss of privilege specifically for those false teachers.<\/p>\nCultural Interpretation.<\/em> Paul’s argument was not necessarily directed to a local problem in Ephesus, but it presupposes a strongly patriarchal society, both in concern for public decorum (women in their place, showing proper honor to men) and in handling Genesis 2:7, 22. This shows that Christians must respect cultural norms insofar as possible in their evangelistic mission (1 Cor 9:19-23). In addition, most women in that society had limited training as teachers. Their society, in contrast to many twenty-first-century societies, usually educated women poorly. Because of that culture’s patriarchal structure, women would not normally have qualified as teachers and leaders. First Timothy 2:11-15, therefore, reflects the notion that properly qualified people should lead and teach. At the same time, there are examples in Paul’s writings and in the early church of women participating in various facets of ministry (e.g., Acts 18:26; Rom 16:1-7; 1 Cor 11:5). This leads to questions about the universal applicability of Paul’s statements on women in the church.<\/p>\nChristians continue to discuss these complex issues. Many Christians today subscribe to a complementarian viewpoint, affirming distinct gender roles in the church, while many others take an egalitarian position, supporting the notion that men and women share equal roles in the church. All Christians affirm, however, the equality of men and women with respect to their identity as beloved children of God (see Galatians 3:26-28).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:23-24; Acts 18:26; Rom 16:1-7; 1 Cor 11:2-16; 14:34-35; Gal 3:28; 1 Tim 2:11-15<\/p>","summary_ro":"Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church Paul’s words in 1 Timothy regarding women’s roles in the church were intended to correct what was happening in Ephesus, but the extent to which this passage applies to other situations is a subject of discussion. The possible understandings include the following three: Universal Interpretation. Galatians 3:28 (“There is no longer . . . male and female”) does not negate creational gender distinctions and roles. Even if Galatians 3:28 represents the ide...","summary_en":"Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church Paul’s words in 1 Timothy regarding women’s roles in the church were intended to correct what was happening in Ephesus, but the extent to which this passage applies to other situations is a subject of discussion. The possible understandings include the following three: Universal Interpretation. Galatians 3:28 (“There is no longer . . . male and female”) does not negate creational gender distinctions and roles. Even if Galatians 3:28 represents the ide...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":122749,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church","title_en":"Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church","content_ro":"<h3>Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church<\/h3>\nPaul’s words in 1 Timothy regarding women’s roles in the church were intended to correct what was happening in Ephesus, but the extent to which this passage applies to other situations is a subject of discussion. The possible understandings include the following three:<\/p>\nUniversal Interpretation.<\/em> Galatians 3:28 (“There is no longer . . . male and female”) does not negate creational gender distinctions and roles. Even if Galatians 3:28 represents the ideal of equality in God’s eternal Kingdom, gender roles should still be ordered as outlined in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 for as long as this creation continues. By way of comparison, Matthew 22:30 discusses the status of marriage in the new creation—it differs from the structure of this creation outlined in Genesis 2:23-24, and it applies to the present life only in a special and limited sense (see 1 Tim 4:3-5; Matt 19:11-12; 1 Cor 7:29-35). The structure of the new creation will be fully realized in the coming age, and it is not the ideal for the present time. Therefore, Christian women in all times and places must recognize their role in the created order of God. They must not teach men or exercise authority over men in the church (see also 1 Cor 11:2-16; 14:34-35).<\/p>\nPolemical Interpretation.<\/em> Paul was addressing a particular situation created by the false teaching within the Ephesian church (see 1 Tim 1:18-20; 4:1-5; cp. 2 Tim 3:6-9). Evidence suggests that this teaching was disturbing family relationships (see 1 Tim 4:3; Titus 1:11). It is possible that Ephesian women, caught up in the local heresy, were abusing Genesis 1–3 in their teaching. They might have been asserting female domination in the final resurrection (which, according to some of the Ephesians, had already occurred; 2 Tim 2:18) and accentuated Adam’s blame for the Fall. Paul corrects their misreadings by alluding to the biblical text, but his point is not to make a universal statement about the status of women in the church. His concern is merely to silence the false teachers in Ephesus, including the women among them. First Timothy 2:11-15 entails a rebuke with loss of privilege specifically for those false teachers.<\/p>\nCultural Interpretation.<\/em> Paul’s argument was not necessarily directed to a local problem in Ephesus, but it presupposes a strongly patriarchal society, both in concern for public decorum (women in their place, showing proper honor to men) and in handling Genesis 2:7, 22. This shows that Christians must respect cultural norms insofar as possible in their evangelistic mission (1 Cor 9:19-23). In addition, most women in that society had limited training as teachers. Their society, in contrast to many twenty-first-century societies, usually educated women poorly. Because of that culture’s patriarchal structure, women would not normally have qualified as teachers and leaders. First Timothy 2:11-15, therefore, reflects the notion that properly qualified people should lead and teach. At the same time, there are examples in Paul’s writings and in the early church of women participating in various facets of ministry (e.g., Acts 18:26; Rom 16:1-7; 1 Cor 11:5). This leads to questions about the universal applicability of Paul’s statements on women in the church.<\/p>\nChristians continue to discuss these complex issues. Many Christians today subscribe to a complementarian viewpoint, affirming distinct gender roles in the church, while many others take an egalitarian position, supporting the notion that men and women share equal roles in the church. All Christians affirm, however, the equality of men and women with respect to their identity as beloved children of God (see Galatians 3:26-28).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:23-24; Acts 18:26; Rom 16:1-7; 1 Cor 11:2-16; 14:34-35; Gal 3:28; 1 Tim 2:11-15<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church<\/h3>\nPaul’s words in 1 Timothy regarding women’s roles in the church were intended to correct what was happening in Ephesus, but the extent to which this passage applies to other situations is a subject of discussion. The possible understandings include the following three:<\/p>\nUniversal Interpretation.<\/em> Galatians 3:28 (“There is no longer . . . male and female”) does not negate creational gender distinctions and roles. Even if Galatians 3:28 represents the ideal of equality in God’s eternal Kingdom, gender roles should still be ordered as outlined in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 for as long as this creation continues. By way of comparison, Matthew 22:30 discusses the status of marriage in the new creation—it differs from the structure of this creation outlined in Genesis 2:23-24, and it applies to the present life only in a special and limited sense (see 1 Tim 4:3-5; Matt 19:11-12; 1 Cor 7:29-35). The structure of the new creation will be fully realized in the coming age, and it is not the ideal for the present time. Therefore, Christian women in all times and places must recognize their role in the created order of God. They must not teach men or exercise authority over men in the church (see also 1 Cor 11:2-16; 14:34-35).<\/p>\nPolemical Interpretation.<\/em> Paul was addressing a particular situation created by the false teaching within the Ephesian church (see 1 Tim 1:18-20; 4:1-5; cp. 2 Tim 3:6-9). Evidence suggests that this teaching was disturbing family relationships (see 1 Tim 4:3; Titus 1:11). It is possible that Ephesian women, caught up in the local heresy, were abusing Genesis 1–3 in their teaching. They might have been asserting female domination in the final resurrection (which, according to some of the Ephesians, had already occurred; 2 Tim 2:18) and accentuated Adam’s blame for the Fall. Paul corrects their misreadings by alluding to the biblical text, but his point is not to make a universal statement about the status of women in the church. His concern is merely to silence the false teachers in Ephesus, including the women among them. First Timothy 2:11-15 entails a rebuke with loss of privilege specifically for those false teachers.<\/p>\nCultural Interpretation.<\/em> Paul’s argument was not necessarily directed to a local problem in Ephesus, but it presupposes a strongly patriarchal society, both in concern for public decorum (women in their place, showing proper honor to men) and in handling Genesis 2:7, 22. This shows that Christians must respect cultural norms insofar as possible in their evangelistic mission (1 Cor 9:19-23). In addition, most women in that society had limited training as teachers. Their society, in contrast to many twenty-first-century societies, usually educated women poorly. Because of that culture’s patriarchal structure, women would not normally have qualified as teachers and leaders. First Timothy 2:11-15, therefore, reflects the notion that properly qualified people should lead and teach. At the same time, there are examples in Paul’s writings and in the early church of women participating in various facets of ministry (e.g., Acts 18:26; Rom 16:1-7; 1 Cor 11:5). This leads to questions about the universal applicability of Paul’s statements on women in the church.<\/p>\nChristians continue to discuss these complex issues. Many Christians today subscribe to a complementarian viewpoint, affirming distinct gender roles in the church, while many others take an egalitarian position, supporting the notion that men and women share equal roles in the church. All Christians affirm, however, the equality of men and women with respect to their identity as beloved children of God (see Galatians 3:26-28).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:23-24; Acts 18:26; Rom 16:1-7; 1 Cor 11:2-16; 14:34-35; Gal 3:28; 1 Tim 2:11-15<\/p>","summary_ro":"Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church Paul’s words in 1 Timothy regarding women’s roles in the church were intended to correct what was happening in Ephesus, but the extent to which this passage applies to other situations is a subject of discussion. The possible understandings include the following three: Universal Interpretation. Galatians 3:28 (“There is no longer . . . male and female”) does not negate creational gender distinctions and roles. Even if Galatians 3:28 represents the ide...","summary_en":"Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church Paul’s words in 1 Timothy regarding women’s roles in the church were intended to correct what was happening in Ephesus, but the extent to which this passage applies to other situations is a subject of discussion. The possible understandings include the following three: Universal Interpretation. Galatians 3:28 (“There is no longer . . . male and female”) does not negate creational gender distinctions and roles. Even if Galatians 3:28 represents the ide...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":150375,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church","title_en":"Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church","content_ro":"<h3>Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church<\/h3>\nPaul’s words in 1 Timothy regarding women’s roles in the church were intended to correct what was happening in Ephesus, but the extent to which this passage applies to other situations is a subject of discussion. The possible understandings include the following three:<\/p>\nUniversal Interpretation.<\/em> Galatians 3:28 (“There is no longer . . . male and female”) does not negate creational gender distinctions and roles. Even if Galatians 3:28 represents the ideal of equality in God’s eternal Kingdom, gender roles should still be ordered as outlined in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 for as long as this creation continues. By way of comparison, Matthew 22:30 discusses the status of marriage in the new creation—it differs from the structure of this creation outlined in Genesis 2:23-24, and it applies to the present life only in a special and limited sense (see 1 Tim 4:3-5; Matt 19:11-12; 1 Cor 7:29-35). The structure of the new creation will be fully realized in the coming age, and it is not the ideal for the present time. Therefore, Christian women in all times and places must recognize their role in the created order of God. They must not teach men or exercise authority over men in the church (see also 1 Cor 11:2-16; 14:34-35).<\/p>\nPolemical Interpretation.<\/em> Paul was addressing a particular situation created by the false teaching within the Ephesian church (see 1 Tim 1:18-20; 4:1-5; cp. 2 Tim 3:6-9). Evidence suggests that this teaching was disturbing family relationships (see 1 Tim 4:3; Titus 1:11). It is possible that Ephesian women, caught up in the local heresy, were abusing Genesis 1–3 in their teaching. They might have been asserting female domination in the final resurrection (which, according to some of the Ephesians, had already occurred; 2 Tim 2:18) and accentuated Adam’s blame for the Fall. Paul corrects their misreadings by alluding to the biblical text, but his point is not to make a universal statement about the status of women in the church. His concern is merely to silence the false teachers in Ephesus, including the women among them. First Timothy 2:11-15 entails a rebuke with loss of privilege specifically for those false teachers.<\/p>\nCultural Interpretation.<\/em> Paul’s argument was not necessarily directed to a local problem in Ephesus, but it presupposes a strongly patriarchal society, both in concern for public decorum (women in their place, showing proper honor to men) and in handling Genesis 2:7, 22. This shows that Christians must respect cultural norms insofar as possible in their evangelistic mission (1 Cor 9:19-23). In addition, most women in that society had limited training as teachers. Their society, in contrast to many twenty-first-century societies, usually educated women poorly. Because of that culture’s patriarchal structure, women would not normally have qualified as teachers and leaders. First Timothy 2:11-15, therefore, reflects the notion that properly qualified people should lead and teach. At the same time, there are examples in Paul’s writings and in the early church of women participating in various facets of ministry (e.g., Acts 18:26; Rom 16:1-7; 1 Cor 11:5). This leads to questions about the universal applicability of Paul’s statements on women in the church.<\/p>\nChristians continue to discuss these complex issues. Many Christians today subscribe to a complementarian viewpoint, affirming distinct gender roles in the church, while many others take an egalitarian position, supporting the notion that men and women share equal roles in the church. All Christians affirm, however, the equality of men and women with respect to their identity as beloved children of God (see Galatians 3:26-28).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:23-24; Acts 18:26; Rom 16:1-7; 1 Cor 11:2-16; 14:34-35; Gal 3:28; 1 Tim 2:11-15<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church<\/h3>\nPaul’s words in 1 Timothy regarding women’s roles in the church were intended to correct what was happening in Ephesus, but the extent to which this passage applies to other situations is a subject of discussion. The possible understandings include the following three:<\/p>\nUniversal Interpretation.<\/em> Galatians 3:28 (“There is no longer . . . male and female”) does not negate creational gender distinctions and roles. Even if Galatians 3:28 represents the ideal of equality in God’s eternal Kingdom, gender roles should still be ordered as outlined in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 for as long as this creation continues. By way of comparison, Matthew 22:30 discusses the status of marriage in the new creation—it differs from the structure of this creation outlined in Genesis 2:23-24, and it applies to the present life only in a special and limited sense (see 1 Tim 4:3-5; Matt 19:11-12; 1 Cor 7:29-35). The structure of the new creation will be fully realized in the coming age, and it is not the ideal for the present time. Therefore, Christian women in all times and places must recognize their role in the created order of God. They must not teach men or exercise authority over men in the church (see also 1 Cor 11:2-16; 14:34-35).<\/p>\nPolemical Interpretation.<\/em> Paul was addressing a particular situation created by the false teaching within the Ephesian church (see 1 Tim 1:18-20; 4:1-5; cp. 2 Tim 3:6-9). Evidence suggests that this teaching was disturbing family relationships (see 1 Tim 4:3; Titus 1:11). It is possible that Ephesian women, caught up in the local heresy, were abusing Genesis 1–3 in their teaching. They might have been asserting female domination in the final resurrection (which, according to some of the Ephesians, had already occurred; 2 Tim 2:18) and accentuated Adam’s blame for the Fall. Paul corrects their misreadings by alluding to the biblical text, but his point is not to make a universal statement about the status of women in the church. His concern is merely to silence the false teachers in Ephesus, including the women among them. First Timothy 2:11-15 entails a rebuke with loss of privilege specifically for those false teachers.<\/p>\nCultural Interpretation.<\/em> Paul’s argument was not necessarily directed to a local problem in Ephesus, but it presupposes a strongly patriarchal society, both in concern for public decorum (women in their place, showing proper honor to men) and in handling Genesis 2:7, 22. This shows that Christians must respect cultural norms insofar as possible in their evangelistic mission (1 Cor 9:19-23). In addition, most women in that society had limited training as teachers. Their society, in contrast to many twenty-first-century societies, usually educated women poorly. Because of that culture’s patriarchal structure, women would not normally have qualified as teachers and leaders. First Timothy 2:11-15, therefore, reflects the notion that properly qualified people should lead and teach. At the same time, there are examples in Paul’s writings and in the early church of women participating in various facets of ministry (e.g., Acts 18:26; Rom 16:1-7; 1 Cor 11:5). This leads to questions about the universal applicability of Paul’s statements on women in the church.<\/p>\nChristians continue to discuss these complex issues. Many Christians today subscribe to a complementarian viewpoint, affirming distinct gender roles in the church, while many others take an egalitarian position, supporting the notion that men and women share equal roles in the church. All Christians affirm, however, the equality of men and women with respect to their identity as beloved children of God (see Galatians 3:26-28).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:23-24; Acts 18:26; Rom 16:1-7; 1 Cor 11:2-16; 14:34-35; Gal 3:28; 1 Tim 2:11-15<\/p>","summary_ro":"Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church Paul’s words in 1 Timothy regarding women’s roles in the church were intended to correct what was happening in Ephesus, but the extent to which this passage applies to other situations is a subject of discussion. The possible understandings include the following three: Universal Interpretation. Galatians 3:28 (“There is no longer . . . male and female”) does not negate creational gender distinctions and roles. Even if Galatians 3:28 represents the ide...","summary_en":"Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church Paul’s words in 1 Timothy regarding women’s roles in the church were intended to correct what was happening in Ephesus, but the extent to which this passage applies to other situations is a subject of discussion. The possible understandings include the following three: Universal Interpretation. Galatians 3:28 (“There is no longer . . . male and female”) does not negate creational gender distinctions and roles. Even if Galatians 3:28 represents the ide...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"23":[{"id":40455,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Adam and Eve","title_en":"Adam and Eve","content_ro":"<h3>Adam and Eve<\/h3>\nAdam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17).<\/p>\nGod created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity that God intended for man and woman in marriage (2:23-25). She is honored as “the mother of all who live” (3:20).<\/p>\nAfter the serpent deceived Eve into rejecting God’s rule, Adam also rebelled (3:1-6). Their willful disobedience disrupted their relationship (3:7) and separated them from God. God looked for Adam after his rebellion; he and Eve were hiding among the trees, already aware of the alienation (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam blamed Eve and, by implication, God (3:12). Their rebellion brought pain, strained relationships, hardship in governing the earth, and death—physical and spiritual (3:16-19, 22-24). Nonetheless, God provided animal skins to cover Adam and Eve (3:21), and promised that Eve’s offspring would defeat Satan (3:15; see Rom 16:20; Rev 12:1-9; 20:1-10).<\/p>\nAdam was a historical individual (Gen 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tim 2:13-14; Jude 1:14) who also represents humanity as a whole. God’s mandates (Gen 1:26-30) and curses (3:16-19) affected not only Adam and Eve, but the entire human race. Adam represents separation from God, which all humanity experiences.<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul contrasted those represented by Adam, the first man, with those who follow Christ, the “last Adam” (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:45-50; see also Rom 8:5-11, 20-22). Those represented by Adam live only after his example—they partake of his sin, his alienation from God and God’s creation, and his spiritual death. By contrast, those who follow Christ live by faith in him. They are recreated in Christ’s image and become “new people” who partake of a new creation (see Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The barriers Adam and Eve raised are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16); Christ restores what they lost.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:26-31; 2:4–3:24; 4:25–5:5; Hos 6:6-7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:22, 45-49; 1 Tim 2:13-14<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Adam and Eve<\/h3>\nAdam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17).<\/p>\nGod created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity that God intended for man and woman in marriage (2:23-25). She is honored as “the mother of all who live” (3:20).<\/p>\nAfter the serpent deceived Eve into rejecting God’s rule, Adam also rebelled (3:1-6). Their willful disobedience disrupted their relationship (3:7) and separated them from God. God looked for Adam after his rebellion; he and Eve were hiding among the trees, already aware of the alienation (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam blamed Eve and, by implication, God (3:12). Their rebellion brought pain, strained relationships, hardship in governing the earth, and death—physical and spiritual (3:16-19, 22-24). Nonetheless, God provided animal skins to cover Adam and Eve (3:21), and promised that Eve’s offspring would defeat Satan (3:15; see Rom 16:20; Rev 12:1-9; 20:1-10).<\/p>\nAdam was a historical individual (Gen 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tim 2:13-14; Jude 1:14) who also represents humanity as a whole. God’s mandates (Gen 1:26-30) and curses (3:16-19) affected not only Adam and Eve, but the entire human race. Adam represents separation from God, which all humanity experiences.<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul contrasted those represented by Adam, the first man, with those who follow Christ, the “last Adam” (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:45-50; see also Rom 8:5-11, 20-22). Those represented by Adam live only after his example—they partake of his sin, his alienation from God and God’s creation, and his spiritual death. By contrast, those who follow Christ live by faith in him. They are recreated in Christ’s image and become “new people” who partake of a new creation (see Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The barriers Adam and Eve raised are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16); Christ restores what they lost.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:26-31; 2:4–3:24; 4:25–5:5; Hos 6:6-7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:22, 45-49; 1 Tim 2:13-14<\/p>","summary_ro":"Adam and Eve Adam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17). God created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity...","summary_en":"Adam and Eve Adam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17). God created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":68081,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Adam and Eve","title_en":"Adam and Eve","content_ro":"<h3>Adam and Eve<\/h3>\nAdam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17).<\/p>\nGod created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity that God intended for man and woman in marriage (2:23-25). She is honored as “the mother of all who live” (3:20).<\/p>\nAfter the serpent deceived Eve into rejecting God’s rule, Adam also rebelled (3:1-6). Their willful disobedience disrupted their relationship (3:7) and separated them from God. God looked for Adam after his rebellion; he and Eve were hiding among the trees, already aware of the alienation (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam blamed Eve and, by implication, God (3:12). Their rebellion brought pain, strained relationships, hardship in governing the earth, and death—physical and spiritual (3:16-19, 22-24). Nonetheless, God provided animal skins to cover Adam and Eve (3:21), and promised that Eve’s offspring would defeat Satan (3:15; see Rom 16:20; Rev 12:1-9; 20:1-10).<\/p>\nAdam was a historical individual (Gen 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tim 2:13-14; Jude 1:14) who also represents humanity as a whole. God’s mandates (Gen 1:26-30) and curses (3:16-19) affected not only Adam and Eve, but the entire human race. Adam represents separation from God, which all humanity experiences.<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul contrasted those represented by Adam, the first man, with those who follow Christ, the “last Adam” (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:45-50; see also Rom 8:5-11, 20-22). Those represented by Adam live only after his example—they partake of his sin, his alienation from God and God’s creation, and his spiritual death. By contrast, those who follow Christ live by faith in him. They are recreated in Christ’s image and become “new people” who partake of a new creation (see Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The barriers Adam and Eve raised are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16); Christ restores what they lost.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:26-31; 2:4–3:24; 4:25–5:5; Hos 6:6-7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:22, 45-49; 1 Tim 2:13-14<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Adam and Eve<\/h3>\nAdam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17).<\/p>\nGod created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity that God intended for man and woman in marriage (2:23-25). She is honored as “the mother of all who live” (3:20).<\/p>\nAfter the serpent deceived Eve into rejecting God’s rule, Adam also rebelled (3:1-6). Their willful disobedience disrupted their relationship (3:7) and separated them from God. God looked for Adam after his rebellion; he and Eve were hiding among the trees, already aware of the alienation (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam blamed Eve and, by implication, God (3:12). Their rebellion brought pain, strained relationships, hardship in governing the earth, and death—physical and spiritual (3:16-19, 22-24). Nonetheless, God provided animal skins to cover Adam and Eve (3:21), and promised that Eve’s offspring would defeat Satan (3:15; see Rom 16:20; Rev 12:1-9; 20:1-10).<\/p>\nAdam was a historical individual (Gen 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tim 2:13-14; Jude 1:14) who also represents humanity as a whole. God’s mandates (Gen 1:26-30) and curses (3:16-19) affected not only Adam and Eve, but the entire human race. Adam represents separation from God, which all humanity experiences.<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul contrasted those represented by Adam, the first man, with those who follow Christ, the “last Adam” (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:45-50; see also Rom 8:5-11, 20-22). Those represented by Adam live only after his example—they partake of his sin, his alienation from God and God’s creation, and his spiritual death. By contrast, those who follow Christ live by faith in him. They are recreated in Christ’s image and become “new people” who partake of a new creation (see Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The barriers Adam and Eve raised are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16); Christ restores what they lost.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:26-31; 2:4–3:24; 4:25–5:5; Hos 6:6-7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:22, 45-49; 1 Tim 2:13-14<\/p>","summary_ro":"Adam and Eve Adam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17). God created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity...","summary_en":"Adam and Eve Adam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17). God created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":95707,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Adam and Eve","title_en":"Adam and Eve","content_ro":"<h3>Adam and Eve<\/h3>\nAdam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17).<\/p>\nGod created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity that God intended for man and woman in marriage (2:23-25). She is honored as “the mother of all who live” (3:20).<\/p>\nAfter the serpent deceived Eve into rejecting God’s rule, Adam also rebelled (3:1-6). Their willful disobedience disrupted their relationship (3:7) and separated them from God. God looked for Adam after his rebellion; he and Eve were hiding among the trees, already aware of the alienation (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam blamed Eve and, by implication, God (3:12). Their rebellion brought pain, strained relationships, hardship in governing the earth, and death—physical and spiritual (3:16-19, 22-24). Nonetheless, God provided animal skins to cover Adam and Eve (3:21), and promised that Eve’s offspring would defeat Satan (3:15; see Rom 16:20; Rev 12:1-9; 20:1-10).<\/p>\nAdam was a historical individual (Gen 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tim 2:13-14; Jude 1:14) who also represents humanity as a whole. God’s mandates (Gen 1:26-30) and curses (3:16-19) affected not only Adam and Eve, but the entire human race. Adam represents separation from God, which all humanity experiences.<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul contrasted those represented by Adam, the first man, with those who follow Christ, the “last Adam” (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:45-50; see also Rom 8:5-11, 20-22). Those represented by Adam live only after his example—they partake of his sin, his alienation from God and God’s creation, and his spiritual death. By contrast, those who follow Christ live by faith in him. They are recreated in Christ’s image and become “new people” who partake of a new creation (see Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The barriers Adam and Eve raised are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16); Christ restores what they lost.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:26-31; 2:4–3:24; 4:25–5:5; Hos 6:6-7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:22, 45-49; 1 Tim 2:13-14<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Adam and Eve<\/h3>\nAdam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17).<\/p>\nGod created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity that God intended for man and woman in marriage (2:23-25). She is honored as “the mother of all who live” (3:20).<\/p>\nAfter the serpent deceived Eve into rejecting God’s rule, Adam also rebelled (3:1-6). Their willful disobedience disrupted their relationship (3:7) and separated them from God. God looked for Adam after his rebellion; he and Eve were hiding among the trees, already aware of the alienation (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam blamed Eve and, by implication, God (3:12). Their rebellion brought pain, strained relationships, hardship in governing the earth, and death—physical and spiritual (3:16-19, 22-24). Nonetheless, God provided animal skins to cover Adam and Eve (3:21), and promised that Eve’s offspring would defeat Satan (3:15; see Rom 16:20; Rev 12:1-9; 20:1-10).<\/p>\nAdam was a historical individual (Gen 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tim 2:13-14; Jude 1:14) who also represents humanity as a whole. God’s mandates (Gen 1:26-30) and curses (3:16-19) affected not only Adam and Eve, but the entire human race. Adam represents separation from God, which all humanity experiences.<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul contrasted those represented by Adam, the first man, with those who follow Christ, the “last Adam” (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:45-50; see also Rom 8:5-11, 20-22). Those represented by Adam live only after his example—they partake of his sin, his alienation from God and God’s creation, and his spiritual death. By contrast, those who follow Christ live by faith in him. They are recreated in Christ’s image and become “new people” who partake of a new creation (see Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The barriers Adam and Eve raised are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16); Christ restores what they lost.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:26-31; 2:4–3:24; 4:25–5:5; Hos 6:6-7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:22, 45-49; 1 Tim 2:13-14<\/p>","summary_ro":"Adam and Eve Adam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17). God created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity...","summary_en":"Adam and Eve Adam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17). God created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":123333,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Adam and Eve","title_en":"Adam and Eve","content_ro":"<h3>Adam and Eve<\/h3>\nAdam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17).<\/p>\nGod created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity that God intended for man and woman in marriage (2:23-25). She is honored as “the mother of all who live” (3:20).<\/p>\nAfter the serpent deceived Eve into rejecting God’s rule, Adam also rebelled (3:1-6). Their willful disobedience disrupted their relationship (3:7) and separated them from God. God looked for Adam after his rebellion; he and Eve were hiding among the trees, already aware of the alienation (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam blamed Eve and, by implication, God (3:12). Their rebellion brought pain, strained relationships, hardship in governing the earth, and death—physical and spiritual (3:16-19, 22-24). Nonetheless, God provided animal skins to cover Adam and Eve (3:21), and promised that Eve’s offspring would defeat Satan (3:15; see Rom 16:20; Rev 12:1-9; 20:1-10).<\/p>\nAdam was a historical individual (Gen 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tim 2:13-14; Jude 1:14) who also represents humanity as a whole. God’s mandates (Gen 1:26-30) and curses (3:16-19) affected not only Adam and Eve, but the entire human race. Adam represents separation from God, which all humanity experiences.<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul contrasted those represented by Adam, the first man, with those who follow Christ, the “last Adam” (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:45-50; see also Rom 8:5-11, 20-22). Those represented by Adam live only after his example—they partake of his sin, his alienation from God and God’s creation, and his spiritual death. By contrast, those who follow Christ live by faith in him. They are recreated in Christ’s image and become “new people” who partake of a new creation (see Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The barriers Adam and Eve raised are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16); Christ restores what they lost.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:26-31; 2:4–3:24; 4:25–5:5; Hos 6:6-7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:22, 45-49; 1 Tim 2:13-14<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Adam and Eve<\/h3>\nAdam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17).<\/p>\nGod created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity that God intended for man and woman in marriage (2:23-25). She is honored as “the mother of all who live” (3:20).<\/p>\nAfter the serpent deceived Eve into rejecting God’s rule, Adam also rebelled (3:1-6). Their willful disobedience disrupted their relationship (3:7) and separated them from God. God looked for Adam after his rebellion; he and Eve were hiding among the trees, already aware of the alienation (3:8). When God questioned him, Adam blamed Eve and, by implication, God (3:12). Their rebellion brought pain, strained relationships, hardship in governing the earth, and death—physical and spiritual (3:16-19, 22-24). Nonetheless, God provided animal skins to cover Adam and Eve (3:21), and promised that Eve’s offspring would defeat Satan (3:15; see Rom 16:20; Rev 12:1-9; 20:1-10).<\/p>\nAdam was a historical individual (Gen 4:25; 5:1-5; 1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tim 2:13-14; Jude 1:14) who also represents humanity as a whole. God’s mandates (Gen 1:26-30) and curses (3:16-19) affected not only Adam and Eve, but the entire human race. Adam represents separation from God, which all humanity experiences.<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul contrasted those represented by Adam, the first man, with those who follow Christ, the “last Adam” (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:45-50; see also Rom 8:5-11, 20-22). Those represented by Adam live only after his example—they partake of his sin, his alienation from God and God’s creation, and his spiritual death. By contrast, those who follow Christ live by faith in him. They are recreated in Christ’s image and become “new people” who partake of a new creation (see Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). The barriers Adam and Eve raised are removed by Christ (Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-16); Christ restores what they lost.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:26-31; 2:4–3:24; 4:25–5:5; Hos 6:6-7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:22, 45-49; 1 Tim 2:13-14<\/p>","summary_ro":"Adam and Eve Adam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17). God created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity...","summary_en":"Adam and Eve Adam was the first man, the father of the human race. God created the first couple in his image to populate the earth and rule the created order (Gen 1:26-31). God made Adam from the earth and breathed life into him (2:7); he was to cultivate the garden in which God placed him (2:15), name the animals (2:19-20), and follow God’s instructions (1:28; 2:16-17). God created the first woman as a companion and helper for Adam (2:18-22). Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib portrays the unity...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":5499,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Bone","title_en":"Bone","content_ro":"<h3>BONE<\/h3>\nOne of the separate parts of the human or animal skeleton. After death, bones retain their form long after the soft tissues have decomposed, so bones are often associated with dead bodies or with death itself. The Israelites were concerned about proper respect for the bodies of the dead (Gn 50:25; 1 Sm 31:11-13; 2 Kgs 23:14-18; Ez 39:14-16; Am 2:1; Heb 11:22).<\/p>\nA valley of “old, dry bones” symbolized the people of Israel, who were without hope until the Spirit of the Lord would put life back into them (Ez 37:1-14). In a living body, however, bones are living tissue, and Ezekiel knew that broken bones could heal (30:21). Intact bones were a requirement for an unblemished lamb for the Passover (Ex 12:46; Nm 9:11-12). Thus, the NT states that when Jesus Christ, the “Lamb of God” (Jn 1:36), was crucified, contrary to Roman practice, his legs were not broken (Ps 34:20; Jn 19:30-37).<\/p>\nSome references to bones in the Bible (Jb 2:5; 19:20; 30:30) carry the connotation of deep feelings, as in the phrase “I feel it in my bones.” Other references are metaphorical expressions of close kinship, “flesh and bone” (Gn 2:23; 29:14; Jgs 9:2) being equivalent to the expression “one’s own flesh and blood.”<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BONE<\/h3>\nOne of the separate parts of the human or animal skeleton. After death, bones retain their form long after the soft tissues have decomposed, so bones are often associated with dead bodies or with death itself. The Israelites were concerned about proper respect for the bodies of the dead (Gn 50:25; 1 Sm 31:11-13; 2 Kgs 23:14-18; Ez 39:14-16; Am 2:1; Heb 11:22).<\/p>\nA valley of “old, dry bones” symbolized the people of Israel, who were without hope until the Spirit of the Lord would put life back into them (Ez 37:1-14). In a living body, however, bones are living tissue, and Ezekiel knew that broken bones could heal (30:21). Intact bones were a requirement for an unblemished lamb for the Passover (Ex 12:46; Nm 9:11-12). Thus, the NT states that when Jesus Christ, the “Lamb of God” (Jn 1:36), was crucified, contrary to Roman practice, his legs were not broken (Ps 34:20; Jn 19:30-37).<\/p>\nSome references to bones in the Bible (Jb 2:5; 19:20; 30:30) carry the connotation of deep feelings, as in the phrase “I feel it in my bones.” Other references are metaphorical expressions of close kinship, “flesh and bone” (Gn 2:23; 29:14; Jgs 9:2) being equivalent to the expression “one’s own flesh and blood.”<\/p>","summary_ro":"BONE One of the separate parts of the human or animal skeleton. After death, bones retain their form long after the soft tissues have decomposed, so bones are often associated with dead bodies or with death itself. The Israelites were concerned about proper respect for the bodies of the dead (Gn 50:25; 1 Sm 31:11-13; 2 Kgs 23:14-18; Ez 39:14-16; Am 2:1; Heb 11:22). A valley of “old, dry bones” symbolized the people of Israel, who were without hope until the Spirit of the Lord would put life b...","summary_en":"BONE One of the separate parts of the human or animal skeleton. After death, bones retain their form long after the soft tissues have decomposed, so bones are often associated with dead bodies or with death itself. The Israelites were concerned about proper respect for the bodies of the dead (Gn 50:25; 1 Sm 31:11-13; 2 Kgs 23:14-18; Ez 39:14-16; Am 2:1; Heb 11:22). A valley of “old, dry bones” symbolized the people of Israel, who were without hope until the Spirit of the Lord would put life b...","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":11317,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Eve","title_en":"Eve","content_ro":"<h3>EVE<\/h3>\nFirst woman, “the mother of all living” (Gn 3:20). The book of Genesis recounts that after God had finished his creation of Adam, he saw that it was not good for Adam to be alone. He decided to create “a helper fit for him” (2:18). The woman is called ezer<\/span> (in Hebrew lit. “help”), a word that appears elsewhere in the OT in reference to God as Israel’s help. Causing Adam to fall into a deep sleep, God took one of his ribs and used it to fashion Eve (vv 21-25).<\/p>\nEve was given two names by Adam. The first was “woman,” a generic designation with theological connotations that denote her relationship to man (Gn 2:23). The second, Eve (“life”), was given after the fall and refers to her role in the procreation of the human race (3:20).<\/p>\nAdam and Eve are pictured as living in Eden, serving God and fulfilling each other’s needs. Then evil entered when Eve was tempted by the serpent to disobey God’s command, which forbade their eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gn 2:17; 3:3). Tricked by the serpent’s subtle persuasion, Eve transgressed God’s will by eating the fruit. Adam did the same when she brought some to him, although he was not deceived as she had been. Both then recognized their nakedness and made garments of fig leaves.<\/p>\nWhen God came to commune with them, they hid from him. When he demanded an account, Adam blamed Eve, and Eve blamed the serpent. God told Eve that as a result of their sin, childbirth would be a painful experience and her husband would rule over her (Gn 3:16). Eve later became the mother of Cain, Abel, Seth, and other children (4:1-2, 25; 5:4).<\/p>\nEve is mentioned twice in the NT. In his letter to Timothy, the apostle Paul referred to her when discussing whether or not women could teach (1 Tm 2:13). He said that a woman could not teach or have authority over a man because of man’s priority in creation and Eve’s responsibility for the original transgression (see 2 Cor 11:3).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Adam (Person); Garden of Eden.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>EVE<\/h3>\nFirst woman, “the mother of all living” (Gn 3:20). The book of Genesis recounts that after God had finished his creation of Adam, he saw that it was not good for Adam to be alone. He decided to create “a helper fit for him” (2:18). The woman is called ezer<\/span> (in Hebrew lit. “help”), a word that appears elsewhere in the OT in reference to God as Israel’s help. Causing Adam to fall into a deep sleep, God took one of his ribs and used it to fashion Eve (vv 21-25).<\/p>\nEve was given two names by Adam. The first was “woman,” a generic designation with theological connotations that denote her relationship to man (Gn 2:23). The second, Eve (“life”), was given after the fall and refers to her role in the procreation of the human race (3:20).<\/p>\nAdam and Eve are pictured as living in Eden, serving God and fulfilling each other’s needs. Then evil entered when Eve was tempted by the serpent to disobey God’s command, which forbade their eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gn 2:17; 3:3). Tricked by the serpent’s subtle persuasion, Eve transgressed God’s will by eating the fruit. Adam did the same when she brought some to him, although he was not deceived as she had been. Both then recognized their nakedness and made garments of fig leaves.<\/p>\nWhen God came to commune with them, they hid from him. When he demanded an account, Adam blamed Eve, and Eve blamed the serpent. God told Eve that as a result of their sin, childbirth would be a painful experience and her husband would rule over her (Gn 3:16). Eve later became the mother of Cain, Abel, Seth, and other children (4:1-2, 25; 5:4).<\/p>\nEve is mentioned twice in the NT. In his letter to Timothy, the apostle Paul referred to her when discussing whether or not women could teach (1 Tm 2:13). He said that a woman could not teach or have authority over a man because of man’s priority in creation and Eve’s responsibility for the original transgression (see 2 Cor 11:3).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Adam (Person); Garden of Eden.<\/p>","summary_ro":"EVE First woman, “the mother of all living” (Gn 3:20). The book of Genesis recounts that after God had finished his creation of Adam, he saw that it was not good for Adam to be alone. He decided to create “a helper fit for him” (2:18). The woman is called ezer (in Hebrew lit. “help”), a word that appears elsewhere in the OT in reference to God as Israel’s help. Causing Adam to fall into a deep sleep, God took one of his ribs and used it to fashion Eve (vv 21-25). Eve was given two names by Ad...","summary_en":"EVE First woman, “the mother of all living” (Gn 3:20). The book of Genesis recounts that after God had finished his creation of Adam, he saw that it was not good for Adam to be alone. He decided to create “a helper fit for him” (2:18). The woman is called ezer (in Hebrew lit. “help”), a word that appears elsewhere in the OT in reference to God as Israel’s help. Causing Adam to fall into a deep sleep, God took one of his ribs and used it to fashion Eve (vv 21-25). Eve was given two names by Ad...","source":"Articles\/E.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":38543,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Woman","title_en":"Woman","content_ro":"<h3>WOMAN<\/h3>\nMan’s companion created by God.<\/p>\nHer Creation<\/p>\nGenesis provides two accounts of the creation of the first man and woman. In the first, Genesis 1:26-28, God created humans in his image, as male and female. Hence, the female shares with the male the image of God, reflects his power and majesty on earth, and is commanded to multiply and bring dominion to the earth. From Genesis 1:26-28 there is no suggestion of inferiority of the female to the male, nor is there any suggestion of her submission to his dominance. Rather, they are pictured together, the male and the female, as the representation of their Maker.<\/p>\nGenesis 2:20-25 is the second portrayal of the creation of the first woman. In Genesis 2 the male was made before the female, a point that seems to give him some precedence. This may not be pressed too far, however, as the pattern in the creation texts is to move progressively from the lesser to the finer work! Yet it is because of his prior creation that the male is given the prerogative to name the female (Gn 2:23). In Semitic thought, the giving of names signifies dominion or ownership. This means that Adam’s naming of his wife was an act of lordship. However, the name that he gives her is the equivalent to his own, meaning the male affirmed her equality with him. Paradoxically, then, this hierarchical relationship is also a relationship of equals.<\/p>\nThe situation in Genesis 1 and 2 reveals a balanced relationship between the man and the woman who were the parents of all mankind: two persons who were altogether equal in status as coheirs of the mystery of the image of God and yet who dwell in a delicate one-to-one relationship in which one is the leader of the other. In Eden before the fall, this delicate balance was possible.<\/p>\nHer Downfall and Plight<\/p>\nGenesis 3, the story of the fall of mankind, speaks of the breaking of the delicate balance between the man and the woman and the ensuing struggles that have been passed down through the ages. In God’s words to the woman, he announced the pain that would accompany her childbearing (Gn 3:16) and the conflict of interests that would affect her relationship with her husband: “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you” (niv<\/span>). The Hebrew term “desire” (<\/em>teshuqah<\/span>)<\/em> in the Genesis 3 and 4 passages is not a sexual longing but a desire to control, to master, to be in charge (the use of teshuqah<\/span> meaning sexual desire is seen in Sg 7:10). Consequently, after the fall, the desire of woman has been to dominate her husband. Her determination to reject his leadership in their relationship of equals is a breaking of the balance in their relationship. For his part, the man tends to tyrannize the woman.<\/p>\nTo the women who attempt to dominate their husbands, the apostle Paul says, “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord” (Eph 5:22, niv<\/span>). Her natural inclination needs transformation, so that she can submit to her husband as she submits to the Lord. For, Paul argues, the husband is to the wife as Christ is to the church (v 23). The husbands who tend to dominate their wives also need transformation so that they can love their wives, “just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (v 25, niv<\/span>). By these words, the apostle Paul was presenting a means whereby couples could regain the bliss in their relationship that was the mark of Eden before the fall. Paul’s citation of Genesis 2:24 in Ephesians 5:31 is a case in point: here a couple may regain the original oneness that God intended for them. The relationship of equal persons in a hierarchy of responsiveness is stated in the context of mutual submission, which is a mark of their greater submission to the Lord Jesus.<\/p>\nHer Role in Life according to the Bible<\/p>\nA woman is a person in every respect as a man; she shares in the image of God and has the potential of varied ranges of response to culture, community, and life about her. It is a fact of Scripture that women are regularly associated with, and find their sense of worth in, childbearing. Yet the same Scriptures show that the nature of woman is not exhausted by associations with childbearing: she has her own identity in the community, in the church, and before the Lord in the whole of her life, not just when (or if) she bears and nourishes a child. Further, the biblical concept of childbearing always involves the husband, who is her partner at conception, at her side during delivery, and partner with her in the ongoing task of nourishing the child.<\/p>\nThe image of the woman as the childbearer begins with the promise of God in Genesis 3:15, where he announced the ultimate victory over the evil one, Satan, by the offspring of the woman. This promise respecting the offspring of the woman became the universal blessing of God upon woman as the childbearer. Ultimately, through one born of a woman, there would come the final deliverance. There is a sense in which each birth experience is a participation in the continuity of this promise (see 1 Tm 2:15 and its possible relationship to this continuity of women, salvation, and childbearing).<\/p>\nFurther, in the culture of the OT world, a woman’s genuine worth was solely, or largely, perceived in terms of childbearing. Yet it is not in childbearing alone that she finds worth and dignity before God. For the woman, as for the man, the issue of faith in the Lord is central. A woman who has a household of children but no faith in God might regard herself as a fulfilled person. Yet her care of her children is no substitute for piety to God. A woman who has no children, and perhaps no husband, may have her full identity and worth in her relationship with the God in whose image she is made and whose tasks she is commissioned by him to do. The gifts of God in a woman’s life may lead her to find opportunities in the community to express her devotion to God. Women apparently had the same opportunities as men to take a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:2; see also ch 30).<\/p>\nCertain notable women in the Bible led lives of public service. Miriam, the sister of Moses and Aaron (Ex 15:20-21), was a prophetess, musician, and national leader (Nm 12). Long after her time, God spoke through his prophets of the gift he had given to Israel in the person of the national leader Miriam (Mi 6:4). There were other magnificent women who had exemplary lives: Deborah, the prophetess of God and the only named woman judge of Israel (Jgs 4–5); Esther, the Hebrew queen of Xerxes who saved her people from the rash acts of the Persian king, a result of a frightful conspiracy; and Huldah, the prophetess who was the agent of the Lord’s word to Josiah at the inception of his revival (2 Chr 34:22-28). Huldah’s reception and transmission of the word of the Lord is the more remarkable because she was a contemporary with Jeremiah and Zephaniah. In this case God chose to speak through a woman.<\/p>\nIn the NT, certain women were noted for their public ministries: the daughters of Philip, Phoebe, Priscilla, Junias, Tryphena, Tryphosa, Persis, Euodia, and Syntyche. These women mark the beginning of the fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy of a day in which women as well as men would be the instruments of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Jl 2:28-29). Women such as Sarah, Ruth, and Hannah exercised their faith in God in the context of the home and family as well. And preeminently there is Mary, mother of Jesus, in whom the ideal of womanhood is conjoined to the fulfillment of the ancient promise to Eve that she would one day be the great victor over the enemy of mankind.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Eve; Man.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>WOMAN<\/h3>\nMan’s companion created by God.<\/p>\nHer Creation<\/p>\nGenesis provides two accounts of the creation of the first man and woman. In the first, Genesis 1:26-28, God created humans in his image, as male and female. Hence, the female shares with the male the image of God, reflects his power and majesty on earth, and is commanded to multiply and bring dominion to the earth. From Genesis 1:26-28 there is no suggestion of inferiority of the female to the male, nor is there any suggestion of her submission to his dominance. Rather, they are pictured together, the male and the female, as the representation of their Maker.<\/p>\nGenesis 2:20-25 is the second portrayal of the creation of the first woman. In Genesis 2 the male was made before the female, a point that seems to give him some precedence. This may not be pressed too far, however, as the pattern in the creation texts is to move progressively from the lesser to the finer work! Yet it is because of his prior creation that the male is given the prerogative to name the female (Gn 2:23). In Semitic thought, the giving of names signifies dominion or ownership. This means that Adam’s naming of his wife was an act of lordship. However, the name that he gives her is the equivalent to his own, meaning the male affirmed her equality with him. Paradoxically, then, this hierarchical relationship is also a relationship of equals.<\/p>\nThe situation in Genesis 1 and 2 reveals a balanced relationship between the man and the woman who were the parents of all mankind: two persons who were altogether equal in status as coheirs of the mystery of the image of God and yet who dwell in a delicate one-to-one relationship in which one is the leader of the other. In Eden before the fall, this delicate balance was possible.<\/p>\nHer Downfall and Plight<\/p>\nGenesis 3, the story of the fall of mankind, speaks of the breaking of the delicate balance between the man and the woman and the ensuing struggles that have been passed down through the ages. In God’s words to the woman, he announced the pain that would accompany her childbearing (Gn 3:16) and the conflict of interests that would affect her relationship with her husband: “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you” (niv<\/span>). The Hebrew term “desire” (<\/em>teshuqah<\/span>)<\/em> in the Genesis 3 and 4 passages is not a sexual longing but a desire to control, to master, to be in charge (the use of teshuqah<\/span> meaning sexual desire is seen in Sg 7:10). Consequently, after the fall, the desire of woman has been to dominate her husband. Her determination to reject his leadership in their relationship of equals is a breaking of the balance in their relationship. For his part, the man tends to tyrannize the woman.<\/p>\nTo the women who attempt to dominate their husbands, the apostle Paul says, “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord” (Eph 5:22, niv<\/span>). Her natural inclination needs transformation, so that she can submit to her husband as she submits to the Lord. For, Paul argues, the husband is to the wife as Christ is to the church (v 23). The husbands who tend to dominate their wives also need transformation so that they can love their wives, “just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (v 25, niv<\/span>). By these words, the apostle Paul was presenting a means whereby couples could regain the bliss in their relationship that was the mark of Eden before the fall. Paul’s citation of Genesis 2:24 in Ephesians 5:31 is a case in point: here a couple may regain the original oneness that God intended for them. The relationship of equal persons in a hierarchy of responsiveness is stated in the context of mutual submission, which is a mark of their greater submission to the Lord Jesus.<\/p>\nHer Role in Life according to the Bible<\/p>\nA woman is a person in every respect as a man; she shares in the image of God and has the potential of varied ranges of response to culture, community, and life about her. It is a fact of Scripture that women are regularly associated with, and find their sense of worth in, childbearing. Yet the same Scriptures show that the nature of woman is not exhausted by associations with childbearing: she has her own identity in the community, in the church, and before the Lord in the whole of her life, not just when (or if) she bears and nourishes a child. Further, the biblical concept of childbearing always involves the husband, who is her partner at conception, at her side during delivery, and partner with her in the ongoing task of nourishing the child.<\/p>\nThe image of the woman as the childbearer begins with the promise of God in Genesis 3:15, where he announced the ultimate victory over the evil one, Satan, by the offspring of the woman. This promise respecting the offspring of the woman became the universal blessing of God upon woman as the childbearer. Ultimately, through one born of a woman, there would come the final deliverance. There is a sense in which each birth experience is a participation in the continuity of this promise (see 1 Tm 2:15 and its possible relationship to this continuity of women, salvation, and childbearing).<\/p>\nFurther, in the culture of the OT world, a woman’s genuine worth was solely, or largely, perceived in terms of childbearing. Yet it is not in childbearing alone that she finds worth and dignity before God. For the woman, as for the man, the issue of faith in the Lord is central. A woman who has a household of children but no faith in God might regard herself as a fulfilled person. Yet her care of her children is no substitute for piety to God. A woman who has no children, and perhaps no husband, may have her full identity and worth in her relationship with the God in whose image she is made and whose tasks she is commissioned by him to do. The gifts of God in a woman’s life may lead her to find opportunities in the community to express her devotion to God. Women apparently had the same opportunities as men to take a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:2; see also ch 30).<\/p>\nCertain notable women in the Bible led lives of public service. Miriam, the sister of Moses and Aaron (Ex 15:20-21), was a prophetess, musician, and national leader (Nm 12). Long after her time, God spoke through his prophets of the gift he had given to Israel in the person of the national leader Miriam (Mi 6:4). There were other magnificent women who had exemplary lives: Deborah, the prophetess of God and the only named woman judge of Israel (Jgs 4–5); Esther, the Hebrew queen of Xerxes who saved her people from the rash acts of the Persian king, a result of a frightful conspiracy; and Huldah, the prophetess who was the agent of the Lord’s word to Josiah at the inception of his revival (2 Chr 34:22-28). Huldah’s reception and transmission of the word of the Lord is the more remarkable because she was a contemporary with Jeremiah and Zephaniah. In this case God chose to speak through a woman.<\/p>\nIn the NT, certain women were noted for their public ministries: the daughters of Philip, Phoebe, Priscilla, Junias, Tryphena, Tryphosa, Persis, Euodia, and Syntyche. These women mark the beginning of the fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy of a day in which women as well as men would be the instruments of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Jl 2:28-29). Women such as Sarah, Ruth, and Hannah exercised their faith in God in the context of the home and family as well. And preeminently there is Mary, mother of Jesus, in whom the ideal of womanhood is conjoined to the fulfillment of the ancient promise to Eve that she would one day be the great victor over the enemy of mankind.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Eve; Man.<\/p>","summary_ro":"WOMAN Man’s companion created by God. Her Creation Genesis provides two accounts of the creation of the first man and woman. In the first, Genesis 1:26-28, God created humans in his image, as male and female. Hence, the female shares with the male the image of God, reflects his power and majesty on earth, and is commanded to multiply and bring dominion to the earth. From Genesis 1:26-28 there is no suggestion of inferiority of the female to the male, nor is there any suggestion of her submiss...","summary_en":"WOMAN Man’s companion created by God. Her Creation Genesis provides two accounts of the creation of the first man and woman. In the first, Genesis 1:26-28, God created humans in his image, as male and female. Hence, the female shares with the male the image of God, reflects his power and majesty on earth, and is commanded to multiply and bring dominion to the earth. From Genesis 1:26-28 there is no suggestion of inferiority of the female to the male, nor is there any suggestion of her submiss...","source":"Articles\/W.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":42857,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:23","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:23","content_ro":"2:23<\/strong> Adam recognized the woman as a “helper just right for him” (2:20). His celebration of her in poetry and song observed his unity with her, not their distinctions (cp. 29:14). • Adam declares that “She will be called ‘woman’<\/em> (Hebrew ’ishah<\/span>) because she was taken from ‘man’<\/em> (Hebrew ’ish<\/span>).” He understood the nature of their connection (see Eph 5:28-29). Adam had earlier assessed the animals without finding the characteristics he needed in a partner. How different this evaluation is!<\/p>","content_en":"2:23<\/strong> Adam recognized the woman as a “helper just right for him” (2:20). His celebration of her in poetry and song observed his unity with her, not their distinctions (cp. 29:14). • Adam declares that “She will be called ‘woman’<\/em> (Hebrew ’ishah<\/span>) because she was taken from ‘man’<\/em> (Hebrew ’ish<\/span>).” He understood the nature of their connection (see Eph 5:28-29). Adam had earlier assessed the animals without finding the characteristics he needed in a partner. How different this evaluation is!<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:23 Adam recognized the woman as a “helper just right for him” (2:20). His celebration of her in poetry and song observed his unity with her, not their distinctions (cp. 29:14). • Adam declares that “She will be called ‘woman’ (Hebrew ’ishah) because she was taken from ‘man’ (Hebrew ’ish).” He understood the nature of their connection (see Eph 5:28-29). Adam had earlier assessed the animals without finding the characteristics he needed in a partner. How different this evaluation is!","summary_en":"2:23 Adam recognized the woman as a “helper just right for him” (2:20). His celebration of her in poetry and song observed his unity with her, not their distinctions (cp. 29:14). • Adam declares that “She will be called ‘woman’ (Hebrew ’ishah) because she was taken from ‘man’ (Hebrew ’ish).” He understood the nature of their connection (see Eph 5:28-29). Adam had earlier assessed the animals without finding the characteristics he needed in a partner. How different this evaluation is!","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":70483,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:23","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:23","content_ro":"2:23<\/strong> Adam recognized the woman as a “helper just right for him” (2:20). His celebration of her in poetry and song observed his unity with her, not their distinctions (cp. 29:14). • Adam declares that “She will be called ‘woman’<\/em> (Hebrew ’ishah<\/span>) because she was taken from ‘man’<\/em> (Hebrew ’ish<\/span>).” He understood the nature of their connection (see Eph 5:28-29). Adam had earlier assessed the animals without finding the characteristics he needed in a partner. How different this evaluation is!<\/p>","content_en":"2:23<\/strong> Adam recognized the woman as a “helper just right for him” (2:20). His celebration of her in poetry and song observed his unity with her, not their distinctions (cp. 29:14). • Adam declares that “She will be called ‘woman’<\/em> (Hebrew ’ishah<\/span>) because she was taken from ‘man’<\/em> (Hebrew ’ish<\/span>).” He understood the nature of their connection (see Eph 5:28-29). Adam had earlier assessed the animals without finding the characteristics he needed in a partner. How different this evaluation is!<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:23 Adam recognized the woman as a “helper just right for him” (2:20). His celebration of her in poetry and song observed his unity with her, not their distinctions (cp. 29:14). • Adam declares that “She will be called ‘woman’ (Hebrew ’ishah) because she was taken from ‘man’ (Hebrew ’ish).” He understood the nature of their connection (see Eph 5:28-29). Adam had earlier assessed the animals without finding the characteristics he needed in a partner. How different this evaluation is!","summary_en":"2:23 Adam recognized the woman as a “helper just right for him” (2:20). His celebration of her in poetry and song observed his unity with her, not their distinctions (cp. 29:14). • Adam declares that “She will be called ‘woman’ (Hebrew ’ishah) because she was taken from ‘man’ (Hebrew ’ish).” He understood the nature of their connection (see Eph 5:28-29). Adam had earlier assessed the animals without finding the characteristics he needed in a partner. How different this evaluation is!","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":98109,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:23","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:23","content_ro":"2:23<\/strong> Adam recognized the woman as a “helper just right for him” (2:20). His celebration of her in poetry and song observed his unity with her, not their distinctions (cp. 29:14). • Adam declares that “She will be called ‘woman’<\/em> (Hebrew ’ishah<\/span>) because she was taken from ‘man’<\/em> (Hebrew ’ish<\/span>).” He understood the nature of their connection (see Eph 5:28-29). Adam had earlier assessed the animals without finding the characteristics he needed in a partner. How different this evaluation is!<\/p>","content_en":"2:23<\/strong> Adam recognized the woman as a “helper just right for him” (2:20). His celebration of her in poetry and song observed his unity with her, not their distinctions (cp. 29:14). • Adam declares that “She will be called ‘woman’<\/em> (Hebrew ’ishah<\/span>) because she was taken from ‘man’<\/em> (Hebrew ’ish<\/span>).” He understood the nature of their connection (see Eph 5:28-29). Adam had earlier assessed the animals without finding the characteristics he needed in a partner. How different this evaluation is!<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:23 Adam recognized the woman as a “helper just right for him” (2:20). His celebration of her in poetry and song observed his unity with her, not their distinctions (cp. 29:14). • Adam declares that “She will be called ‘woman’ (Hebrew ’ishah) because she was taken from ‘man’ (Hebrew ’ish).” He understood the nature of their connection (see Eph 5:28-29). Adam had earlier assessed the animals without finding the characteristics he needed in a partner. How different this evaluation is!","summary_en":"2:23 Adam recognized the woman as a “helper just right for him” (2:20). His celebration of her in poetry and song observed his unity with her, not their distinctions (cp. 29:14). • Adam declares that “She will be called ‘woman’ (Hebrew ’ishah) because she was taken from ‘man’ (Hebrew ’ish).” He understood the nature of their connection (see Eph 5:28-29). Adam had earlier assessed the animals without finding the characteristics he needed in a partner. How different this evaluation is!","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":125735,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:23","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:23","content_ro":"2:23<\/strong> Adam recognized the woman as a “helper just right for him” (2:20). His celebration of her in poetry and song observed his unity with her, not their distinctions (cp. 29:14). • Adam declares that “She will be called ‘woman’<\/em> (Hebrew ’ishah<\/span>) because she was taken from ‘man’<\/em> (Hebrew ’ish<\/span>).” He understood the nature of their connection (see Eph 5:28-29). Adam had earlier assessed the animals without finding the characteristics he needed in a partner. How different this evaluation is!<\/p>","content_en":"2:23<\/strong> Adam recognized the woman as a “helper just right for him” (2:20). His celebration of her in poetry and song observed his unity with her, not their distinctions (cp. 29:14). • Adam declares that “She will be called ‘woman’<\/em> (Hebrew ’ishah<\/span>) because she was taken from ‘man’<\/em> (Hebrew ’ish<\/span>).” He understood the nature of their connection (see Eph 5:28-29). Adam had earlier assessed the animals without finding the characteristics he needed in a partner. How different this evaluation is!<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:23 Adam recognized the woman as a “helper just right for him” (2:20). His celebration of her in poetry and song observed his unity with her, not their distinctions (cp. 29:14). • Adam declares that “She will be called ‘woman’ (Hebrew ’ishah) because she was taken from ‘man’ (Hebrew ’ish).” He understood the nature of their connection (see Eph 5:28-29). Adam had earlier assessed the animals without finding the characteristics he needed in a partner. How different this evaluation is!","summary_en":"2:23 Adam recognized the woman as a “helper just right for him” (2:20). His celebration of her in poetry and song observed his unity with her, not their distinctions (cp. 29:14). • Adam declares that “She will be called ‘woman’ (Hebrew ’ishah) because she was taken from ‘man’ (Hebrew ’ish).” He understood the nature of their connection (see Eph 5:28-29). Adam had earlier assessed the animals without finding the characteristics he needed in a partner. How different this evaluation is!","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":59678,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Human Sexuality","title_en":"Human Sexuality","content_ro":"<h3>Human Sexuality<\/h3>\nWhen God created the first human beings in his own image, he created them as sexual beings, male and female (Gen 1:27). Through their sexuality, they were to fill and govern the world (1:28) and provide intimate companionship for one another in marriage (2:18-25). Male and female sexuality is central to what it means to be human and is included in God’s declaration of creation as “very good” (1:31).<\/p>\nSexual intimacy united the first man and woman as one, an effect that sexual intimacy continues to have. Since biblical sexuality is not just physical but has the total person in view, it validates sexual relations only as part of the partners’ permanent mutual commitment to each other’s ultimate good. The Bible speaks of engaging in sexual intercourse as literally “knowing” another person intimately (see study note on Gen 4:1). Since Creation, God’s intended context for sexual activity has been the intimate union of marriage—namely, a permanent and loving heterosexual commitment (Gen 1:27-28; 2:23-24). The sexual relationship cements the marriage bond in an intimacy that may result in reproduction and can continue even when reproduction is no longer possible.<\/p>\nAlthough sexuality was created before sin, it did not emerge unscathed from human rebellion. Sexuality is a powerful force that is easily corrupted if not carefully channeled (see Lev 18; 1 Thes 4:3-8). Sexual intimacy apart from marital commitment perverts the order that God intended for creation. Incest, for example, violates sexual boundaries (see Lev 18:7-18), collapses family structures (see Gen 19:30-38), and fragments the community. Whereas perverted sexuality causes much harm, tears the community down (see Gen 38:1-30; 39:7-9; Judg 19–20), and exalts the individual (see 2 Sam 13:11-14), biblical sexuality builds up the sexual partners and the community.<\/p>\nHuman sexuality has been damaged through our fall into sin (Gen 3), but God has redeemed it through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (see 1 Cor 6:12-20; Eph 5:31-33). He restores sexual wholeness in those who trust his work in their lives by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:9-11, 15-20; 1 Thes 4:1-8). Those who commit their sexuality to Christ’s work in their lives can serve as a testament to others of God’s love for his people (Eph 5:25-33).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:27-28; 2:18-25; Lev 18:1-30; Deut 22:13-29; Ruth 4:11-13; 2 Sam 11:2-27; Ps 127:3-5; Eccl 2:8-11; Song 1:8–8:14; Mal 2:15-16; Matt 19:3-12; 1 Cor 6:12–7:40; Eph 5:31-33; 1 Thes 4:3-8<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Human Sexuality<\/h3>\nWhen God created the first human beings in his own image, he created them as sexual beings, male and female (Gen 1:27). Through their sexuality, they were to fill and govern the world (1:28) and provide intimate companionship for one another in marriage (2:18-25). Male and female sexuality is central to what it means to be human and is included in God’s declaration of creation as “very good” (1:31).<\/p>\nSexual intimacy united the first man and woman as one, an effect that sexual intimacy continues to have. Since biblical sexuality is not just physical but has the total person in view, it validates sexual relations only as part of the partners’ permanent mutual commitment to each other’s ultimate good. The Bible speaks of engaging in sexual intercourse as literally “knowing” another person intimately (see study note on Gen 4:1). Since Creation, God’s intended context for sexual activity has been the intimate union of marriage—namely, a permanent and loving heterosexual commitment (Gen 1:27-28; 2:23-24). The sexual relationship cements the marriage bond in an intimacy that may result in reproduction and can continue even when reproduction is no longer possible.<\/p>\nAlthough sexuality was created before sin, it did not emerge unscathed from human rebellion. Sexuality is a powerful force that is easily corrupted if not carefully channeled (see Lev 18; 1 Thes 4:3-8). Sexual intimacy apart from marital commitment perverts the order that God intended for creation. Incest, for example, violates sexual boundaries (see Lev 18:7-18), collapses family structures (see Gen 19:30-38), and fragments the community. Whereas perverted sexuality causes much harm, tears the community down (see Gen 38:1-30; 39:7-9; Judg 19–20), and exalts the individual (see 2 Sam 13:11-14), biblical sexuality builds up the sexual partners and the community.<\/p>\nHuman sexuality has been damaged through our fall into sin (Gen 3), but God has redeemed it through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (see 1 Cor 6:12-20; Eph 5:31-33). He restores sexual wholeness in those who trust his work in their lives by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:9-11, 15-20; 1 Thes 4:1-8). Those who commit their sexuality to Christ’s work in their lives can serve as a testament to others of God’s love for his people (Eph 5:25-33).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:27-28; 2:18-25; Lev 18:1-30; Deut 22:13-29; Ruth 4:11-13; 2 Sam 11:2-27; Ps 127:3-5; Eccl 2:8-11; Song 1:8–8:14; Mal 2:15-16; Matt 19:3-12; 1 Cor 6:12–7:40; Eph 5:31-33; 1 Thes 4:3-8<\/p>","summary_ro":"Human Sexuality When God created the first human beings in his own image, he created them as sexual beings, male and female (Gen 1:27). Through their sexuality, they were to fill and govern the world (1:28) and provide intimate companionship for one another in marriage (2:18-25). Male and female sexuality is central to what it means to be human and is included in God’s declaration of creation as “very good” (1:31). Sexual intimacy united the first man and woman as one, an effect that sexual i...","summary_en":"Human Sexuality When God created the first human beings in his own image, he created them as sexual beings, male and female (Gen 1:27). Through their sexuality, they were to fill and govern the world (1:28) and provide intimate companionship for one another in marriage (2:18-25). Male and female sexuality is central to what it means to be human and is included in God’s declaration of creation as “very good” (1:31). Sexual intimacy united the first man and woman as one, an effect that sexual i...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":63455,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Marriage and Sexuality","title_en":"Marriage and Sexuality","content_ro":"<h3>Marriage and Sexuality<\/h3>\nFrom the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame.<\/p>\nIn Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young men to avoid the temptations of sexual expression outside of marriage (Prov 2:16-22; 5:1-23; 6:20–7:27). While a young man might find other women physically attractive and seductive, the consequences of acting on these temptations are dire: His family and professional aspirations might be destroyed. Proverbs teaches young men to cultivate a strong relationship with their own wives. They are counseled to have healthy marital sex rather than sleeping with other women (5:15-20).<\/p>\nAlthough this section of Proverbs was originally written to instruct young men, all readers can reflect on these issues of marriage and sexuality. Proverbs urges men and women to recognize the sanctity and beauty of marital love as God, the wise Creator, intended it.<\/p>\nThe New Testament reaffirms the sacredness of sexuality and its proper expression in marriage. Jesus appeals to the creation narrative in Genesis as a way of highlighting the intended permanency of the marriage relationship. After quoting Genesis 2:24, he states, “Since they are no longer two but one, let no one split apart what God has joined together” (Matt 19:3-6). Paul discusses the importance of maintaining sexual intimacy in marriage, lest Satan be afforded an opportunity to tempt (1 Cor 7:3-5). God’s desire is that those who join in marriage would remain faithful to one another, avoiding sexual activity that is destructive to the sacred relationship they have entered (see Heb 13:4).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:18-25; Prov 2:16-22; 5:15-20; 6:20-35; 7:1-27; Jer 5:7-11; Hos 2:20; Mal 2:14-16; Matt 19:4-6; 22:30; 1 Cor 6:15-20; Heb 13:4<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Marriage and Sexuality<\/h3>\nFrom the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame.<\/p>\nIn Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young men to avoid the temptations of sexual expression outside of marriage (Prov 2:16-22; 5:1-23; 6:20–7:27). While a young man might find other women physically attractive and seductive, the consequences of acting on these temptations are dire: His family and professional aspirations might be destroyed. Proverbs teaches young men to cultivate a strong relationship with their own wives. They are counseled to have healthy marital sex rather than sleeping with other women (5:15-20).<\/p>\nAlthough this section of Proverbs was originally written to instruct young men, all readers can reflect on these issues of marriage and sexuality. Proverbs urges men and women to recognize the sanctity and beauty of marital love as God, the wise Creator, intended it.<\/p>\nThe New Testament reaffirms the sacredness of sexuality and its proper expression in marriage. Jesus appeals to the creation narrative in Genesis as a way of highlighting the intended permanency of the marriage relationship. After quoting Genesis 2:24, he states, “Since they are no longer two but one, let no one split apart what God has joined together” (Matt 19:3-6). Paul discusses the importance of maintaining sexual intimacy in marriage, lest Satan be afforded an opportunity to tempt (1 Cor 7:3-5). God’s desire is that those who join in marriage would remain faithful to one another, avoiding sexual activity that is destructive to the sacred relationship they have entered (see Heb 13:4).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:18-25; Prov 2:16-22; 5:15-20; 6:20-35; 7:1-27; Jer 5:7-11; Hos 2:20; Mal 2:14-16; Matt 19:4-6; 22:30; 1 Cor 6:15-20; Heb 13:4<\/p>","summary_ro":"Marriage and Sexuality From the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame. In Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young ...","summary_en":"Marriage and Sexuality From the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame. In Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":67484,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church","title_en":"Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church","content_ro":"<h3>Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church<\/h3>\nPaul’s words in 1 Timothy regarding women’s roles in the church were intended to correct what was happening in Ephesus, but the extent to which this passage applies to other situations is a subject of discussion. The possible understandings include the following three:<\/p>\nUniversal Interpretation.<\/em> Galatians 3:28 (“There is no longer . . . male and female”) does not negate creational gender distinctions and roles. Even if Galatians 3:28 represents the ideal of equality in God’s eternal Kingdom, gender roles should still be ordered as outlined in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 for as long as this creation continues. By way of comparison, Matthew 22:30 discusses the status of marriage in the new creation—it differs from the structure of this creation outlined in Genesis 2:23-24, and it applies to the present life only in a special and limited sense (see 1 Tim 4:3-5; Matt 19:11-12; 1 Cor 7:29-35). The structure of the new creation will be fully realized in the coming age, and it is not the ideal for the present time. Therefore, Christian women in all times and places must recognize their role in the created order of God. They must not teach men or exercise authority over men in the church (see also 1 Cor 11:2-16; 14:34-35).<\/p>\nPolemical Interpretation.<\/em> Paul was addressing a particular situation created by the false teaching within the Ephesian church (see 1 Tim 1:18-20; 4:1-5; cp. 2 Tim 3:6-9). Evidence suggests that this teaching was disturbing family relationships (see 1 Tim 4:3; Titus 1:11). It is possible that Ephesian women, caught up in the local heresy, were abusing Genesis 1–3 in their teaching. They might have been asserting female domination in the final resurrection (which, according to some of the Ephesians, had already occurred; 2 Tim 2:18) and accentuated Adam’s blame for the Fall. Paul corrects their misreadings by alluding to the biblical text, but his point is not to make a universal statement about the status of women in the church. His concern is merely to silence the false teachers in Ephesus, including the women among them. First Timothy 2:11-15 entails a rebuke with loss of privilege specifically for those false teachers.<\/p>\nCultural Interpretation.<\/em> Paul’s argument was not necessarily directed to a local problem in Ephesus, but it presupposes a strongly patriarchal society, both in concern for public decorum (women in their place, showing proper honor to men) and in handling Genesis 2:7, 22. This shows that Christians must respect cultural norms insofar as possible in their evangelistic mission (1 Cor 9:19-23). In addition, most women in that society had limited training as teachers. Their society, in contrast to many twenty-first-century societies, usually educated women poorly. Because of that culture’s patriarchal structure, women would not normally have qualified as teachers and leaders. First Timothy 2:11-15, therefore, reflects the notion that properly qualified people should lead and teach. At the same time, there are examples in Paul’s writings and in the early church of women participating in various facets of ministry (e.g., Acts 18:26; Rom 16:1-7; 1 Cor 11:5). This leads to questions about the universal applicability of Paul’s statements on women in the church.<\/p>\nChristians continue to discuss these complex issues. Many Christians today subscribe to a complementarian viewpoint, affirming distinct gender roles in the church, while many others take an egalitarian position, supporting the notion that men and women share equal roles in the church. All Christians affirm, however, the equality of men and women with respect to their identity as beloved children of God (see Galatians 3:26-28).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:23-24; Acts 18:26; Rom 16:1-7; 1 Cor 11:2-16; 14:34-35; Gal 3:28; 1 Tim 2:11-15<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church<\/h3>\nPaul’s words in 1 Timothy regarding women’s roles in the church were intended to correct what was happening in Ephesus, but the extent to which this passage applies to other situations is a subject of discussion. The possible understandings include the following three:<\/p>\nUniversal Interpretation.<\/em> Galatians 3:28 (“There is no longer . . . male and female”) does not negate creational gender distinctions and roles. Even if Galatians 3:28 represents the ideal of equality in God’s eternal Kingdom, gender roles should still be ordered as outlined in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 for as long as this creation continues. By way of comparison, Matthew 22:30 discusses the status of marriage in the new creation—it differs from the structure of this creation outlined in Genesis 2:23-24, and it applies to the present life only in a special and limited sense (see 1 Tim 4:3-5; Matt 19:11-12; 1 Cor 7:29-35). The structure of the new creation will be fully realized in the coming age, and it is not the ideal for the present time. Therefore, Christian women in all times and places must recognize their role in the created order of God. They must not teach men or exercise authority over men in the church (see also 1 Cor 11:2-16; 14:34-35).<\/p>\nPolemical Interpretation.<\/em> Paul was addressing a particular situation created by the false teaching within the Ephesian church (see 1 Tim 1:18-20; 4:1-5; cp. 2 Tim 3:6-9). Evidence suggests that this teaching was disturbing family relationships (see 1 Tim 4:3; Titus 1:11). It is possible that Ephesian women, caught up in the local heresy, were abusing Genesis 1–3 in their teaching. They might have been asserting female domination in the final resurrection (which, according to some of the Ephesians, had already occurred; 2 Tim 2:18) and accentuated Adam’s blame for the Fall. Paul corrects their misreadings by alluding to the biblical text, but his point is not to make a universal statement about the status of women in the church. His concern is merely to silence the false teachers in Ephesus, including the women among them. First Timothy 2:11-15 entails a rebuke with loss of privilege specifically for those false teachers.<\/p>\nCultural Interpretation.<\/em> Paul’s argument was not necessarily directed to a local problem in Ephesus, but it presupposes a strongly patriarchal society, both in concern for public decorum (women in their place, showing proper honor to men) and in handling Genesis 2:7, 22. This shows that Christians must respect cultural norms insofar as possible in their evangelistic mission (1 Cor 9:19-23). In addition, most women in that society had limited training as teachers. Their society, in contrast to many twenty-first-century societies, usually educated women poorly. Because of that culture’s patriarchal structure, women would not normally have qualified as teachers and leaders. First Timothy 2:11-15, therefore, reflects the notion that properly qualified people should lead and teach. At the same time, there are examples in Paul’s writings and in the early church of women participating in various facets of ministry (e.g., Acts 18:26; Rom 16:1-7; 1 Cor 11:5). This leads to questions about the universal applicability of Paul’s statements on women in the church.<\/p>\nChristians continue to discuss these complex issues. Many Christians today subscribe to a complementarian viewpoint, affirming distinct gender roles in the church, while many others take an egalitarian position, supporting the notion that men and women share equal roles in the church. All Christians affirm, however, the equality of men and women with respect to their identity as beloved children of God (see Galatians 3:26-28).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:23-24; Acts 18:26; Rom 16:1-7; 1 Cor 11:2-16; 14:34-35; Gal 3:28; 1 Tim 2:11-15<\/p>","summary_ro":"Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church Paul’s words in 1 Timothy regarding women’s roles in the church were intended to correct what was happening in Ephesus, but the extent to which this passage applies to other situations is a subject of discussion. The possible understandings include the following three: Universal Interpretation. Galatians 3:28 (“There is no longer . . . male and female”) does not negate creational gender distinctions and roles. Even if Galatians 3:28 represents the ide...","summary_en":"Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church Paul’s words in 1 Timothy regarding women’s roles in the church were intended to correct what was happening in Ephesus, but the extent to which this passage applies to other situations is a subject of discussion. The possible understandings include the following three: Universal Interpretation. Galatians 3:28 (“There is no longer . . . male and female”) does not negate creational gender distinctions and roles. Even if Galatians 3:28 represents the ide...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":87304,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Human Sexuality","title_en":"Human Sexuality","content_ro":"<h3>Human Sexuality<\/h3>\nWhen God created the first human beings in his own image, he created them as sexual beings, male and female (Gen 1:27). Through their sexuality, they were to fill and govern the world (1:28) and provide intimate companionship for one another in marriage (2:18-25). Male and female sexuality is central to what it means to be human and is included in God’s declaration of creation as “very good” (1:31).<\/p>\nSexual intimacy united the first man and woman as one, an effect that sexual intimacy continues to have. Since biblical sexuality is not just physical but has the total person in view, it validates sexual relations only as part of the partners’ permanent mutual commitment to each other’s ultimate good. The Bible speaks of engaging in sexual intercourse as literally “knowing” another person intimately (see study note on Gen 4:1). Since Creation, God’s intended context for sexual activity has been the intimate union of marriage—namely, a permanent and loving heterosexual commitment (Gen 1:27-28; 2:23-24). The sexual relationship cements the marriage bond in an intimacy that may result in reproduction and can continue even when reproduction is no longer possible.<\/p>\nAlthough sexuality was created before sin, it did not emerge unscathed from human rebellion. Sexuality is a powerful force that is easily corrupted if not carefully channeled (see Lev 18; 1 Thes 4:3-8). Sexual intimacy apart from marital commitment perverts the order that God intended for creation. Incest, for example, violates sexual boundaries (see Lev 18:7-18), collapses family structures (see Gen 19:30-38), and fragments the community. Whereas perverted sexuality causes much harm, tears the community down (see Gen 38:1-30; 39:7-9; Judg 19–20), and exalts the individual (see 2 Sam 13:11-14), biblical sexuality builds up the sexual partners and the community.<\/p>\nHuman sexuality has been damaged through our fall into sin (Gen 3), but God has redeemed it through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (see 1 Cor 6:12-20; Eph 5:31-33). He restores sexual wholeness in those who trust his work in their lives by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:9-11, 15-20; 1 Thes 4:1-8). Those who commit their sexuality to Christ’s work in their lives can serve as a testament to others of God’s love for his people (Eph 5:25-33).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:27-28; 2:18-25; Lev 18:1-30; Deut 22:13-29; Ruth 4:11-13; 2 Sam 11:2-27; Ps 127:3-5; Eccl 2:8-11; Song 1:8–8:14; Mal 2:15-16; Matt 19:3-12; 1 Cor 6:12–7:40; Eph 5:31-33; 1 Thes 4:3-8<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Human Sexuality<\/h3>\nWhen God created the first human beings in his own image, he created them as sexual beings, male and female (Gen 1:27). Through their sexuality, they were to fill and govern the world (1:28) and provide intimate companionship for one another in marriage (2:18-25). Male and female sexuality is central to what it means to be human and is included in God’s declaration of creation as “very good” (1:31).<\/p>\nSexual intimacy united the first man and woman as one, an effect that sexual intimacy continues to have. Since biblical sexuality is not just physical but has the total person in view, it validates sexual relations only as part of the partners’ permanent mutual commitment to each other’s ultimate good. The Bible speaks of engaging in sexual intercourse as literally “knowing” another person intimately (see study note on Gen 4:1). Since Creation, God’s intended context for sexual activity has been the intimate union of marriage—namely, a permanent and loving heterosexual commitment (Gen 1:27-28; 2:23-24). The sexual relationship cements the marriage bond in an intimacy that may result in reproduction and can continue even when reproduction is no longer possible.<\/p>\nAlthough sexuality was created before sin, it did not emerge unscathed from human rebellion. Sexuality is a powerful force that is easily corrupted if not carefully channeled (see Lev 18; 1 Thes 4:3-8). Sexual intimacy apart from marital commitment perverts the order that God intended for creation. Incest, for example, violates sexual boundaries (see Lev 18:7-18), collapses family structures (see Gen 19:30-38), and fragments the community. Whereas perverted sexuality causes much harm, tears the community down (see Gen 38:1-30; 39:7-9; Judg 19–20), and exalts the individual (see 2 Sam 13:11-14), biblical sexuality builds up the sexual partners and the community.<\/p>\nHuman sexuality has been damaged through our fall into sin (Gen 3), but God has redeemed it through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (see 1 Cor 6:12-20; Eph 5:31-33). He restores sexual wholeness in those who trust his work in their lives by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:9-11, 15-20; 1 Thes 4:1-8). Those who commit their sexuality to Christ’s work in their lives can serve as a testament to others of God’s love for his people (Eph 5:25-33).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:27-28; 2:18-25; Lev 18:1-30; Deut 22:13-29; Ruth 4:11-13; 2 Sam 11:2-27; Ps 127:3-5; Eccl 2:8-11; Song 1:8–8:14; Mal 2:15-16; Matt 19:3-12; 1 Cor 6:12–7:40; Eph 5:31-33; 1 Thes 4:3-8<\/p>","summary_ro":"Human Sexuality When God created the first human beings in his own image, he created them as sexual beings, male and female (Gen 1:27). Through their sexuality, they were to fill and govern the world (1:28) and provide intimate companionship for one another in marriage (2:18-25). Male and female sexuality is central to what it means to be human and is included in God’s declaration of creation as “very good” (1:31). Sexual intimacy united the first man and woman as one, an effect that sexual i...","summary_en":"Human Sexuality When God created the first human beings in his own image, he created them as sexual beings, male and female (Gen 1:27). Through their sexuality, they were to fill and govern the world (1:28) and provide intimate companionship for one another in marriage (2:18-25). Male and female sexuality is central to what it means to be human and is included in God’s declaration of creation as “very good” (1:31). Sexual intimacy united the first man and woman as one, an effect that sexual i...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":91081,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Marriage and Sexuality","title_en":"Marriage and Sexuality","content_ro":"<h3>Marriage and Sexuality<\/h3>\nFrom the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame.<\/p>\nIn Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young men to avoid the temptations of sexual expression outside of marriage (Prov 2:16-22; 5:1-23; 6:20–7:27). While a young man might find other women physically attractive and seductive, the consequences of acting on these temptations are dire: His family and professional aspirations might be destroyed. Proverbs teaches young men to cultivate a strong relationship with their own wives. They are counseled to have healthy marital sex rather than sleeping with other women (5:15-20).<\/p>\nAlthough this section of Proverbs was originally written to instruct young men, all readers can reflect on these issues of marriage and sexuality. Proverbs urges men and women to recognize the sanctity and beauty of marital love as God, the wise Creator, intended it.<\/p>\nThe New Testament reaffirms the sacredness of sexuality and its proper expression in marriage. Jesus appeals to the creation narrative in Genesis as a way of highlighting the intended permanency of the marriage relationship. After quoting Genesis 2:24, he states, “Since they are no longer two but one, let no one split apart what God has joined together” (Matt 19:3-6). Paul discusses the importance of maintaining sexual intimacy in marriage, lest Satan be afforded an opportunity to tempt (1 Cor 7:3-5). God’s desire is that those who join in marriage would remain faithful to one another, avoiding sexual activity that is destructive to the sacred relationship they have entered (see Heb 13:4).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:18-25; Prov 2:16-22; 5:15-20; 6:20-35; 7:1-27; Jer 5:7-11; Hos 2:20; Mal 2:14-16; Matt 19:4-6; 22:30; 1 Cor 6:15-20; Heb 13:4<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Marriage and Sexuality<\/h3>\nFrom the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame.<\/p>\nIn Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young men to avoid the temptations of sexual expression outside of marriage (Prov 2:16-22; 5:1-23; 6:20–7:27). While a young man might find other women physically attractive and seductive, the consequences of acting on these temptations are dire: His family and professional aspirations might be destroyed. Proverbs teaches young men to cultivate a strong relationship with their own wives. They are counseled to have healthy marital sex rather than sleeping with other women (5:15-20).<\/p>\nAlthough this section of Proverbs was originally written to instruct young men, all readers can reflect on these issues of marriage and sexuality. Proverbs urges men and women to recognize the sanctity and beauty of marital love as God, the wise Creator, intended it.<\/p>\nThe New Testament reaffirms the sacredness of sexuality and its proper expression in marriage. Jesus appeals to the creation narrative in Genesis as a way of highlighting the intended permanency of the marriage relationship. After quoting Genesis 2:24, he states, “Since they are no longer two but one, let no one split apart what God has joined together” (Matt 19:3-6). Paul discusses the importance of maintaining sexual intimacy in marriage, lest Satan be afforded an opportunity to tempt (1 Cor 7:3-5). God’s desire is that those who join in marriage would remain faithful to one another, avoiding sexual activity that is destructive to the sacred relationship they have entered (see Heb 13:4).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:18-25; Prov 2:16-22; 5:15-20; 6:20-35; 7:1-27; Jer 5:7-11; Hos 2:20; Mal 2:14-16; Matt 19:4-6; 22:30; 1 Cor 6:15-20; Heb 13:4<\/p>","summary_ro":"Marriage and Sexuality From the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame. In Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young ...","summary_en":"Marriage and Sexuality From the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame. In Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":95110,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church","title_en":"Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church","content_ro":"<h3>Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church<\/h3>\nPaul’s words in 1 Timothy regarding women’s roles in the church were intended to correct what was happening in Ephesus, but the extent to which this passage applies to other situations is a subject of discussion. The possible understandings include the following three:<\/p>\nUniversal Interpretation.<\/em> Galatians 3:28 (“There is no longer . . . male and female”) does not negate creational gender distinctions and roles. Even if Galatians 3:28 represents the ideal of equality in God’s eternal Kingdom, gender roles should still be ordered as outlined in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 for as long as this creation continues. By way of comparison, Matthew 22:30 discusses the status of marriage in the new creation—it differs from the structure of this creation outlined in Genesis 2:23-24, and it applies to the present life only in a special and limited sense (see 1 Tim 4:3-5; Matt 19:11-12; 1 Cor 7:29-35). The structure of the new creation will be fully realized in the coming age, and it is not the ideal for the present time. Therefore, Christian women in all times and places must recognize their role in the created order of God. They must not teach men or exercise authority over men in the church (see also 1 Cor 11:2-16; 14:34-35).<\/p>\nPolemical Interpretation.<\/em> Paul was addressing a particular situation created by the false teaching within the Ephesian church (see 1 Tim 1:18-20; 4:1-5; cp. 2 Tim 3:6-9). Evidence suggests that this teaching was disturbing family relationships (see 1 Tim 4:3; Titus 1:11). It is possible that Ephesian women, caught up in the local heresy, were abusing Genesis 1–3 in their teaching. They might have been asserting female domination in the final resurrection (which, according to some of the Ephesians, had already occurred; 2 Tim 2:18) and accentuated Adam’s blame for the Fall. Paul corrects their misreadings by alluding to the biblical text, but his point is not to make a universal statement about the status of women in the church. His concern is merely to silence the false teachers in Ephesus, including the women among them. First Timothy 2:11-15 entails a rebuke with loss of privilege specifically for those false teachers.<\/p>\nCultural Interpretation.<\/em> Paul’s argument was not necessarily directed to a local problem in Ephesus, but it presupposes a strongly patriarchal society, both in concern for public decorum (women in their place, showing proper honor to men) and in handling Genesis 2:7, 22. This shows that Christians must respect cultural norms insofar as possible in their evangelistic mission (1 Cor 9:19-23). In addition, most women in that society had limited training as teachers. Their society, in contrast to many twenty-first-century societies, usually educated women poorly. Because of that culture’s patriarchal structure, women would not normally have qualified as teachers and leaders. First Timothy 2:11-15, therefore, reflects the notion that properly qualified people should lead and teach. At the same time, there are examples in Paul’s writings and in the early church of women participating in various facets of ministry (e.g., Acts 18:26; Rom 16:1-7; 1 Cor 11:5). This leads to questions about the universal applicability of Paul’s statements on women in the church.<\/p>\nChristians continue to discuss these complex issues. Many Christians today subscribe to a complementarian viewpoint, affirming distinct gender roles in the church, while many others take an egalitarian position, supporting the notion that men and women share equal roles in the church. All Christians affirm, however, the equality of men and women with respect to their identity as beloved children of God (see Galatians 3:26-28).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:23-24; Acts 18:26; Rom 16:1-7; 1 Cor 11:2-16; 14:34-35; Gal 3:28; 1 Tim 2:11-15<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church<\/h3>\nPaul’s words in 1 Timothy regarding women’s roles in the church were intended to correct what was happening in Ephesus, but the extent to which this passage applies to other situations is a subject of discussion. The possible understandings include the following three:<\/p>\nUniversal Interpretation.<\/em> Galatians 3:28 (“There is no longer . . . male and female”) does not negate creational gender distinctions and roles. Even if Galatians 3:28 represents the ideal of equality in God’s eternal Kingdom, gender roles should still be ordered as outlined in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 for as long as this creation continues. By way of comparison, Matthew 22:30 discusses the status of marriage in the new creation—it differs from the structure of this creation outlined in Genesis 2:23-24, and it applies to the present life only in a special and limited sense (see 1 Tim 4:3-5; Matt 19:11-12; 1 Cor 7:29-35). The structure of the new creation will be fully realized in the coming age, and it is not the ideal for the present time. Therefore, Christian women in all times and places must recognize their role in the created order of God. They must not teach men or exercise authority over men in the church (see also 1 Cor 11:2-16; 14:34-35).<\/p>\nPolemical Interpretation.<\/em> Paul was addressing a particular situation created by the false teaching within the Ephesian church (see 1 Tim 1:18-20; 4:1-5; cp. 2 Tim 3:6-9). Evidence suggests that this teaching was disturbing family relationships (see 1 Tim 4:3; Titus 1:11). It is possible that Ephesian women, caught up in the local heresy, were abusing Genesis 1–3 in their teaching. They might have been asserting female domination in the final resurrection (which, according to some of the Ephesians, had already occurred; 2 Tim 2:18) and accentuated Adam’s blame for the Fall. Paul corrects their misreadings by alluding to the biblical text, but his point is not to make a universal statement about the status of women in the church. His concern is merely to silence the false teachers in Ephesus, including the women among them. First Timothy 2:11-15 entails a rebuke with loss of privilege specifically for those false teachers.<\/p>\nCultural Interpretation.<\/em> Paul’s argument was not necessarily directed to a local problem in Ephesus, but it presupposes a strongly patriarchal society, both in concern for public decorum (women in their place, showing proper honor to men) and in handling Genesis 2:7, 22. This shows that Christians must respect cultural norms insofar as possible in their evangelistic mission (1 Cor 9:19-23). In addition, most women in that society had limited training as teachers. Their society, in contrast to many twenty-first-century societies, usually educated women poorly. Because of that culture’s patriarchal structure, women would not normally have qualified as teachers and leaders. First Timothy 2:11-15, therefore, reflects the notion that properly qualified people should lead and teach. At the same time, there are examples in Paul’s writings and in the early church of women participating in various facets of ministry (e.g., Acts 18:26; Rom 16:1-7; 1 Cor 11:5). This leads to questions about the universal applicability of Paul’s statements on women in the church.<\/p>\nChristians continue to discuss these complex issues. Many Christians today subscribe to a complementarian viewpoint, affirming distinct gender roles in the church, while many others take an egalitarian position, supporting the notion that men and women share equal roles in the church. All Christians affirm, however, the equality of men and women with respect to their identity as beloved children of God (see Galatians 3:26-28).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:23-24; Acts 18:26; Rom 16:1-7; 1 Cor 11:2-16; 14:34-35; Gal 3:28; 1 Tim 2:11-15<\/p>","summary_ro":"Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church Paul’s words in 1 Timothy regarding women’s roles in the church were intended to correct what was happening in Ephesus, but the extent to which this passage applies to other situations is a subject of discussion. The possible understandings include the following three: Universal Interpretation. Galatians 3:28 (“There is no longer . . . male and female”) does not negate creational gender distinctions and roles. Even if Galatians 3:28 represents the ide...","summary_en":"Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church Paul’s words in 1 Timothy regarding women’s roles in the church were intended to correct what was happening in Ephesus, but the extent to which this passage applies to other situations is a subject of discussion. The possible understandings include the following three: Universal Interpretation. Galatians 3:28 (“There is no longer . . . male and female”) does not negate creational gender distinctions and roles. Even if Galatians 3:28 represents the ide...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":114930,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Human Sexuality","title_en":"Human Sexuality","content_ro":"<h3>Human Sexuality<\/h3>\nWhen God created the first human beings in his own image, he created them as sexual beings, male and female (Gen 1:27). Through their sexuality, they were to fill and govern the world (1:28) and provide intimate companionship for one another in marriage (2:18-25). Male and female sexuality is central to what it means to be human and is included in God’s declaration of creation as “very good” (1:31).<\/p>\nSexual intimacy united the first man and woman as one, an effect that sexual intimacy continues to have. Since biblical sexuality is not just physical but has the total person in view, it validates sexual relations only as part of the partners’ permanent mutual commitment to each other’s ultimate good. The Bible speaks of engaging in sexual intercourse as literally “knowing” another person intimately (see study note on Gen 4:1). Since Creation, God’s intended context for sexual activity has been the intimate union of marriage—namely, a permanent and loving heterosexual commitment (Gen 1:27-28; 2:23-24). The sexual relationship cements the marriage bond in an intimacy that may result in reproduction and can continue even when reproduction is no longer possible.<\/p>\nAlthough sexuality was created before sin, it did not emerge unscathed from human rebellion. Sexuality is a powerful force that is easily corrupted if not carefully channeled (see Lev 18; 1 Thes 4:3-8). Sexual intimacy apart from marital commitment perverts the order that God intended for creation. Incest, for example, violates sexual boundaries (see Lev 18:7-18), collapses family structures (see Gen 19:30-38), and fragments the community. Whereas perverted sexuality causes much harm, tears the community down (see Gen 38:1-30; 39:7-9; Judg 19–20), and exalts the individual (see 2 Sam 13:11-14), biblical sexuality builds up the sexual partners and the community.<\/p>\nHuman sexuality has been damaged through our fall into sin (Gen 3), but God has redeemed it through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (see 1 Cor 6:12-20; Eph 5:31-33). He restores sexual wholeness in those who trust his work in their lives by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:9-11, 15-20; 1 Thes 4:1-8). Those who commit their sexuality to Christ’s work in their lives can serve as a testament to others of God’s love for his people (Eph 5:25-33).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:27-28; 2:18-25; Lev 18:1-30; Deut 22:13-29; Ruth 4:11-13; 2 Sam 11:2-27; Ps 127:3-5; Eccl 2:8-11; Song 1:8–8:14; Mal 2:15-16; Matt 19:3-12; 1 Cor 6:12–7:40; Eph 5:31-33; 1 Thes 4:3-8<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Human Sexuality<\/h3>\nWhen God created the first human beings in his own image, he created them as sexual beings, male and female (Gen 1:27). Through their sexuality, they were to fill and govern the world (1:28) and provide intimate companionship for one another in marriage (2:18-25). Male and female sexuality is central to what it means to be human and is included in God’s declaration of creation as “very good” (1:31).<\/p>\nSexual intimacy united the first man and woman as one, an effect that sexual intimacy continues to have. Since biblical sexuality is not just physical but has the total person in view, it validates sexual relations only as part of the partners’ permanent mutual commitment to each other’s ultimate good. The Bible speaks of engaging in sexual intercourse as literally “knowing” another person intimately (see study note on Gen 4:1). Since Creation, God’s intended context for sexual activity has been the intimate union of marriage—namely, a permanent and loving heterosexual commitment (Gen 1:27-28; 2:23-24). The sexual relationship cements the marriage bond in an intimacy that may result in reproduction and can continue even when reproduction is no longer possible.<\/p>\nAlthough sexuality was created before sin, it did not emerge unscathed from human rebellion. Sexuality is a powerful force that is easily corrupted if not carefully channeled (see Lev 18; 1 Thes 4:3-8). Sexual intimacy apart from marital commitment perverts the order that God intended for creation. Incest, for example, violates sexual boundaries (see Lev 18:7-18), collapses family structures (see Gen 19:30-38), and fragments the community. Whereas perverted sexuality causes much harm, tears the community down (see Gen 38:1-30; 39:7-9; Judg 19–20), and exalts the individual (see 2 Sam 13:11-14), biblical sexuality builds up the sexual partners and the community.<\/p>\nHuman sexuality has been damaged through our fall into sin (Gen 3), but God has redeemed it through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (see 1 Cor 6:12-20; Eph 5:31-33). He restores sexual wholeness in those who trust his work in their lives by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:9-11, 15-20; 1 Thes 4:1-8). Those who commit their sexuality to Christ’s work in their lives can serve as a testament to others of God’s love for his people (Eph 5:25-33).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:27-28; 2:18-25; Lev 18:1-30; Deut 22:13-29; Ruth 4:11-13; 2 Sam 11:2-27; Ps 127:3-5; Eccl 2:8-11; Song 1:8–8:14; Mal 2:15-16; Matt 19:3-12; 1 Cor 6:12–7:40; Eph 5:31-33; 1 Thes 4:3-8<\/p>","summary_ro":"Human Sexuality When God created the first human beings in his own image, he created them as sexual beings, male and female (Gen 1:27). Through their sexuality, they were to fill and govern the world (1:28) and provide intimate companionship for one another in marriage (2:18-25). Male and female sexuality is central to what it means to be human and is included in God’s declaration of creation as “very good” (1:31). Sexual intimacy united the first man and woman as one, an effect that sexual i...","summary_en":"Human Sexuality When God created the first human beings in his own image, he created them as sexual beings, male and female (Gen 1:27). Through their sexuality, they were to fill and govern the world (1:28) and provide intimate companionship for one another in marriage (2:18-25). Male and female sexuality is central to what it means to be human and is included in God’s declaration of creation as “very good” (1:31). Sexual intimacy united the first man and woman as one, an effect that sexual i...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":118707,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Marriage and Sexuality","title_en":"Marriage and Sexuality","content_ro":"<h3>Marriage and Sexuality<\/h3>\nFrom the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame.<\/p>\nIn Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young men to avoid the temptations of sexual expression outside of marriage (Prov 2:16-22; 5:1-23; 6:20–7:27). While a young man might find other women physically attractive and seductive, the consequences of acting on these temptations are dire: His family and professional aspirations might be destroyed. Proverbs teaches young men to cultivate a strong relationship with their own wives. They are counseled to have healthy marital sex rather than sleeping with other women (5:15-20).<\/p>\nAlthough this section of Proverbs was originally written to instruct young men, all readers can reflect on these issues of marriage and sexuality. Proverbs urges men and women to recognize the sanctity and beauty of marital love as God, the wise Creator, intended it.<\/p>\nThe New Testament reaffirms the sacredness of sexuality and its proper expression in marriage. Jesus appeals to the creation narrative in Genesis as a way of highlighting the intended permanency of the marriage relationship. After quoting Genesis 2:24, he states, “Since they are no longer two but one, let no one split apart what God has joined together” (Matt 19:3-6). Paul discusses the importance of maintaining sexual intimacy in marriage, lest Satan be afforded an opportunity to tempt (1 Cor 7:3-5). God’s desire is that those who join in marriage would remain faithful to one another, avoiding sexual activity that is destructive to the sacred relationship they have entered (see Heb 13:4).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:18-25; Prov 2:16-22; 5:15-20; 6:20-35; 7:1-27; Jer 5:7-11; Hos 2:20; Mal 2:14-16; Matt 19:4-6; 22:30; 1 Cor 6:15-20; Heb 13:4<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Marriage and Sexuality<\/h3>\nFrom the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame.<\/p>\nIn Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young men to avoid the temptations of sexual expression outside of marriage (Prov 2:16-22; 5:1-23; 6:20–7:27). While a young man might find other women physically attractive and seductive, the consequences of acting on these temptations are dire: His family and professional aspirations might be destroyed. Proverbs teaches young men to cultivate a strong relationship with their own wives. They are counseled to have healthy marital sex rather than sleeping with other women (5:15-20).<\/p>\nAlthough this section of Proverbs was originally written to instruct young men, all readers can reflect on these issues of marriage and sexuality. Proverbs urges men and women to recognize the sanctity and beauty of marital love as God, the wise Creator, intended it.<\/p>\nThe New Testament reaffirms the sacredness of sexuality and its proper expression in marriage. Jesus appeals to the creation narrative in Genesis as a way of highlighting the intended permanency of the marriage relationship. After quoting Genesis 2:24, he states, “Since they are no longer two but one, let no one split apart what God has joined together” (Matt 19:3-6). Paul discusses the importance of maintaining sexual intimacy in marriage, lest Satan be afforded an opportunity to tempt (1 Cor 7:3-5). God’s desire is that those who join in marriage would remain faithful to one another, avoiding sexual activity that is destructive to the sacred relationship they have entered (see Heb 13:4).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:18-25; Prov 2:16-22; 5:15-20; 6:20-35; 7:1-27; Jer 5:7-11; Hos 2:20; Mal 2:14-16; Matt 19:4-6; 22:30; 1 Cor 6:15-20; Heb 13:4<\/p>","summary_ro":"Marriage and Sexuality From the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame. In Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young ...","summary_en":"Marriage and Sexuality From the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame. In Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":122736,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church","title_en":"Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church","content_ro":"<h3>Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church<\/h3>\nPaul’s words in 1 Timothy regarding women’s roles in the church were intended to correct what was happening in Ephesus, but the extent to which this passage applies to other situations is a subject of discussion. The possible understandings include the following three:<\/p>\nUniversal Interpretation.<\/em> Galatians 3:28 (“There is no longer . . . male and female”) does not negate creational gender distinctions and roles. Even if Galatians 3:28 represents the ideal of equality in God’s eternal Kingdom, gender roles should still be ordered as outlined in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 for as long as this creation continues. By way of comparison, Matthew 22:30 discusses the status of marriage in the new creation—it differs from the structure of this creation outlined in Genesis 2:23-24, and it applies to the present life only in a special and limited sense (see 1 Tim 4:3-5; Matt 19:11-12; 1 Cor 7:29-35). The structure of the new creation will be fully realized in the coming age, and it is not the ideal for the present time. Therefore, Christian women in all times and places must recognize their role in the created order of God. They must not teach men or exercise authority over men in the church (see also 1 Cor 11:2-16; 14:34-35).<\/p>\nPolemical Interpretation.<\/em> Paul was addressing a particular situation created by the false teaching within the Ephesian church (see 1 Tim 1:18-20; 4:1-5; cp. 2 Tim 3:6-9). Evidence suggests that this teaching was disturbing family relationships (see 1 Tim 4:3; Titus 1:11). It is possible that Ephesian women, caught up in the local heresy, were abusing Genesis 1–3 in their teaching. They might have been asserting female domination in the final resurrection (which, according to some of the Ephesians, had already occurred; 2 Tim 2:18) and accentuated Adam’s blame for the Fall. Paul corrects their misreadings by alluding to the biblical text, but his point is not to make a universal statement about the status of women in the church. His concern is merely to silence the false teachers in Ephesus, including the women among them. First Timothy 2:11-15 entails a rebuke with loss of privilege specifically for those false teachers.<\/p>\nCultural Interpretation.<\/em> Paul’s argument was not necessarily directed to a local problem in Ephesus, but it presupposes a strongly patriarchal society, both in concern for public decorum (women in their place, showing proper honor to men) and in handling Genesis 2:7, 22. This shows that Christians must respect cultural norms insofar as possible in their evangelistic mission (1 Cor 9:19-23). In addition, most women in that society had limited training as teachers. Their society, in contrast to many twenty-first-century societies, usually educated women poorly. Because of that culture’s patriarchal structure, women would not normally have qualified as teachers and leaders. First Timothy 2:11-15, therefore, reflects the notion that properly qualified people should lead and teach. At the same time, there are examples in Paul’s writings and in the early church of women participating in various facets of ministry (e.g., Acts 18:26; Rom 16:1-7; 1 Cor 11:5). This leads to questions about the universal applicability of Paul’s statements on women in the church.<\/p>\nChristians continue to discuss these complex issues. Many Christians today subscribe to a complementarian viewpoint, affirming distinct gender roles in the church, while many others take an egalitarian position, supporting the notion that men and women share equal roles in the church. All Christians affirm, however, the equality of men and women with respect to their identity as beloved children of God (see Galatians 3:26-28).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:23-24; Acts 18:26; Rom 16:1-7; 1 Cor 11:2-16; 14:34-35; Gal 3:28; 1 Tim 2:11-15<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church<\/h3>\nPaul’s words in 1 Timothy regarding women’s roles in the church were intended to correct what was happening in Ephesus, but the extent to which this passage applies to other situations is a subject of discussion. The possible understandings include the following three:<\/p>\nUniversal Interpretation.<\/em> Galatians 3:28 (“There is no longer . . . male and female”) does not negate creational gender distinctions and roles. Even if Galatians 3:28 represents the ideal of equality in God’s eternal Kingdom, gender roles should still be ordered as outlined in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 for as long as this creation continues. By way of comparison, Matthew 22:30 discusses the status of marriage in the new creation—it differs from the structure of this creation outlined in Genesis 2:23-24, and it applies to the present life only in a special and limited sense (see 1 Tim 4:3-5; Matt 19:11-12; 1 Cor 7:29-35). The structure of the new creation will be fully realized in the coming age, and it is not the ideal for the present time. Therefore, Christian women in all times and places must recognize their role in the created order of God. They must not teach men or exercise authority over men in the church (see also 1 Cor 11:2-16; 14:34-35).<\/p>\nPolemical Interpretation.<\/em> Paul was addressing a particular situation created by the false teaching within the Ephesian church (see 1 Tim 1:18-20; 4:1-5; cp. 2 Tim 3:6-9). Evidence suggests that this teaching was disturbing family relationships (see 1 Tim 4:3; Titus 1:11). It is possible that Ephesian women, caught up in the local heresy, were abusing Genesis 1–3 in their teaching. They might have been asserting female domination in the final resurrection (which, according to some of the Ephesians, had already occurred; 2 Tim 2:18) and accentuated Adam’s blame for the Fall. Paul corrects their misreadings by alluding to the biblical text, but his point is not to make a universal statement about the status of women in the church. His concern is merely to silence the false teachers in Ephesus, including the women among them. First Timothy 2:11-15 entails a rebuke with loss of privilege specifically for those false teachers.<\/p>\nCultural Interpretation.<\/em> Paul’s argument was not necessarily directed to a local problem in Ephesus, but it presupposes a strongly patriarchal society, both in concern for public decorum (women in their place, showing proper honor to men) and in handling Genesis 2:7, 22. This shows that Christians must respect cultural norms insofar as possible in their evangelistic mission (1 Cor 9:19-23). In addition, most women in that society had limited training as teachers. Their society, in contrast to many twenty-first-century societies, usually educated women poorly. Because of that culture’s patriarchal structure, women would not normally have qualified as teachers and leaders. First Timothy 2:11-15, therefore, reflects the notion that properly qualified people should lead and teach. At the same time, there are examples in Paul’s writings and in the early church of women participating in various facets of ministry (e.g., Acts 18:26; Rom 16:1-7; 1 Cor 11:5). This leads to questions about the universal applicability of Paul’s statements on women in the church.<\/p>\nChristians continue to discuss these complex issues. Many Christians today subscribe to a complementarian viewpoint, affirming distinct gender roles in the church, while many others take an egalitarian position, supporting the notion that men and women share equal roles in the church. All Christians affirm, however, the equality of men and women with respect to their identity as beloved children of God (see Galatians 3:26-28).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:23-24; Acts 18:26; Rom 16:1-7; 1 Cor 11:2-16; 14:34-35; Gal 3:28; 1 Tim 2:11-15<\/p>","summary_ro":"Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church Paul’s words in 1 Timothy regarding women’s roles in the church were intended to correct what was happening in Ephesus, but the extent to which this passage applies to other situations is a subject of discussion. The possible understandings include the following three: Universal Interpretation. Galatians 3:28 (“There is no longer . . . male and female”) does not negate creational gender distinctions and roles. Even if Galatians 3:28 represents the ide...","summary_en":"Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church Paul’s words in 1 Timothy regarding women’s roles in the church were intended to correct what was happening in Ephesus, but the extent to which this passage applies to other situations is a subject of discussion. The possible understandings include the following three: Universal Interpretation. Galatians 3:28 (“There is no longer . . . male and female”) does not negate creational gender distinctions and roles. Even if Galatians 3:28 represents the ide...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":142556,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Human Sexuality","title_en":"Human Sexuality","content_ro":"<h3>Human Sexuality<\/h3>\nWhen God created the first human beings in his own image, he created them as sexual beings, male and female (Gen 1:27). Through their sexuality, they were to fill and govern the world (1:28) and provide intimate companionship for one another in marriage (2:18-25). Male and female sexuality is central to what it means to be human and is included in God’s declaration of creation as “very good” (1:31).<\/p>\nSexual intimacy united the first man and woman as one, an effect that sexual intimacy continues to have. Since biblical sexuality is not just physical but has the total person in view, it validates sexual relations only as part of the partners’ permanent mutual commitment to each other’s ultimate good. The Bible speaks of engaging in sexual intercourse as literally “knowing” another person intimately (see study note on Gen 4:1). Since Creation, God’s intended context for sexual activity has been the intimate union of marriage—namely, a permanent and loving heterosexual commitment (Gen 1:27-28; 2:23-24). The sexual relationship cements the marriage bond in an intimacy that may result in reproduction and can continue even when reproduction is no longer possible.<\/p>\nAlthough sexuality was created before sin, it did not emerge unscathed from human rebellion. Sexuality is a powerful force that is easily corrupted if not carefully channeled (see Lev 18; 1 Thes 4:3-8). Sexual intimacy apart from marital commitment perverts the order that God intended for creation. Incest, for example, violates sexual boundaries (see Lev 18:7-18), collapses family structures (see Gen 19:30-38), and fragments the community. Whereas perverted sexuality causes much harm, tears the community down (see Gen 38:1-30; 39:7-9; Judg 19–20), and exalts the individual (see 2 Sam 13:11-14), biblical sexuality builds up the sexual partners and the community.<\/p>\nHuman sexuality has been damaged through our fall into sin (Gen 3), but God has redeemed it through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (see 1 Cor 6:12-20; Eph 5:31-33). He restores sexual wholeness in those who trust his work in their lives by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:9-11, 15-20; 1 Thes 4:1-8). Those who commit their sexuality to Christ’s work in their lives can serve as a testament to others of God’s love for his people (Eph 5:25-33).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:27-28; 2:18-25; Lev 18:1-30; Deut 22:13-29; Ruth 4:11-13; 2 Sam 11:2-27; Ps 127:3-5; Eccl 2:8-11; Song 1:8–8:14; Mal 2:15-16; Matt 19:3-12; 1 Cor 6:12–7:40; Eph 5:31-33; 1 Thes 4:3-8<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Human Sexuality<\/h3>\nWhen God created the first human beings in his own image, he created them as sexual beings, male and female (Gen 1:27). Through their sexuality, they were to fill and govern the world (1:28) and provide intimate companionship for one another in marriage (2:18-25). Male and female sexuality is central to what it means to be human and is included in God’s declaration of creation as “very good” (1:31).<\/p>\nSexual intimacy united the first man and woman as one, an effect that sexual intimacy continues to have. Since biblical sexuality is not just physical but has the total person in view, it validates sexual relations only as part of the partners’ permanent mutual commitment to each other’s ultimate good. The Bible speaks of engaging in sexual intercourse as literally “knowing” another person intimately (see study note on Gen 4:1). Since Creation, God’s intended context for sexual activity has been the intimate union of marriage—namely, a permanent and loving heterosexual commitment (Gen 1:27-28; 2:23-24). The sexual relationship cements the marriage bond in an intimacy that may result in reproduction and can continue even when reproduction is no longer possible.<\/p>\nAlthough sexuality was created before sin, it did not emerge unscathed from human rebellion. Sexuality is a powerful force that is easily corrupted if not carefully channeled (see Lev 18; 1 Thes 4:3-8). Sexual intimacy apart from marital commitment perverts the order that God intended for creation. Incest, for example, violates sexual boundaries (see Lev 18:7-18), collapses family structures (see Gen 19:30-38), and fragments the community. Whereas perverted sexuality causes much harm, tears the community down (see Gen 38:1-30; 39:7-9; Judg 19–20), and exalts the individual (see 2 Sam 13:11-14), biblical sexuality builds up the sexual partners and the community.<\/p>\nHuman sexuality has been damaged through our fall into sin (Gen 3), but God has redeemed it through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (see 1 Cor 6:12-20; Eph 5:31-33). He restores sexual wholeness in those who trust his work in their lives by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:9-11, 15-20; 1 Thes 4:1-8). Those who commit their sexuality to Christ’s work in their lives can serve as a testament to others of God’s love for his people (Eph 5:25-33).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 1:27-28; 2:18-25; Lev 18:1-30; Deut 22:13-29; Ruth 4:11-13; 2 Sam 11:2-27; Ps 127:3-5; Eccl 2:8-11; Song 1:8–8:14; Mal 2:15-16; Matt 19:3-12; 1 Cor 6:12–7:40; Eph 5:31-33; 1 Thes 4:3-8<\/p>","summary_ro":"Human Sexuality When God created the first human beings in his own image, he created them as sexual beings, male and female (Gen 1:27). Through their sexuality, they were to fill and govern the world (1:28) and provide intimate companionship for one another in marriage (2:18-25). Male and female sexuality is central to what it means to be human and is included in God’s declaration of creation as “very good” (1:31). Sexual intimacy united the first man and woman as one, an effect that sexual i...","summary_en":"Human Sexuality When God created the first human beings in his own image, he created them as sexual beings, male and female (Gen 1:27). Through their sexuality, they were to fill and govern the world (1:28) and provide intimate companionship for one another in marriage (2:18-25). Male and female sexuality is central to what it means to be human and is included in God’s declaration of creation as “very good” (1:31). Sexual intimacy united the first man and woman as one, an effect that sexual i...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":146333,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Marriage and Sexuality","title_en":"Marriage and Sexuality","content_ro":"<h3>Marriage and Sexuality<\/h3>\nFrom the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame.<\/p>\nIn Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young men to avoid the temptations of sexual expression outside of marriage (Prov 2:16-22; 5:1-23; 6:20–7:27). While a young man might find other women physically attractive and seductive, the consequences of acting on these temptations are dire: His family and professional aspirations might be destroyed. Proverbs teaches young men to cultivate a strong relationship with their own wives. They are counseled to have healthy marital sex rather than sleeping with other women (5:15-20).<\/p>\nAlthough this section of Proverbs was originally written to instruct young men, all readers can reflect on these issues of marriage and sexuality. Proverbs urges men and women to recognize the sanctity and beauty of marital love as God, the wise Creator, intended it.<\/p>\nThe New Testament reaffirms the sacredness of sexuality and its proper expression in marriage. Jesus appeals to the creation narrative in Genesis as a way of highlighting the intended permanency of the marriage relationship. After quoting Genesis 2:24, he states, “Since they are no longer two but one, let no one split apart what God has joined together” (Matt 19:3-6). Paul discusses the importance of maintaining sexual intimacy in marriage, lest Satan be afforded an opportunity to tempt (1 Cor 7:3-5). God’s desire is that those who join in marriage would remain faithful to one another, avoiding sexual activity that is destructive to the sacred relationship they have entered (see Heb 13:4).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:18-25; Prov 2:16-22; 5:15-20; 6:20-35; 7:1-27; Jer 5:7-11; Hos 2:20; Mal 2:14-16; Matt 19:4-6; 22:30; 1 Cor 6:15-20; Heb 13:4<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Marriage and Sexuality<\/h3>\nFrom the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame.<\/p>\nIn Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young men to avoid the temptations of sexual expression outside of marriage (Prov 2:16-22; 5:1-23; 6:20–7:27). While a young man might find other women physically attractive and seductive, the consequences of acting on these temptations are dire: His family and professional aspirations might be destroyed. Proverbs teaches young men to cultivate a strong relationship with their own wives. They are counseled to have healthy marital sex rather than sleeping with other women (5:15-20).<\/p>\nAlthough this section of Proverbs was originally written to instruct young men, all readers can reflect on these issues of marriage and sexuality. Proverbs urges men and women to recognize the sanctity and beauty of marital love as God, the wise Creator, intended it.<\/p>\nThe New Testament reaffirms the sacredness of sexuality and its proper expression in marriage. Jesus appeals to the creation narrative in Genesis as a way of highlighting the intended permanency of the marriage relationship. After quoting Genesis 2:24, he states, “Since they are no longer two but one, let no one split apart what God has joined together” (Matt 19:3-6). Paul discusses the importance of maintaining sexual intimacy in marriage, lest Satan be afforded an opportunity to tempt (1 Cor 7:3-5). God’s desire is that those who join in marriage would remain faithful to one another, avoiding sexual activity that is destructive to the sacred relationship they have entered (see Heb 13:4).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:18-25; Prov 2:16-22; 5:15-20; 6:20-35; 7:1-27; Jer 5:7-11; Hos 2:20; Mal 2:14-16; Matt 19:4-6; 22:30; 1 Cor 6:15-20; Heb 13:4<\/p>","summary_ro":"Marriage and Sexuality From the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame. In Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young ...","summary_en":"Marriage and Sexuality From the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame. In Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":150362,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church","title_en":"Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church","content_ro":"<h3>Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church<\/h3>\nPaul’s words in 1 Timothy regarding women’s roles in the church were intended to correct what was happening in Ephesus, but the extent to which this passage applies to other situations is a subject of discussion. The possible understandings include the following three:<\/p>\nUniversal Interpretation.<\/em> Galatians 3:28 (“There is no longer . . . male and female”) does not negate creational gender distinctions and roles. Even if Galatians 3:28 represents the ideal of equality in God’s eternal Kingdom, gender roles should still be ordered as outlined in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 for as long as this creation continues. By way of comparison, Matthew 22:30 discusses the status of marriage in the new creation—it differs from the structure of this creation outlined in Genesis 2:23-24, and it applies to the present life only in a special and limited sense (see 1 Tim 4:3-5; Matt 19:11-12; 1 Cor 7:29-35). The structure of the new creation will be fully realized in the coming age, and it is not the ideal for the present time. Therefore, Christian women in all times and places must recognize their role in the created order of God. They must not teach men or exercise authority over men in the church (see also 1 Cor 11:2-16; 14:34-35).<\/p>\nPolemical Interpretation.<\/em> Paul was addressing a particular situation created by the false teaching within the Ephesian church (see 1 Tim 1:18-20; 4:1-5; cp. 2 Tim 3:6-9). Evidence suggests that this teaching was disturbing family relationships (see 1 Tim 4:3; Titus 1:11). It is possible that Ephesian women, caught up in the local heresy, were abusing Genesis 1–3 in their teaching. They might have been asserting female domination in the final resurrection (which, according to some of the Ephesians, had already occurred; 2 Tim 2:18) and accentuated Adam’s blame for the Fall. Paul corrects their misreadings by alluding to the biblical text, but his point is not to make a universal statement about the status of women in the church. His concern is merely to silence the false teachers in Ephesus, including the women among them. First Timothy 2:11-15 entails a rebuke with loss of privilege specifically for those false teachers.<\/p>\nCultural Interpretation.<\/em> Paul’s argument was not necessarily directed to a local problem in Ephesus, but it presupposes a strongly patriarchal society, both in concern for public decorum (women in their place, showing proper honor to men) and in handling Genesis 2:7, 22. This shows that Christians must respect cultural norms insofar as possible in their evangelistic mission (1 Cor 9:19-23). In addition, most women in that society had limited training as teachers. Their society, in contrast to many twenty-first-century societies, usually educated women poorly. Because of that culture’s patriarchal structure, women would not normally have qualified as teachers and leaders. First Timothy 2:11-15, therefore, reflects the notion that properly qualified people should lead and teach. At the same time, there are examples in Paul’s writings and in the early church of women participating in various facets of ministry (e.g., Acts 18:26; Rom 16:1-7; 1 Cor 11:5). This leads to questions about the universal applicability of Paul’s statements on women in the church.<\/p>\nChristians continue to discuss these complex issues. Many Christians today subscribe to a complementarian viewpoint, affirming distinct gender roles in the church, while many others take an egalitarian position, supporting the notion that men and women share equal roles in the church. All Christians affirm, however, the equality of men and women with respect to their identity as beloved children of God (see Galatians 3:26-28).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:23-24; Acts 18:26; Rom 16:1-7; 1 Cor 11:2-16; 14:34-35; Gal 3:28; 1 Tim 2:11-15<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church<\/h3>\nPaul’s words in 1 Timothy regarding women’s roles in the church were intended to correct what was happening in Ephesus, but the extent to which this passage applies to other situations is a subject of discussion. The possible understandings include the following three:<\/p>\nUniversal Interpretation.<\/em> Galatians 3:28 (“There is no longer . . . male and female”) does not negate creational gender distinctions and roles. Even if Galatians 3:28 represents the ideal of equality in God’s eternal Kingdom, gender roles should still be ordered as outlined in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 for as long as this creation continues. By way of comparison, Matthew 22:30 discusses the status of marriage in the new creation—it differs from the structure of this creation outlined in Genesis 2:23-24, and it applies to the present life only in a special and limited sense (see 1 Tim 4:3-5; Matt 19:11-12; 1 Cor 7:29-35). The structure of the new creation will be fully realized in the coming age, and it is not the ideal for the present time. Therefore, Christian women in all times and places must recognize their role in the created order of God. They must not teach men or exercise authority over men in the church (see also 1 Cor 11:2-16; 14:34-35).<\/p>\nPolemical Interpretation.<\/em> Paul was addressing a particular situation created by the false teaching within the Ephesian church (see 1 Tim 1:18-20; 4:1-5; cp. 2 Tim 3:6-9). Evidence suggests that this teaching was disturbing family relationships (see 1 Tim 4:3; Titus 1:11). It is possible that Ephesian women, caught up in the local heresy, were abusing Genesis 1–3 in their teaching. They might have been asserting female domination in the final resurrection (which, according to some of the Ephesians, had already occurred; 2 Tim 2:18) and accentuated Adam’s blame for the Fall. Paul corrects their misreadings by alluding to the biblical text, but his point is not to make a universal statement about the status of women in the church. His concern is merely to silence the false teachers in Ephesus, including the women among them. First Timothy 2:11-15 entails a rebuke with loss of privilege specifically for those false teachers.<\/p>\nCultural Interpretation.<\/em> Paul’s argument was not necessarily directed to a local problem in Ephesus, but it presupposes a strongly patriarchal society, both in concern for public decorum (women in their place, showing proper honor to men) and in handling Genesis 2:7, 22. This shows that Christians must respect cultural norms insofar as possible in their evangelistic mission (1 Cor 9:19-23). In addition, most women in that society had limited training as teachers. Their society, in contrast to many twenty-first-century societies, usually educated women poorly. Because of that culture’s patriarchal structure, women would not normally have qualified as teachers and leaders. First Timothy 2:11-15, therefore, reflects the notion that properly qualified people should lead and teach. At the same time, there are examples in Paul’s writings and in the early church of women participating in various facets of ministry (e.g., Acts 18:26; Rom 16:1-7; 1 Cor 11:5). This leads to questions about the universal applicability of Paul’s statements on women in the church.<\/p>\nChristians continue to discuss these complex issues. Many Christians today subscribe to a complementarian viewpoint, affirming distinct gender roles in the church, while many others take an egalitarian position, supporting the notion that men and women share equal roles in the church. All Christians affirm, however, the equality of men and women with respect to their identity as beloved children of God (see Galatians 3:26-28).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:23-24; Acts 18:26; Rom 16:1-7; 1 Cor 11:2-16; 14:34-35; Gal 3:28; 1 Tim 2:11-15<\/p>","summary_ro":"Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church Paul’s words in 1 Timothy regarding women’s roles in the church were intended to correct what was happening in Ephesus, but the extent to which this passage applies to other situations is a subject of discussion. The possible understandings include the following three: Universal Interpretation. Galatians 3:28 (“There is no longer . . . male and female”) does not negate creational gender distinctions and roles. Even if Galatians 3:28 represents the ide...","summary_en":"Women’s Roles in the New Testament Church Paul’s words in 1 Timothy regarding women’s roles in the church were intended to correct what was happening in Ephesus, but the extent to which this passage applies to other situations is a subject of discussion. The possible understandings include the following three: Universal Interpretation. Galatians 3:28 (“There is no longer . . . male and female”) does not negate creational gender distinctions and roles. Even if Galatians 3:28 represents the ide...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"24":[{"id":4836,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"of the Old Testament in the New Testament Bible*, Quotations","title_en":"of the Old Testament in the New Testament Bible*, Quotations","content_ro":"<h3>BIBLE*, Quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament<\/span><\/h3>\nOT passages cited or alluded to in the NT writings.<\/p>\nOne of the most complex problems in interpreting the Bible is in understanding how NT writers quoted the OT. Obviously nothing is so formative and authoritative for the NT writers as Scripture. However, the way that they used OT passages often seems strange to modern readers.<\/p>\nThe OT has provided the words and ideas for much of the NT. Unless one has a Bible that prints OT quotations in distinctive print, this may not be easily seen, for the NT writers often weave the OT words into their own without indicating they are borrowing from the OT. There are over 400 passages of the OT that are explicitly cited in the NT. Almost half of these are introduced by a statement like “Scripture says” to draw attention to the fact that the authority and thought of the OT is being implemented. For the others, however, the OT words are woven into the fabric of the author’s own statement.<\/p>\nIn addition to the over 400 passages cited explicitly, there are well over 1,000 places where there is an allusion to an OT text, event, or person. The difference between a quotation and an allusion is sometimes debated for particular texts, but usually the distinction is that in a quotation the author consciously uses the words of an OT passage, whereas with an allusion he has the texts in mind but is not consciously trying to use the words.<\/p>\nQuotations are easy to identify if there is an introductory formula such as “the Scripture says” (as in Rom 10:11; cf. Is 28:16). Where there is no introductory formula, it is easy to overlook explicit quotations (Rom 10:13; cf. Jl 2:32). The allusions are, of course, harder still to recognize, but they often provide the key to interpretation. For example, John 1:14-18—with its mention of glory, grace and truth, Moses, and the fact that no one has seen God—is much more easily and profoundly understood when read in connection with Exodus 33:17–34:8. In the Exodus passage the glory of God and his grace and truth are revealed to Moses. The author was showing that a much more complete revelation of God was given in Jesus than was given Moses in the account recorded in Exodus.<\/p>\nIn addition, significant light is shed on many NT passages from OT passages with similar ideas and words even where the NT author may not have been consciously alluding to those texts (e.g. Mt 16:19; Is 22:22). What was behind the author’s thinking is not certain, but in such cases the NT reflects the thinking, the culture, and language of the OT period.<\/p>\nDistribution of Old Testament Quotations<\/p>\nThe books of the NT that show the most dependence on the OT are Matthew, John, Romans, Hebrews, 1 Peter, and Revelation. Such a statement can be misleading, however, because the writers have different methods.<\/p>\nMatthew quotes or consciously reflects the wording of OT passages about 62 times, almost half of which have an introductory formula. The book of Revelation, on the other hand, never quotes the OT and never has an introductory formula but is probably more dependent on the OT than any other NT book. The book of Hebrews quotes or consciously reflects the OT about 59 times, again half of which have an introductory formula, but the Gospel of John does so only 18 times, nearly always with an introductory formula. However, the allusions to the OT are present on virtually every page of John’s Gospel, so much so that some scholars have argued that he has modeled his account on the exodus narrative, the Jewish feasts, or OT persons and images. Paul’s Letter to the Romans uses the OT 54 times (about three-fourths of which have introductory formulas), but nowhere else so frequently (e.g., 1 Cor 16 times, Gal 11 times, Phil one time, 1 Thes one time).<\/p>\nIn addition to the indication that Philippians and 1 Thessalonians use the OT only once each, some other books make explicit use of the OT rarely or never. Colossians, Titus, Philemon, and the Johannine letters do not use the OT at all; 2 Timothy and Jude use the OT only once; while 2 Peter and 1 Timothy make use of it twice.<\/p>\nThe important point is to realize that the OT is used most frequently in circumstances where the audience is familiar with the OT or where the OT is essential for describing the events relating to Christ and the church. The books using the OT most frequently (Mt, Jn, Rom, Heb, 1 Pt, Rv) either stem from or are addressed to a Jewish context or, as in the case of Romans and John, deal specifically with the relation of Jews and Christians. The Gospels make rather extensive use of the OT because the language of the OT is necessary to convey the identity and importance of Jesus in the purposes of God. Similarly 1 Peter uses the OT frequently because the author is trying to convey to his persecuted audience that they are the people of God and the inheritors of the promises of God.<\/p>\nDifficulties in Interpretation<\/p>\nOften when people think of quotations of the OT in the NT they think only in terms of prophecy. Some have been guilty of counting up the OT statements that the NT applies to Christ and the church and then claiming these OT texts as predictions that prove Jesus is the Messiah. Such a procedure is filled with problems because it is too simplistic and does not do justice to either the OT or to the way the NT uses it. Of course, the early church used the OT to show that Jesus fulfilled the promises of God and did God’s work, but the use the church made of the OT was quite varied and much of it cannot be classified as predictive prophecy. Prophecy itself is too complex to be limited to predictive thinking.<\/p>\nSome of the most obvious examples of the difficulties appear in Matthew’s Gospel, although they are by no means confined there. Matthew 2:15—“Out of Egypt I called my son”—is a quotation of Hosea 11:1, but in Hosea these words do not refer to the Messiah. They refer to the nation of Israel. Similarly Matthew 2:18 quotes Jeremiah 31:15 (“A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more,” niv<\/span>) as fulfilled in the slaughter of the innocent babies in Bethlehem, but in Jeremiah the weeping is over the destruction of Jerusalem. John 12:40 views Isaiah 6:10 as fulfilled in Jesus’ ministry, but this verse deals with the call of Isaiah and is not a prediction concerning the ministry of the Messiah. The examples could be multiplied but these should be sufficient to illustrate the problem. For this reason the NT writers have often been accused of twisting the Scriptures, but this charge is as simplistic as the thought that all prophecy is predictive and in fact springs from the same error. Therefore, any attempt to understand the use of the OT in the NT will have to deal with the variety of ways in which the OT is used and with the methods employed by the NT writers.<\/p>\nThere are other difficulties that are encountered as well. Sometimes the NT writer will indicate that some fact related to Christ is a fulfillment of the OT but the explicit text that he had in mind cannot be identified. For example, John 7:38 introduces the words “Out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water” with the statement “as Scripture has said.” No OT text reads this way. Possibly the allusion is to the rock that provided water in the wilderness (Ex 17:1), or to the waters that flowed from the new temple (Zec 14:8) or, more generally, it may be a reference to Isaiah 58:11. Similarly, the difficulty in determining the OT text behind the prophecy that Christ will be called a Nazarene (Mt 2:23) is notorious. Probably the reference is to Isaiah 11:1 and the Hebrew word there translated as “branch,” but the connection is not easily made and is not certain. A third example of this kind of difficulty is in 1 Corinthians 14:34, where Paul indicates that women should be in submission just as the Law says, but there is no OT text expressing this idea. His statement in probably to be understood as a summary rather than a quotation or allusion. Similarly on a few occasions an OT text is seemingly attributed to the wrong OT book. In Mark 1:2-3 an OT quotation is attributed to Isaiah but the quotation is really a conflation (or mixing) of Exodus 23:20, Malachi 3:1, and Isaiah 40:3. Matthew 27:9-10 quotes a passage that is said to be from Jeremiah, when really it is dependent on Zechariah 11:13 and might best be described as a summary of Zechariah 11:12-13, with certain words included from Jeremiah 32:6-9. These two examples do not create a major problem, however, for the determination of the origin of the words may be due to their use in collections of quotations from various prophets, in which case the more prominent prophets would be used to designate origin.<\/p>\nThe wording of the quotations of the OT text does not always conform to the modern form of the OT. Just as today there are numerous translations of the Bible, when the NT was being written there were various forms of the OT text. With regard to the Hebrew text (for the OT was written mostly in Hebrew), there were different traditions. Such differences in the Hebrew traditions would have been relatively small. Because of the increasing importance of Aramaic after the Babylonian captivity and of Greek after the conquests of Alexander the Great, the OT was also known and used in both these languages when the NT was being written. In fact, the Jews found it necessary in their synagogue services after reading the Hebrew OT to paraphrase the reading in Aramaic so that all could understand. These paraphrases were later written down and are known as Targums. The Greek translation of the OT that stems from the third century BC<\/span> is known as the Septuagint, but there were also other Greek translations in use. This being the case, the wording of a NT quotation is not identical in every detail to the text of the Hebrew OT.<\/p>\nAdded to the fact that there were various forms of the text known in first-century AD<\/span> Palestine is the complicating factor that NT writers often did not intend to quote the OT exactly. The use of formal quotation marks is a modern device, and ancient writers were not so taken by technical precision. They were more concerned with the intention of a text and consequently might copy or quote it verbatim, quote it from memory, use or adapt part of a verse, or even change certain words as they borrowed the verse to express their points. (The NT writers often use the OT words describing God’s actions in the past to explain what he has done in their time.) The importance of any differences between the NT quotation and the OT depends on the use to which the quotation is put and the degree to which the use is dependent on textual differences.<\/p>\nSome examples should illustrate the nature of these difficulties. Ephesians 4:8 quotes Psalm 68:18. Whereas the Hebrew and Septuagint read, “You ascended to the heights, you lead captivity captive, you received gifts among mankind,” Ephesians records the verse as “After he ascended into the heights, he<\/em> led captivity captive; he gave<\/em> gifts to men.” Paul is stressing that Christ has given grace to people for ministry. He has either adapted the wording of the OT to make his point or he quoted a variant reading, “he gave<\/em> gifts.” Some versions do have this reading. In fact, the Targum understands this verse as Moses giving the words of the law to the children of men, and Paul may well be adapting this understanding to the new revelation that has come in Christ.<\/p>\nMatthew 1:23 quotes Isaiah 7:14, but there are distinct differences between the Hebrew text and the wording in Matthew. The Hebrew reads, “Behold the young woman will become pregnant and will bear a son and you will call his name Immanuel,” whereas Matthew’s text records “Behold, the virgin<\/em> will become pregnant and will bear a son, and they<\/em> will call his name Immanuel.” The Septuagint does have the specific word “virgin,” like Matthew, but is not the source of Matthew’s quotation since other differences exist. Some have argued that the change from “you will call” to “they will call” was made by Matthew when he applied the words to Jesus. However, there are several traditions known for this part of the quotation and partial support for the reading in Matthew is provided by the text of Isaiah found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.<\/p>\nRomans 11:26-27 is a conflation of Isaiah 59:20-21 and part of Isaiah 27:9, but there are important differences. One of these is that the OT has “the redeemer will come to Zion,” whereas Romans has “the deliverer will come from<\/em> Zion.” The change to “from Zion” could indicate that Paul had a different textual tradition, could be the result of an intentional change by Paul, or more probably, could reflect the wording of Psalm 14:7.<\/p>\nAn awareness of the difficulties involved in the quotations of the OT by the NT writers will prohibit a simplistic approach and will prevent hasty conclusions. Care to ask not only which text was used but also which form of the text was used and how is obviously essential in any serious study. In addition it is necessary to allow for the possibility that the NT writers knew forms of a text that are now lost.<\/p>\nThe Methods of the New Testament Writers<\/p>\nThe methods used by the NT writers were not unique to them. Many of these methods were also employed in first-century Judaism. In fact, both the technique used in quoting and the understanding of the OT text itself in many cases are paralleled in Judaism. For example, from the standpoint of technique used in quoting, the same kinds of formula introductions are used in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the rabbinic writings, and elsewhere. The rabbinic technique of “pearl stringing,” that is, of applying verses from various parts of the OT (the Law, the Prophets, the Writings) to a subject, can be seen especially in Paul’s writings (note Rom 9:12-19 or 11:8-10). Somewhat related is the practice of using quotations that all contain a key word or key words (note 1 Pt 2:6-8, which draws together quotations using the word “stone,” or Rom 15:9-12, which joins OT verses referring to the “nations”).<\/p>\nThe methods used in the NT to interpret an OT text are also displayed in Judaism. Some passages interpret the OT “literally,” such as Jesus’ replies during temptation (see the quotations of Dt 8:3; 6:16; 6:13; in Mt 4:3-10), his teachings on marriage based on Genesis 2:24 (Mt 19:5), or Paul’s use of Habakkuk 2:4 (Rom 1:17) or Genesis 15:6 (Rom 4:3-9). Many such examples could be given. With regard to prophecy, some of these statements are fulfilled in a “literal” or “direct” way in keeping with the intention of the OT (e.g., Mi 5:2, Bethlehem as the birthplace of the Messiah; Mt 2:4-6). Jeremiah 31:31-34, the promise of the new covenant, is viewed as directly fulfilled in Christ (Heb 8:7-13). The prophecy of Joel 2:28-32 concerning the pouring out of the Spirit of the Lord is directly fulfilled in the Pentecost event (Acts 2:17-21), but the changing of the sun to darkness and the moon to blood are certainly not understood literally in connection with this event.<\/p>\nA different method of interpretation is based on the concept of corporate solidarity.<\/em> This technical expression is an attempt to convey the idea that the individuals among God’s people are not merely individuals; they are part of a larger whole. Consequently, what is said about the individual can apply to the whole and vice versa. This is the reason the Servant of the Lord in Isaiah is seen both as the nation (44:1) and as an individual (52:13–53:12). Also the king is sometimes viewed as representative of the nation. The easiest places to see the concept of corporate solidarity are in the effect of the sin of Achan on all the people (Jos 7) or the sin of David in numbering the people (1 Chr 21:3-8).<\/p>\nCorrespondence in history<\/em> is not so much a method of interpretation as it is a way of thinking about God. It assumes that the things that happen to God’s people are the things that have happened to previous generations and that God is faithful and operates in the present as he has in the past. Consequently, the trials and deliverance of God’s people are often expressed with words borrowed from the previous accounts of God’s people. Isaiah describes the anticipated deliverance in terms of a second exodus (11:15-16). Ezekiel describes the king set up over the people in terms of a second David (Ez 37:25). In the NT, Revelation 22 describes the new heavens and the new earth in terms of the Garden of Eden (Gn 2–3). Sometimes this technique is described as “typology,” but this term has been used for so many questionable interpretations that it is misleading. The most important thing about this concept is that it is a view of God and his working among his people.<\/p>\nWith these two concepts, the way that the OT is quoted in the NT can be understood. The conviction that Jesus was the promised deliverer and that the last days had dawned in his ministry are evident everywhere. The quotation of Hosea 11:1 can be used in Matthew 2:15 because of corporate solidarity and correspondence in history. What was said of the nation is true of the one who is its representative, and there is correspondence in their respective histories. Jeremiah 31:15 can be used in Matthew 2:18 because of correspondence in history and especially because Jeremiah looked forward to God’s intention for Israel and prophesied a new covenant (31:17, 31-34). Matthew saw not only the correspondence in history but believed that in Jesus this promised salvation had been granted. John 12:40 can quote Isaiah 6:10 of Jesus’ ministry, not because he twists the meaning of the OT text, but because he saw that what had happened with God’s messenger before happened again and even ultimately<\/em> in Jesus’ ministry. The instances of such correspondences in history are numerous.<\/p>\nThere are other texts where there seems to be an actualization<\/em> of the OT text. Some quotations seem to be “lived out” in the ministry of Jesus. Because of their conviction about Jesus and his kingdom, the NT writers often saw certain OT texts as appropriated and made alive by Jesus. Psalm 118:22 was not intended as a prophecy of the Messiah, but Jesus saw it as descriptive of his ministry (Mt 21:42), and the early church saw this verse as actualized in his death and resurrection (Acts 4:11). Isaiah 53 is another text that the NT views as actualized in Jesus’ ministry (see Acts 8:32-35 and 1 Pt 2:22-25). Some Christians would view Psalm 22 as a prophecy of the crucifixion of Jesus, but it seems instead to be the lament of a righteous OT sufferer. Through correspondence in history, and because Christians saw so much of the psalmist’s plight actualized in Jesus’ crucifixion, the psalm became the easiest way to describe what once again had happened to God’s righteous sufferer. The words of Isaiah 40:3 describe the ministry of John the Baptist (Mt 3:3). Jews had come to see this verse as a prophecy of God’s end-time salvation, and the early church saw John the Baptist fulfilling this forerunner’s task. Luke made this identification (Lk 3:4-6), but he applied the same role to Jesus’ disciples (9:52; 10:1). This seems to be a further example of actualization and correspondence in history. In other places the church has applied to Christians ideas that were previously understood of Christ (e.g., the stone in 1 Pt 2:4-5; the ministry of the Suffering Servant in Acts 13:46-47).<\/p>\nThe most convenient term to describe the way the OT is “fulfilled” in Christ is to say that the OT finds its climax in Jesus. Even where actual quotations are not involved, the OT ideas such as prophet, priest, or king are climaxed in him as the ideal and embodiment of all the OT models. He could tell religious authorities that “one greater than Solomon is here” (Mt 12:42) or “one greater than the temple is here” (Mt 12:6). Those passages involving correspondence in history or actualization also lead to the conviction that he is the climax of the OT Scriptures.<\/p>\nThe Purposes of the Use of the Old Testament<\/p>\nThe variety of methods of interpretation and application of the OT parallels the fact that the OT was used for a variety of purposes. People tend to think only in terms of the use of the OT to show that Jesus was the Messiah, but there are a number of other uses with a variety of goals. Many OT texts are used to show Jesus is the Messiah, the fulfillment of the OT promises (Lk 4:16-21). Without lessening the fulfillment emphasis, however, other verses are applied to Jesus for other purposes: to evangelize (Acts 8:32-25); to demonstrate or convince (Acts 13:33-35); to rebuke (Mk 7:6-7; Rom 11:7-10); and to describe (Rv 1:12-15). On the other hand, many quotations of the OT in the NT are not directly related to the Messiah. OT passages are adapted to provide a word from God on some aspect of life or ethics. For example, Jesus used Genesis 2:24 to substantiate his teaching on divorce as he attempted to deal with the issues raised by the civil regulation of divorce (Dt 24:1; Mt 19:1-12). The stress on the OT commandments shows their importance for Christians (Mt 19:16-22; Rom 13:8-10). Often OT statements deal with specific problems. The problem of pride at Corinth is solved by the quotation of Jeremiah 9:24 (“Let the one boasting, boast in the Lord,” 1 Cor 1:31). First Peter 3:10-12 incorporates Psalm 34:12-16 as ethical instructions, and 3:14-15 borrows from Isaiah 8:12-13 to address the fear of suffering. The spiritual armor in Ephesians 6:14-17 is derived largely from OT passages. Such examples are so numerous that there can be no doubt that the OT is used to describe Christian existence. In fact, nearly every subject discussed in the NT is presented somewhere via OT terms and quotations. Frequently OT passages are used to describe the church as God’s end-time community. Hosea 2:23 is used to show that those who formerly were not God’s people now are (Rom 9:25-26; 1 Pt 2:10). Several OT texts contribute to the description of the church in 1 Peter 2:9. OT texts that speak of the word of God describe the apostles’ preaching (Rom 10:8; 1 Pt 1:24-25). OT quotations describe the sinful condition of humanity (Rom 3:10-20). Salvation is explained through OT concepts and symbols and is based on OT statements (Jn 6:31-33; Gal 3:6-13). The words of Daniel describe the Second Coming (7:13-14; cf. Mt 24:30). Even the worship of early Christians was expressed through use of the OT (see Acts 4:24; Rom 11:34-35).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BIBLE*, Quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament<\/span><\/h3>\nOT passages cited or alluded to in the NT writings.<\/p>\nOne of the most complex problems in interpreting the Bible is in understanding how NT writers quoted the OT. Obviously nothing is so formative and authoritative for the NT writers as Scripture. However, the way that they used OT passages often seems strange to modern readers.<\/p>\nThe OT has provided the words and ideas for much of the NT. Unless one has a Bible that prints OT quotations in distinctive print, this may not be easily seen, for the NT writers often weave the OT words into their own without indicating they are borrowing from the OT. There are over 400 passages of the OT that are explicitly cited in the NT. Almost half of these are introduced by a statement like “Scripture says” to draw attention to the fact that the authority and thought of the OT is being implemented. For the others, however, the OT words are woven into the fabric of the author’s own statement.<\/p>\nIn addition to the over 400 passages cited explicitly, there are well over 1,000 places where there is an allusion to an OT text, event, or person. The difference between a quotation and an allusion is sometimes debated for particular texts, but usually the distinction is that in a quotation the author consciously uses the words of an OT passage, whereas with an allusion he has the texts in mind but is not consciously trying to use the words.<\/p>\nQuotations are easy to identify if there is an introductory formula such as “the Scripture says” (as in Rom 10:11; cf. Is 28:16). Where there is no introductory formula, it is easy to overlook explicit quotations (Rom 10:13; cf. Jl 2:32). The allusions are, of course, harder still to recognize, but they often provide the key to interpretation. For example, John 1:14-18—with its mention of glory, grace and truth, Moses, and the fact that no one has seen God—is much more easily and profoundly understood when read in connection with Exodus 33:17–34:8. In the Exodus passage the glory of God and his grace and truth are revealed to Moses. The author was showing that a much more complete revelation of God was given in Jesus than was given Moses in the account recorded in Exodus.<\/p>\nIn addition, significant light is shed on many NT passages from OT passages with similar ideas and words even where the NT author may not have been consciously alluding to those texts (e.g. Mt 16:19; Is 22:22). What was behind the author’s thinking is not certain, but in such cases the NT reflects the thinking, the culture, and language of the OT period.<\/p>\nDistribution of Old Testament Quotations<\/p>\nThe books of the NT that show the most dependence on the OT are Matthew, John, Romans, Hebrews, 1 Peter, and Revelation. Such a statement can be misleading, however, because the writers have different methods.<\/p>\nMatthew quotes or consciously reflects the wording of OT passages about 62 times, almost half of which have an introductory formula. The book of Revelation, on the other hand, never quotes the OT and never has an introductory formula but is probably more dependent on the OT than any other NT book. The book of Hebrews quotes or consciously reflects the OT about 59 times, again half of which have an introductory formula, but the Gospel of John does so only 18 times, nearly always with an introductory formula. However, the allusions to the OT are present on virtually every page of John’s Gospel, so much so that some scholars have argued that he has modeled his account on the exodus narrative, the Jewish feasts, or OT persons and images. Paul’s Letter to the Romans uses the OT 54 times (about three-fourths of which have introductory formulas), but nowhere else so frequently (e.g., 1 Cor 16 times, Gal 11 times, Phil one time, 1 Thes one time).<\/p>\nIn addition to the indication that Philippians and 1 Thessalonians use the OT only once each, some other books make explicit use of the OT rarely or never. Colossians, Titus, Philemon, and the Johannine letters do not use the OT at all; 2 Timothy and Jude use the OT only once; while 2 Peter and 1 Timothy make use of it twice.<\/p>\nThe important point is to realize that the OT is used most frequently in circumstances where the audience is familiar with the OT or where the OT is essential for describing the events relating to Christ and the church. The books using the OT most frequently (Mt, Jn, Rom, Heb, 1 Pt, Rv) either stem from or are addressed to a Jewish context or, as in the case of Romans and John, deal specifically with the relation of Jews and Christians. The Gospels make rather extensive use of the OT because the language of the OT is necessary to convey the identity and importance of Jesus in the purposes of God. Similarly 1 Peter uses the OT frequently because the author is trying to convey to his persecuted audience that they are the people of God and the inheritors of the promises of God.<\/p>\nDifficulties in Interpretation<\/p>\nOften when people think of quotations of the OT in the NT they think only in terms of prophecy. Some have been guilty of counting up the OT statements that the NT applies to Christ and the church and then claiming these OT texts as predictions that prove Jesus is the Messiah. Such a procedure is filled with problems because it is too simplistic and does not do justice to either the OT or to the way the NT uses it. Of course, the early church used the OT to show that Jesus fulfilled the promises of God and did God’s work, but the use the church made of the OT was quite varied and much of it cannot be classified as predictive prophecy. Prophecy itself is too complex to be limited to predictive thinking.<\/p>\nSome of the most obvious examples of the difficulties appear in Matthew’s Gospel, although they are by no means confined there. Matthew 2:15—“Out of Egypt I called my son”—is a quotation of Hosea 11:1, but in Hosea these words do not refer to the Messiah. They refer to the nation of Israel. Similarly Matthew 2:18 quotes Jeremiah 31:15 (“A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more,” niv<\/span>) as fulfilled in the slaughter of the innocent babies in Bethlehem, but in Jeremiah the weeping is over the destruction of Jerusalem. John 12:40 views Isaiah 6:10 as fulfilled in Jesus’ ministry, but this verse deals with the call of Isaiah and is not a prediction concerning the ministry of the Messiah. The examples could be multiplied but these should be sufficient to illustrate the problem. For this reason the NT writers have often been accused of twisting the Scriptures, but this charge is as simplistic as the thought that all prophecy is predictive and in fact springs from the same error. Therefore, any attempt to understand the use of the OT in the NT will have to deal with the variety of ways in which the OT is used and with the methods employed by the NT writers.<\/p>\nThere are other difficulties that are encountered as well. Sometimes the NT writer will indicate that some fact related to Christ is a fulfillment of the OT but the explicit text that he had in mind cannot be identified. For example, John 7:38 introduces the words “Out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water” with the statement “as Scripture has said.” No OT text reads this way. Possibly the allusion is to the rock that provided water in the wilderness (Ex 17:1), or to the waters that flowed from the new temple (Zec 14:8) or, more generally, it may be a reference to Isaiah 58:11. Similarly, the difficulty in determining the OT text behind the prophecy that Christ will be called a Nazarene (Mt 2:23) is notorious. Probably the reference is to Isaiah 11:1 and the Hebrew word there translated as “branch,” but the connection is not easily made and is not certain. A third example of this kind of difficulty is in 1 Corinthians 14:34, where Paul indicates that women should be in submission just as the Law says, but there is no OT text expressing this idea. His statement in probably to be understood as a summary rather than a quotation or allusion. Similarly on a few occasions an OT text is seemingly attributed to the wrong OT book. In Mark 1:2-3 an OT quotation is attributed to Isaiah but the quotation is really a conflation (or mixing) of Exodus 23:20, Malachi 3:1, and Isaiah 40:3. Matthew 27:9-10 quotes a passage that is said to be from Jeremiah, when really it is dependent on Zechariah 11:13 and might best be described as a summary of Zechariah 11:12-13, with certain words included from Jeremiah 32:6-9. These two examples do not create a major problem, however, for the determination of the origin of the words may be due to their use in collections of quotations from various prophets, in which case the more prominent prophets would be used to designate origin.<\/p>\nThe wording of the quotations of the OT text does not always conform to the modern form of the OT. Just as today there are numerous translations of the Bible, when the NT was being written there were various forms of the OT text. With regard to the Hebrew text (for the OT was written mostly in Hebrew), there were different traditions. Such differences in the Hebrew traditions would have been relatively small. Because of the increasing importance of Aramaic after the Babylonian captivity and of Greek after the conquests of Alexander the Great, the OT was also known and used in both these languages when the NT was being written. In fact, the Jews found it necessary in their synagogue services after reading the Hebrew OT to paraphrase the reading in Aramaic so that all could understand. These paraphrases were later written down and are known as Targums. The Greek translation of the OT that stems from the third century BC<\/span> is known as the Septuagint, but there were also other Greek translations in use. This being the case, the wording of a NT quotation is not identical in every detail to the text of the Hebrew OT.<\/p>\nAdded to the fact that there were various forms of the text known in first-century AD<\/span> Palestine is the complicating factor that NT writers often did not intend to quote the OT exactly. The use of formal quotation marks is a modern device, and ancient writers were not so taken by technical precision. They were more concerned with the intention of a text and consequently might copy or quote it verbatim, quote it from memory, use or adapt part of a verse, or even change certain words as they borrowed the verse to express their points. (The NT writers often use the OT words describing God’s actions in the past to explain what he has done in their time.) The importance of any differences between the NT quotation and the OT depends on the use to which the quotation is put and the degree to which the use is dependent on textual differences.<\/p>\nSome examples should illustrate the nature of these difficulties. Ephesians 4:8 quotes Psalm 68:18. Whereas the Hebrew and Septuagint read, “You ascended to the heights, you lead captivity captive, you received gifts among mankind,” Ephesians records the verse as “After he ascended into the heights, he<\/em> led captivity captive; he gave<\/em> gifts to men.” Paul is stressing that Christ has given grace to people for ministry. He has either adapted the wording of the OT to make his point or he quoted a variant reading, “he gave<\/em> gifts.” Some versions do have this reading. In fact, the Targum understands this verse as Moses giving the words of the law to the children of men, and Paul may well be adapting this understanding to the new revelation that has come in Christ.<\/p>\nMatthew 1:23 quotes Isaiah 7:14, but there are distinct differences between the Hebrew text and the wording in Matthew. The Hebrew reads, “Behold the young woman will become pregnant and will bear a son and you will call his name Immanuel,” whereas Matthew’s text records “Behold, the virgin<\/em> will become pregnant and will bear a son, and they<\/em> will call his name Immanuel.” The Septuagint does have the specific word “virgin,” like Matthew, but is not the source of Matthew’s quotation since other differences exist. Some have argued that the change from “you will call” to “they will call” was made by Matthew when he applied the words to Jesus. However, there are several traditions known for this part of the quotation and partial support for the reading in Matthew is provided by the text of Isaiah found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.<\/p>\nRomans 11:26-27 is a conflation of Isaiah 59:20-21 and part of Isaiah 27:9, but there are important differences. One of these is that the OT has “the redeemer will come to Zion,” whereas Romans has “the deliverer will come from<\/em> Zion.” The change to “from Zion” could indicate that Paul had a different textual tradition, could be the result of an intentional change by Paul, or more probably, could reflect the wording of Psalm 14:7.<\/p>\nAn awareness of the difficulties involved in the quotations of the OT by the NT writers will prohibit a simplistic approach and will prevent hasty conclusions. Care to ask not only which text was used but also which form of the text was used and how is obviously essential in any serious study. In addition it is necessary to allow for the possibility that the NT writers knew forms of a text that are now lost.<\/p>\nThe Methods of the New Testament Writers<\/p>\nThe methods used by the NT writers were not unique to them. Many of these methods were also employed in first-century Judaism. In fact, both the technique used in quoting and the understanding of the OT text itself in many cases are paralleled in Judaism. For example, from the standpoint of technique used in quoting, the same kinds of formula introductions are used in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the rabbinic writings, and elsewhere. The rabbinic technique of “pearl stringing,” that is, of applying verses from various parts of the OT (the Law, the Prophets, the Writings) to a subject, can be seen especially in Paul’s writings (note Rom 9:12-19 or 11:8-10). Somewhat related is the practice of using quotations that all contain a key word or key words (note 1 Pt 2:6-8, which draws together quotations using the word “stone,” or Rom 15:9-12, which joins OT verses referring to the “nations”).<\/p>\nThe methods used in the NT to interpret an OT text are also displayed in Judaism. Some passages interpret the OT “literally,” such as Jesus’ replies during temptation (see the quotations of Dt 8:3; 6:16; 6:13; in Mt 4:3-10), his teachings on marriage based on Genesis 2:24 (Mt 19:5), or Paul’s use of Habakkuk 2:4 (Rom 1:17) or Genesis 15:6 (Rom 4:3-9). Many such examples could be given. With regard to prophecy, some of these statements are fulfilled in a “literal” or “direct” way in keeping with the intention of the OT (e.g., Mi 5:2, Bethlehem as the birthplace of the Messiah; Mt 2:4-6). Jeremiah 31:31-34, the promise of the new covenant, is viewed as directly fulfilled in Christ (Heb 8:7-13). The prophecy of Joel 2:28-32 concerning the pouring out of the Spirit of the Lord is directly fulfilled in the Pentecost event (Acts 2:17-21), but the changing of the sun to darkness and the moon to blood are certainly not understood literally in connection with this event.<\/p>\nA different method of interpretation is based on the concept of corporate solidarity.<\/em> This technical expression is an attempt to convey the idea that the individuals among God’s people are not merely individuals; they are part of a larger whole. Consequently, what is said about the individual can apply to the whole and vice versa. This is the reason the Servant of the Lord in Isaiah is seen both as the nation (44:1) and as an individual (52:13–53:12). Also the king is sometimes viewed as representative of the nation. The easiest places to see the concept of corporate solidarity are in the effect of the sin of Achan on all the people (Jos 7) or the sin of David in numbering the people (1 Chr 21:3-8).<\/p>\nCorrespondence in history<\/em> is not so much a method of interpretation as it is a way of thinking about God. It assumes that the things that happen to God’s people are the things that have happened to previous generations and that God is faithful and operates in the present as he has in the past. Consequently, the trials and deliverance of God’s people are often expressed with words borrowed from the previous accounts of God’s people. Isaiah describes the anticipated deliverance in terms of a second exodus (11:15-16). Ezekiel describes the king set up over the people in terms of a second David (Ez 37:25). In the NT, Revelation 22 describes the new heavens and the new earth in terms of the Garden of Eden (Gn 2–3). Sometimes this technique is described as “typology,” but this term has been used for so many questionable interpretations that it is misleading. The most important thing about this concept is that it is a view of God and his working among his people.<\/p>\nWith these two concepts, the way that the OT is quoted in the NT can be understood. The conviction that Jesus was the promised deliverer and that the last days had dawned in his ministry are evident everywhere. The quotation of Hosea 11:1 can be used in Matthew 2:15 because of corporate solidarity and correspondence in history. What was said of the nation is true of the one who is its representative, and there is correspondence in their respective histories. Jeremiah 31:15 can be used in Matthew 2:18 because of correspondence in history and especially because Jeremiah looked forward to God’s intention for Israel and prophesied a new covenant (31:17, 31-34). Matthew saw not only the correspondence in history but believed that in Jesus this promised salvation had been granted. John 12:40 can quote Isaiah 6:10 of Jesus’ ministry, not because he twists the meaning of the OT text, but because he saw that what had happened with God’s messenger before happened again and even ultimately<\/em> in Jesus’ ministry. The instances of such correspondences in history are numerous.<\/p>\nThere are other texts where there seems to be an actualization<\/em> of the OT text. Some quotations seem to be “lived out” in the ministry of Jesus. Because of their conviction about Jesus and his kingdom, the NT writers often saw certain OT texts as appropriated and made alive by Jesus. Psalm 118:22 was not intended as a prophecy of the Messiah, but Jesus saw it as descriptive of his ministry (Mt 21:42), and the early church saw this verse as actualized in his death and resurrection (Acts 4:11). Isaiah 53 is another text that the NT views as actualized in Jesus’ ministry (see Acts 8:32-35 and 1 Pt 2:22-25). Some Christians would view Psalm 22 as a prophecy of the crucifixion of Jesus, but it seems instead to be the lament of a righteous OT sufferer. Through correspondence in history, and because Christians saw so much of the psalmist’s plight actualized in Jesus’ crucifixion, the psalm became the easiest way to describe what once again had happened to God’s righteous sufferer. The words of Isaiah 40:3 describe the ministry of John the Baptist (Mt 3:3). Jews had come to see this verse as a prophecy of God’s end-time salvation, and the early church saw John the Baptist fulfilling this forerunner’s task. Luke made this identification (Lk 3:4-6), but he applied the same role to Jesus’ disciples (9:52; 10:1). This seems to be a further example of actualization and correspondence in history. In other places the church has applied to Christians ideas that were previously understood of Christ (e.g., the stone in 1 Pt 2:4-5; the ministry of the Suffering Servant in Acts 13:46-47).<\/p>\nThe most convenient term to describe the way the OT is “fulfilled” in Christ is to say that the OT finds its climax in Jesus. Even where actual quotations are not involved, the OT ideas such as prophet, priest, or king are climaxed in him as the ideal and embodiment of all the OT models. He could tell religious authorities that “one greater than Solomon is here” (Mt 12:42) or “one greater than the temple is here” (Mt 12:6). Those passages involving correspondence in history or actualization also lead to the conviction that he is the climax of the OT Scriptures.<\/p>\nThe Purposes of the Use of the Old Testament<\/p>\nThe variety of methods of interpretation and application of the OT parallels the fact that the OT was used for a variety of purposes. People tend to think only in terms of the use of the OT to show that Jesus was the Messiah, but there are a number of other uses with a variety of goals. Many OT texts are used to show Jesus is the Messiah, the fulfillment of the OT promises (Lk 4:16-21). Without lessening the fulfillment emphasis, however, other verses are applied to Jesus for other purposes: to evangelize (Acts 8:32-25); to demonstrate or convince (Acts 13:33-35); to rebuke (Mk 7:6-7; Rom 11:7-10); and to describe (Rv 1:12-15). On the other hand, many quotations of the OT in the NT are not directly related to the Messiah. OT passages are adapted to provide a word from God on some aspect of life or ethics. For example, Jesus used Genesis 2:24 to substantiate his teaching on divorce as he attempted to deal with the issues raised by the civil regulation of divorce (Dt 24:1; Mt 19:1-12). The stress on the OT commandments shows their importance for Christians (Mt 19:16-22; Rom 13:8-10). Often OT statements deal with specific problems. The problem of pride at Corinth is solved by the quotation of Jeremiah 9:24 (“Let the one boasting, boast in the Lord,” 1 Cor 1:31). First Peter 3:10-12 incorporates Psalm 34:12-16 as ethical instructions, and 3:14-15 borrows from Isaiah 8:12-13 to address the fear of suffering. The spiritual armor in Ephesians 6:14-17 is derived largely from OT passages. Such examples are so numerous that there can be no doubt that the OT is used to describe Christian existence. In fact, nearly every subject discussed in the NT is presented somewhere via OT terms and quotations. Frequently OT passages are used to describe the church as God’s end-time community. Hosea 2:23 is used to show that those who formerly were not God’s people now are (Rom 9:25-26; 1 Pt 2:10). Several OT texts contribute to the description of the church in 1 Peter 2:9. OT texts that speak of the word of God describe the apostles’ preaching (Rom 10:8; 1 Pt 1:24-25). OT quotations describe the sinful condition of humanity (Rom 3:10-20). Salvation is explained through OT concepts and symbols and is based on OT statements (Jn 6:31-33; Gal 3:6-13). The words of Daniel describe the Second Coming (7:13-14; cf. Mt 24:30). Even the worship of early Christians was expressed through use of the OT (see Acts 4:24; Rom 11:34-35).<\/p>","summary_ro":"BIBLE*, Quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament OT passages cited or alluded to in the NT writings. One of the most complex problems in interpreting the Bible is in understanding how NT writers quoted the OT. Obviously nothing is so formative and authoritative for the NT writers as Scripture. However, the way that they used OT passages often seems strange to modern readers. The OT has provided the words and ideas for much of the NT. Unless one has a Bible that prints OT quotation...","summary_en":"BIBLE*, Quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament OT passages cited or alluded to in the NT writings. One of the most complex problems in interpreting the Bible is in understanding how NT writers quoted the OT. Obviously nothing is so formative and authoritative for the NT writers as Scripture. However, the way that they used OT passages often seems strange to modern readers. The OT has provided the words and ideas for much of the NT. Unless one has a Bible that prints OT quotation...","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":7586,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"First Letter to the Corinthians","title_en":"First Letter to the Corinthians","content_ro":"<h3>CORINTHIANS, First Letter to the<\/h3>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Author<\/p>\n• Date and Origin<\/p>\n• Background<\/p>\n• Purpose and Teaching<\/p>\n• Content<\/p>\nAuthor<\/p>\nThere is no doubt about who wrote 1 Corinthians, for all scholars agree that the apostle Paul wrote it on his third missionary journey while he was living in Ephesus. By this time Paul was a mature, middle-aged (perhaps 55 years old) missionary, fully seasoned from planting churches around a quarter of the Mediterranean world.<\/p>\nDate and Origin<\/p>\nPaul worked in Corinth from about AD<\/span> 50 to 52. After a brief stay in Jerusalem, he returned to his missionary work, this time at Ephesus (Acts 19), where he ministered for three years (AD<\/span> 53–55\/56). During this period, he wrote at least three letters to Corinth and made a visit as well. His first letter, often called “the previous letter,” is referred to in 1 Corinthians 5:9-11. We know from this reference that the letter was misunderstood, but we know little of its content, for it has been lost.<\/p>\nSometime in AD<\/span> 55, after hearing reports from Chloe’s household (1 Cor 1:11), who were probably members of Chloe’s house church, he dictated a second letter to Corinth, our 1 Corinthians. This was probably sent off in the hands of Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus (16:17). Paul would later write a third letter to Corinth, called “the letter of tears” (2 Cor 2:2-3), and then finally 2 Corinthians.<\/p>\nBackground<\/p>\nCorinth was a seaport city, destroyed by the Romans in 146 BC<\/span> and rebuilt in 46 BC<\/span> by Julius Caesar. After 27 BC<\/span>, it was the Roman capital of Achaia, where the proconsul had his residence (Acts 18:12). The city itself was really three cities: the port of Cenchrea, about eight miles (13 kilometers) to the east, where ships from the Aegean would unload; the port of Lechaion, about a mile (1.6 kilometers) to the west on the Gulf of Corinth, where the ships would be reloaded, their goods having been transported in wagons over the isthmus and the ships on rollers; and the city itself on the high ground in between.<\/p>\nThe acropolis of the city, on top of the steep, high Acrocorinth, contained the temple of Aphrodite, where 1,000 female slaves were dedicated to the service of this goddess of love. This distinctive cult of Corinth was dedicated to the veneration of Aphrodite, goddess of love, beauty, and fertility, who is identified with the Roman Venus. Associated with such religious practices was a general moral degradation. Corinthian morals were notoriously corrupt, even when compared with pagan Rome. Down in the city was the synagogue (Acts 18:4); for while the city as a Roman colony was largely populated by Italians, it had attracted other peoples from the Mediterranean, among whom were the Jews.<\/p>\nPurpose and Teaching<\/p>\nThe main concern of Paul in 1 Corinthians was the unity of the church. There was a self-centeredness in Corinth that resulted in building cliques within the church, in flaunting knowledge and liberty in the face of others scandalized by it, and in selfish displays in the worship services.<\/p>\nTwo other major concerns also surface in the book. First, along with other pagan practices, the lax sexual ethics of Corinth had influenced the church; Paul needed to erect some barriers. Second, there was a problem in accepting the resurrection of the body; Paul realized that this issue had implications for the core of the faith and vigorously affirmed the resurrection.<\/p>\nBoth of these latter two areas, as well as aspects of the unity issue (particularly their concern with knowledge), have been identified by some scholars as Gnostic motifs, leading to the conclusion that Paul was opposing a Gnostic party in Corinth. Careful examination reveals, however, that while some of the elements floating in the Corinthian milieu would later contribute to the development of Gnosticism, it would be anachronistic to call them gnostic. While recognizing protognostic ideas in the Corinthian situation, it is important to keep interpretation within the first-century context.<\/p>\nThus, the focus of Paul’s concern was the church, its unity and purity. Paul was fighting to keep this church from disintegrating into a number of competing and bickering factions divided over moral and doctrinal issues. Furthermore, he wanted to keep the focus of the church on Jesus, the exalted Lord.<\/p>\nContent<\/p>\n<h5>Greeting, 1:1-9<\/h5>\nPaul begins with a standard greeting, followed by his usual thanksgiving prayer. Two features stand out. First, the greeting associates Sosthenes with Paul. While we cannot be sure who Sosthenes was, he was surely well known to the Corinthians; probably he was the Sosthenes whom Acts 18:17 identifies as the ruler of the synagogue, following the conversion of Crispus.<\/p>\nSecond, Paul stresses the Corinthians’ abilities in speech, knowledge, and spiritual gifts. They had all of these, and these were genuine, but it was precisely these good things that they were abusing. Paul’s solution is not to suppress these gifts (indeed, he thanks God for them), but to place them in a new context.<\/p>\n<h5>Report from Chloe’s People, 1:10–4:21<\/h5>\nThe Corinthians had made Paul, Cephas (Peter), Apollos, and even Christ into party leaders. We are not sure what each of these groups stood for, but one might guess that the Pauline group stressed Paul’s slogans of liberty; the Petrine group, the need to hold to Jewish practices; and the Apollos group, the value of philosophical understanding and oratory. Whatever they stood for, Paul is appalled that it breaks their unity. His first response is to argue that his behavior was not calculated to build a following but to point to Christ. That is, he did not insist on personally baptizing converts; who performed these acts did not matter, since they were all baptized into Christ.<\/p>\nPaul immediately moves to the underlying issue, that of various persons wanting to show themselves better or wiser than others who did not have the insights of their party in the church. Their seeking for wisdom contradicts Paul’s preaching of the gospel.<\/p>\nFirst, the message of a crucified Christ (1:18) made no sense within the wisdom and values of either Jews or Greeks. It demanded a whole new way of looking on life—God’s way.<\/p>\nSecond, God had not chosen them on the basis of their status in society; quite the contrary, he had made their only status the equal status they received from him (1:26-31).<\/p>\nThird, their faith had not been based on Paul’s oratory but on the gifts of the Spirit that Paul had manifested (2:4), which had convinced them that God was acting in Paul. Thus, it was not argument that led them to God, but God’s Spirit. Therefore it was the Spirit, not human reasoning, that would continue to reveal God to them. Unless they became fools with respect to the world’s ways of reasoning, they would never be able to rethink life from the perspective of the Spirit, who gives true wisdom.<\/p>\nFourth, they were not acting on this spiritual level when they claimed Paul and others as party leaders; this activity demonstrates the evil impulse in human beings (“the flesh” or “fallen human nature”) at work since it elevates human servants rather than the God who works equally in each of them.<\/p>\nFifth, these servants were working together to build one “temple” for God based on the one foundation in Jesus Christ, that is, the church. God alone will judge how each Christian contributes to the work of building the church. But woe to the person who divides the church, for “if anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him” (3:17, rsv<\/span>). (Note that here the temple imagery is used collectively; the church is the temple. In chapter 6 it will be used individually; each Christian is the temple.)<\/p>\nFinally, he points to their overrealized eschatology, for with their spiritual gifts (which were genuine) and vaunted wisdom (which was worldly) they claimed they were reigning with Christ (4:8-13). Paul, with ironic sarcasm, points out how different this claim is from the lifestyle of the apostles. The apostles lived like Jesus—a life of suffering, expecting exaltation later. The Corinthians were trying to have their exaltation now without crucifixion.<\/p>\nPaul closes this section with an admonition. He softens his words toward some who would be responsive, urging them to copy his lifestyle. The teacher was the message (vv 14-16). Timothy will also faithfully live the truth before them. Then he threatens the “arrogant” (v 18), pointing out that he will not challenge their words but their spiritual power if he comes.<\/p>\n<h5>The Report from the Corinthian Messengers, 5:1–6:20<\/h5>\nPaul now turns to three issues raised by oral reports from the messengers bearing the Corinthians’ letter to him.<\/p>\nThe first issue is that of church discipline (5:12-13). Paul cites a case of flagrant immorality—that of incest. This immorality was so clear (even pagans considered it immoral), that it was not a case of ignorance of Christian principles. Further, the church had taken no action but rather boasted in its tolerance, perhaps on the basis of a misunderstanding of Paul’s teaching on freedom from the law.<\/p>\nPaul presents three principles in this section: (1) the primary goal of church discipline is the repentance and restoration of the offender; (2) the secondary goal of church discipline is the protection of the church (5:6-8); and (3) the church is not to seek to judge or control the actions of evil persons in the world—they are God’s responsibility—but to discipline those within the church (vv 9-13). Paul will use these principles also in the following chapters (cf. 7:12-16).<\/p>\nThe second issue is that of lawsuits between Christians (6:1-11). The Corinthian society was as prone to litigation as our own, and Christians did not see anything wrong in suing each other. Paul was troubled. If Christians are to judge the world, they certainly should not bring the world in to judge issues within the church. Rather than put their cases before “those who are least esteemed by the church” (6:4, rsv<\/span>, i.e., pagan judges), they should decide the cases within the church.<\/p>\nPaul has an even better way than bypassing the pagan courts, and that is to simply suffer the wrong (1 Cor 6:7). Applying the teaching of Jesus quite literally (Mt 5:38-42), Paul argues that it would be best to allow themselves to be defrauded. Instead, the Corinthians are willing to step on their brothers in Christ to get what they feel are their rights. This raises the issue as to whether greed is not still in their hearts (1 Cor 6:9-11). While Paul accepts people who formerly did all sorts of evil (for Jesus has cleansed them), he makes it very clear that anyone presently practicing greed or immorality is not part of the kingdom, whatever their doctrinal commitments may be.<\/p>\nThe final issue in this section is that of casual sexual intercourse (6:12-20). In a world where virginity was important if a woman wished to be married and where slaves in the temple of Aphrodite were available as prostitutes, prostitution was the major form of casual sex. The libertine party used two slogans: “All things are lawful for me,” a saying that may well have been derived from Paul’s teaching, and “Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food”—that is, since the body works this way, it must be the Creator’s purpose. Paul qualifies rather than contradicts their slogans. Freedom is subordinate to other goals (6:12, 20). The body is not made to be used as we wish, but is to be dedicated to the Lord, as the doctrine of the resurrection demonstrates (vv 13-14).<\/p>\nFurthermore, sexual intercourse is an act of the whole person, unlike eating (Paul cites Gn 2:24; cf. Jesus in Mt 19:5). Therefore, this act takes a member (i.e., the person) from the body of Christ and makes him a unity with a prostitute (1 Cor 6:15-17). Thus immorality is unlike other sins that are external to the self, for it changes the self and thus defiles the body, the place where the Holy Spirit dwells. It disregards the fact that Christ has redeemed the body, and that the whole of the Christian belongs to God, not to the Christian.<\/p>\n<h5>Paul’s Answers to the Corinthians, 7:1–16:4<\/h5>\nNow Paul turns to the Corinthians’ own issues, building on the answers he has already given to questions they did not ask.<\/p>\nThe first issue is that of marriage (7:1-24). The slogan of the ascetic party in Corinth (perhaps a reaction against the libertines of ch 6) was “It is good for a man not to touch a woman” (7:1, kjv<\/span>). The Corinthians applied this slogan to both married and unmarried, arguing that married Christians should abstain from sexual relations. Paul clarified the matter with three points. First, he said that this was totally unrealistic, for total abstinence would lead to immorality (vv 2, 7-9). Second, when people get married they no longer own their own bodies; their bodies belong to each other for their mutual benefit (vv 3-4). Sexual refusal denies a spouse what rightly belongs to him or her. Third, abstinence is allowed for limited periods by mutual agreement as a type of fast to help focus on Christ (v 5).<\/p>\nWhile Paul will address the issue of the unmarried more fully in 7:25-40, in a side remark he indicates that he is himself content to be unmarried. But since some do not have this gift, full sexual expression in marriage is far better than fighting passion (7:7-9). Once two Christians are married, divorce is unthinkable. A clear word of Christ proves this (Mt 5:31-32; Mk 10:11-12; Lk 16:18 and parallels), so there are no exceptions (Paul either does not know of the exception clause in Mt 19:9 or he understands it as referring to something like premarital unchastity discovered before the wedding, not to adultery after the wedding). Although in some cases a Christian couple must live separately, it is always with a view to reconciliation. The teaching of Jesus does not allow him to think of the marriage as ending (1 Cor 7:10-11).<\/p>\nBut what if the spouse is not a Christian? Paul applies his principles to a situation for which Jesus did not leave a clear word. First, since Jesus told Christians not to divorce, even in this situation the Christian may not initiate a divorce (7:12-13). Second, since Christians are not to control or judge non-Christians (6:12-13), the Christian does not need to continue the relationship if the non-Christian insists on a divorce (7:15). Third, far from defiling the Christian (as the relationship in 6:15 does), the Christian will make the relationship holy, with positive results for the children and the possible salvation of the spouse (7:14, 16). While this is no call to remain in situations of physical or sexual abuse, it is a call to remain faithful to a mixed marriage situation.<\/p>\nPaul does not believe that one normally needs to change one’s life situation to serve Christ (7:17-24). Therefore, normally each person should remain in that state of life in which he or she was when called to Christ. Paul’s examples show that he was thinking in terms of marriage or singleness, Jew (circumcision) or Gentile, slave or free, not in terms of situations that might be immoral in themselves. In the case of slaves, they can accept freedom if it becomes available, but it does not make an essential difference in their real state before God or their ability to serve Christ (vv 21-23).<\/p>\nThe second issue is that of the unmarried (7:25-40). Paul argues that single people and widows may marry—it is not wrong. Yet he advises them to remain single. Since all in this age is passing away, it would be good to stay single so as to avoid the extra suffering to which marriage exposes a person (vv 25-31). What is more, marriage always divides one’s attention between the Lord and the legitimate needs of the spouse. One must not abandon the spouse or ignore his or her needs in order to serve the Lord, but one can remain single so that the Lord can be the sole focus of life and devotion (vv 32-35). Finally, if one is in a situation in which marriage is expected, the person must make his own decision as to whether he should marry the woman for her sake (and perhaps that of the wider family) or whether he can and should simply care for her as a single person (vv 36-38). Paul closes this section by repeating his general principles (vv 39-40).<\/p>\nThe third issue Paul deals with is that of food that has been offered to idols (8:1–11:1). Most meat that was available in the marketplace came either from animals slaughtered as sacrifices in the temples or from groups of animals from which one was offered as a dedicatory sacrifice. To scrupulous Jews, all of this meat would be untouched. Furthermore, pagans invited Christians to feasts in their homes and to private feasts held in the precincts of pagan temples, where trade guilds also held feasts. Paul discusses these issues and uses them to teach wider principles of Christian conduct.<\/p>\nFirst, love, not knowledge, is the key to correct behavior (8:1-13). Some Corinthians felt superior because they were convinced that idols had no reality (there is only one God), and therefore any food offered to them was still fit to eat. Paul again accepts their slogans, but counters with the statement, “Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up” (v 1, niv<\/span>). God is not concerned with what we know or eat, but he is concerned with whether or not we love our fellow Christians. The concern is not that a fellow Christian might become enraged because one indulged, but that he or she might have a vulnerable conscience and indulge himself, even though he believed it wrong and thus in his own eyes apostasizes from the faith (i.e., rebels against Christ). Such leading astray is not love. It would be better never to eat meat than to lead a fellow Christian into sin.<\/p>\nSecond, he points out that one should subordinate one’s own interests to those of others, especially those of Christ and his gospel (9:1-23). Both the examples of the apostles, who expected the church to support them and their families (cf. Lk 10:5-7), and Scripture prove that Paul had the right to demand support from the Corinthians. This had not been his practice, for he had normally made tents to support his ministry, though he did accept gifts from other churches. Paul did this to prevent people from thinking he was peddling religion for profit (9:12) and for the personal satisfaction of doing more than he had to do (vv 16-17). This was part of Paul’s larger policy of subordinating his own personal preferences and interests to those of Christ and his gospel (vv 19-23).<\/p>\nThird, the bravado of the strong who demonstrate their liberty with disregard of fellow Christians is spiritually dangerous (9:24–10:22). It is not who begins but who completes the Christian life that counts; therefore, it is a life of discipline, not relaxed license (9:24-27). Israel in the wilderness presents an example of failure in this regard. They had “baptism” and “the Lord’s Supper” (10:2-4), just like the church, yet most of them did not make it to the Promised Land. The reason God destroyed them was simple: they turned to sin. Likewise, the Christian has to be careful not to be so proud about faith and freedom that he becomes careless about sin and falls from the faith (v 12). On the other hand, Christians need not be fearful, for the temptation is not more powerful than they are; God has provided a way of escape, if they will take it (v 13).<\/p>\nAnother link between the Israelites and the Corinthians pertains to partaking of a sacrificial meal (10:14-22). In the Lord’s Supper there is a sharing of the blood and body of Christ, just as real as Israel’s sacrifices on the altar. Food offered to idols is also a sharing, not with the supposed god, but with the real demon that is behind the idol. To try to share at both tables is to provoke God’s jealousy just as Israel did (v 22).<\/p>\nA summary of the discussion draws the three chapters together (10:23–11:1). Since the food is not changed by being offered to idols, and since all food really belongs to God, one may eat anything sold in the market—do not ask any questions (10:25-26). Likewise, the Christian may eat anything served at a dinner in the home of an unbeliever. However, if someone points out that the food was offered to idols, the Christian should pass it by, not because it would hurt him, but because it is an issue with the person who raised the question, and the Christian is concerned about the good of his neighbor (vv 27-30). In other words, follow Paul’s example as he patterns himself in turn after Christ, who served others rather than himself. Act so that God’s reputation and character shine through even in what one eats (v 31); try to offend no one but to benefit each person in moving him toward salvation (v 32).<\/p>\nThe fourth issue Paul deals with is that of order in church meetings (11:2–14:40). The Corinthians’ house churches had lively meetings, but rather than showing unity in Christ, they demonstrated selfishness. Paul had no desire to change what they did; he did want to change how they did it.<\/p>\nThe first problem in the meetings was the behavior of married women (11:1-16). The sign of marriage in that day was the wearing of a veil or distinctive hairstyle, as a ring is today. Women praying and delivering prophecies in church was no issue for Paul, but the women may have felt that this loosed them from their husbands (cf. Mk 12:25) and therefore was a reason to set aside their veils. Paul argues that husband and wife are intimately joined, just as humans are to God (1 Cor 11:3). Therefore as humans should not shame but glorify God, so the wife should act toward her husband. Thus, while Paul approves of ministry by women, he puts marriage first.<\/p>\nThe second problem in the meetings was that of making class distinctions (11:17-34). Until the weekly Lord’s Supper began to be turned into the sacrifice of the Mass in the third and fourth centuries, it was a full shared meal. Middle- and upper-class Christians could come earlier to the church gatherings and also provide better food and drink for themselves. Following the customs of pagan clubs, they had no scruples against starting early and feasting as befit their class, so long as at least simple food was provided for the slaves and peasants who could not come as early (v 21). This shamed the poorer Christians and made them feel class distinctions keenly (v 22). This, argues Paul, is not the Lord’s Supper but a sham (v 20).<\/p>\nPaul repeats the words of institution to point out that they all are participating in Christ’s body and blood (cf. 10:16-17), not their own meal. To do it in an unworthy manner, with divisions and class distinctions among them, is to profane his meal by failing to demonstrate the unity of his body, the church (11:29), and thus invite his judgment, which they were already experiencing. Instead, they should examine their own motives and truly gather as one to eat this common meal.<\/p>\nThe third problem in their meetings was the use of spiritual gifts (12:1–14:40). It is possible that some people in these house churches, under the influence of Gnostic ideas in which the spiritual is good and the material evil, and feeling inspired by a spirit, cried out, “Jesus [meaning the human Jesus as opposed to the spiritual Christ] be cursed.” It is not the Spirit of God saying this, argues Paul, for the Spirit in us cries the basic Christian confession, “Jesus is Lord.”<\/p>\nOthers in these churches were exalting their own particular gift, especially the gift of tongues, shouting down others or refusing to give them a turn. There is only one Spirit and he gives all the gifts, Paul argues (12:4-6). The Spirit manifests himself sovereignly in each Christian, not simply for the Christian’s own benefit, but for the good of all (v 7). Since it is the Spirit, not a given manifestation, that the Christian has, the gifts manifested could change from meeting to meeting.<\/p>\nThat same Spirit has made all Christians into one organic unity in Christ (12:12-13). Thus not only does the one Spirit give all the gifts—all are equally inspired—but all the gifts are equally needed for the proper functioning of the body of Christ (vv 14-26). No one can say that his lack of a given gift makes him less a part of the body; indeed, the less noticeable gifts may well be the more important. Thus, within the body of Christ, there are not only different manifestations of the Spirit through individuals in a given meeting, but different ministries or functions of individuals in the body (vv 27-31).<\/p>\nTherefore, it is not the demonstration of a particular gift that shows one’s spirituality, but how one demonstrates it—that is, whether one manifests it with love (13:1-13). Any gift exercised for selfish purposes may be a genuine gift of the Spirit, but it is worthless to the individual (vv 1-3). This is because love is the opposite of selfishness (vv 4-7). In fact, the gifts of the Spirit are only for the period between Jesus’ first coming and his second coming, when the kingdom of God will be perfectly revealed and the King will be present in person, and thus the intermediary gifts of the Spirit will be no longer necessary (vv 10, 12). It is not giftedness but faith and hope that will have a reward then, and love, which is the greatest, because it will continue as Christians live in perfect love with each other and with Jesus (v 13).<\/p>\nApplying this to Corinth, Paul argues that while one should desire all the gifts, love dictates that prophecy should be the gift of choice in the church meetings (14:1-25). The Corinthians had evidently been stressing tongues. Tongues without interpretation is of little value to anyone except to the speaker himself. It does not build anyone up; its confusion seems madness to outsiders. Outside the church meetings there is a role for tongues, both as a sign of judgment (v 21) and for private devotion (v 18), but inside, only with interpretation. Prophecy, however, both builds up and convicts, and thus is to be sought in the meetings.<\/p>\nIn the church meetings, then, both gifts and order are to prevail (14:26-40). All types of gifts are allowed expression with a goal of mutual edification, not selfish demonstration (v 26). Tongues speakers must have an interpreter; both they and prophets must speak in turn, with time being taken to evaluate the utterances after every few speakers (vv 27-33). Furthermore, the women, who were perhaps chatting in the service (perhaps due to habits learned in Jewish synagogues, where they were segregated and did not participate) are to cease their chattering, pay attention, and learn, asking questions at home if they do not understand (vv 34-36). In his concluding summary, Paul states that all should be done in an orderly manner (vv 37-40).<\/p>\nThe fifth issue Paul deals with is that of the resurrection of the dead (ch 15). Some of the problems mentioned earlier concerning loose morals (chs 5–6), ascetic denial, sexuality (ch 7), or feeling one was resurrected already (ch 11) point to the fact that some Corinthians did not believe in the resurrection of the body, though they apparently believed in the resurrection of Jesus and the immortality of the human soul.<\/p>\nPaul reaffirms that the resurrection of Jesus is an essential part of the gospel message (15:1-19). The unified voice of the church was that Jesus not only died but rose again and appeared to numerous witnesses (vv 3-11). If they were consistent in their antiresurrection argument, Christ could not have been raised. Yet if this were the case, the whole gospel message is false and all their hopes for salvation are in vain (vv 12-19).<\/p>\nSince Christ has been raised, Christians will also be raised because of their solidarity with him (15:20-28). As they had experienced the results of being in Adam, so now they will experience the results of being in Christ. But resurrection does not happen at once. There are progressive stages: (a) Christ was first; (b) Christians will be raised at his coming; (c) Christ must reign until he extends kingdom rule over the whole world, destroying all demonic powers (including death itself); and (d) then he will turn over the perfected kingdom to the Father (vv 23-28).<\/p>\nResurrection hope also explains Christian practices such as baptizing people on behalf of others who had died (probably people who had turned to Christ but had died before they could be baptized, 15:29), and willingness to risk death for Christ (vv 30-32).<\/p>\nPaul admits that there are intellectual problems involved, but these are solved when one realizes that resurrection includes both continuity and discontinuity (15:35-50). Just as seed and plant are the same and yet different, and just as many types of bodies exist, so it is with the resurrection. What was perishable, dishonorable, weak, and physical (i.e., in Adam) will be raised imperishable, glorious, powerful, and spiritual (i.e., in Christ). Indeed, it is only as Christians thus become like Christ, the heavenly man, that they can become part of God’s kingdom.<\/p>\nWith excitement Paul shares his real hope, that of transformation (15:51-58). At the coming of Christ the dead will be raised and transformed. But the living will also need transformation, and this will happen in a split second, making all of them impervious to death. Then they will truly know the victory already present in Jesus’ resurrection (vv 54-57). A concluding summary draws the practical conclusion that this teaching should give them assurance of a reward for anything done for Christ now (v 58).<\/p>\nThe sixth issue Paul deals with is that of the collection for the needy Jerusalem church (16:1-4). Because of famine in Judea in the 40s, the church there had become impoverished. Partly because of the need and partly to further the unity of the church, Paul took up a collection in some of his churches for the Judean church. He answers the Corinthians’ practical queries by stating that the collection should be made weekly according to ability, not all at once when Paul arrives (16:2). When he comes, he will send off the money with their own messengers. Paul remains vague about whether or not he will accompany them, allaying suspicions that somehow he plans to profit from it (cf. 2 Cor 8–9).<\/p>\n<h5>Final Remarks and Closing, 16:5-24<\/h5>\nHaving come to the end, Paul discusses his travel plans, including his intention for a lengthy visit whenever he leaves Ephesus (cf. 2 Cor 1). Timothy was either coming with the letter or else would arrive shortly after another mission; they were to respect him and help him return. Paul points out that he urged Apollos to visit Corinth, in case some suspect Paul is against him. A closing formal exhortation to firm faith and love leads into his final customary greetings. He praises the Corinthian messengers who had brought him their letter (16:15-18) and sends greetings from Aquila and Prisca (Priscilla), his comissionaries who had helped him found the church in Corinth (Acts 18:2-3, 18). Referring to the customary greeting in the church, he tells them to greet each other with a kiss on each cheek (16:20). Paul then takes the pen from the scribe, as was normal, and writes the closing exhortation—placing a curse on those who do not love Jesus, the common Aramaic expression used in the church “Come, O Lord” (Marana tha,<\/em> perhaps used to close services), and providing an assurance of his own love for them (vv 21-24).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Acts of the Apostles, Book of the; Corinth; Corinthians, Second Letter to the; Paul, The Apostle.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>CORINTHIANS, First Letter to the<\/h3>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Author<\/p>\n• Date and Origin<\/p>\n• Background<\/p>\n• Purpose and Teaching<\/p>\n• Content<\/p>\nAuthor<\/p>\nThere is no doubt about who wrote 1 Corinthians, for all scholars agree that the apostle Paul wrote it on his third missionary journey while he was living in Ephesus. By this time Paul was a mature, middle-aged (perhaps 55 years old) missionary, fully seasoned from planting churches around a quarter of the Mediterranean world.<\/p>\nDate and Origin<\/p>\nPaul worked in Corinth from about AD<\/span> 50 to 52. After a brief stay in Jerusalem, he returned to his missionary work, this time at Ephesus (Acts 19), where he ministered for three years (AD<\/span> 53–55\/56). During this period, he wrote at least three letters to Corinth and made a visit as well. His first letter, often called “the previous letter,” is referred to in 1 Corinthians 5:9-11. We know from this reference that the letter was misunderstood, but we know little of its content, for it has been lost.<\/p>\nSometime in AD<\/span> 55, after hearing reports from Chloe’s household (1 Cor 1:11), who were probably members of Chloe’s house church, he dictated a second letter to Corinth, our 1 Corinthians. This was probably sent off in the hands of Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus (16:17). Paul would later write a third letter to Corinth, called “the letter of tears” (2 Cor 2:2-3), and then finally 2 Corinthians.<\/p>\nBackground<\/p>\nCorinth was a seaport city, destroyed by the Romans in 146 BC<\/span> and rebuilt in 46 BC<\/span> by Julius Caesar. After 27 BC<\/span>, it was the Roman capital of Achaia, where the proconsul had his residence (Acts 18:12). The city itself was really three cities: the port of Cenchrea, about eight miles (13 kilometers) to the east, where ships from the Aegean would unload; the port of Lechaion, about a mile (1.6 kilometers) to the west on the Gulf of Corinth, where the ships would be reloaded, their goods having been transported in wagons over the isthmus and the ships on rollers; and the city itself on the high ground in between.<\/p>\nThe acropolis of the city, on top of the steep, high Acrocorinth, contained the temple of Aphrodite, where 1,000 female slaves were dedicated to the service of this goddess of love. This distinctive cult of Corinth was dedicated to the veneration of Aphrodite, goddess of love, beauty, and fertility, who is identified with the Roman Venus. Associated with such religious practices was a general moral degradation. Corinthian morals were notoriously corrupt, even when compared with pagan Rome. Down in the city was the synagogue (Acts 18:4); for while the city as a Roman colony was largely populated by Italians, it had attracted other peoples from the Mediterranean, among whom were the Jews.<\/p>\nPurpose and Teaching<\/p>\nThe main concern of Paul in 1 Corinthians was the unity of the church. There was a self-centeredness in Corinth that resulted in building cliques within the church, in flaunting knowledge and liberty in the face of others scandalized by it, and in selfish displays in the worship services.<\/p>\nTwo other major concerns also surface in the book. First, along with other pagan practices, the lax sexual ethics of Corinth had influenced the church; Paul needed to erect some barriers. Second, there was a problem in accepting the resurrection of the body; Paul realized that this issue had implications for the core of the faith and vigorously affirmed the resurrection.<\/p>\nBoth of these latter two areas, as well as aspects of the unity issue (particularly their concern with knowledge), have been identified by some scholars as Gnostic motifs, leading to the conclusion that Paul was opposing a Gnostic party in Corinth. Careful examination reveals, however, that while some of the elements floating in the Corinthian milieu would later contribute to the development of Gnosticism, it would be anachronistic to call them gnostic. While recognizing protognostic ideas in the Corinthian situation, it is important to keep interpretation within the first-century context.<\/p>\nThus, the focus of Paul’s concern was the church, its unity and purity. Paul was fighting to keep this church from disintegrating into a number of competing and bickering factions divided over moral and doctrinal issues. Furthermore, he wanted to keep the focus of the church on Jesus, the exalted Lord.<\/p>\nContent<\/p>\n<h5>Greeting, 1:1-9<\/h5>\nPaul begins with a standard greeting, followed by his usual thanksgiving prayer. Two features stand out. First, the greeting associates Sosthenes with Paul. While we cannot be sure who Sosthenes was, he was surely well known to the Corinthians; probably he was the Sosthenes whom Acts 18:17 identifies as the ruler of the synagogue, following the conversion of Crispus.<\/p>\nSecond, Paul stresses the Corinthians’ abilities in speech, knowledge, and spiritual gifts. They had all of these, and these were genuine, but it was precisely these good things that they were abusing. Paul’s solution is not to suppress these gifts (indeed, he thanks God for them), but to place them in a new context.<\/p>\n<h5>Report from Chloe’s People, 1:10–4:21<\/h5>\nThe Corinthians had made Paul, Cephas (Peter), Apollos, and even Christ into party leaders. We are not sure what each of these groups stood for, but one might guess that the Pauline group stressed Paul’s slogans of liberty; the Petrine group, the need to hold to Jewish practices; and the Apollos group, the value of philosophical understanding and oratory. Whatever they stood for, Paul is appalled that it breaks their unity. His first response is to argue that his behavior was not calculated to build a following but to point to Christ. That is, he did not insist on personally baptizing converts; who performed these acts did not matter, since they were all baptized into Christ.<\/p>\nPaul immediately moves to the underlying issue, that of various persons wanting to show themselves better or wiser than others who did not have the insights of their party in the church. Their seeking for wisdom contradicts Paul’s preaching of the gospel.<\/p>\nFirst, the message of a crucified Christ (1:18) made no sense within the wisdom and values of either Jews or Greeks. It demanded a whole new way of looking on life—God’s way.<\/p>\nSecond, God had not chosen them on the basis of their status in society; quite the contrary, he had made their only status the equal status they received from him (1:26-31).<\/p>\nThird, their faith had not been based on Paul’s oratory but on the gifts of the Spirit that Paul had manifested (2:4), which had convinced them that God was acting in Paul. Thus, it was not argument that led them to God, but God’s Spirit. Therefore it was the Spirit, not human reasoning, that would continue to reveal God to them. Unless they became fools with respect to the world’s ways of reasoning, they would never be able to rethink life from the perspective of the Spirit, who gives true wisdom.<\/p>\nFourth, they were not acting on this spiritual level when they claimed Paul and others as party leaders; this activity demonstrates the evil impulse in human beings (“the flesh” or “fallen human nature”) at work since it elevates human servants rather than the God who works equally in each of them.<\/p>\nFifth, these servants were working together to build one “temple” for God based on the one foundation in Jesus Christ, that is, the church. God alone will judge how each Christian contributes to the work of building the church. But woe to the person who divides the church, for “if anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him” (3:17, rsv<\/span>). (Note that here the temple imagery is used collectively; the church is the temple. In chapter 6 it will be used individually; each Christian is the temple.)<\/p>\nFinally, he points to their overrealized eschatology, for with their spiritual gifts (which were genuine) and vaunted wisdom (which was worldly) they claimed they were reigning with Christ (4:8-13). Paul, with ironic sarcasm, points out how different this claim is from the lifestyle of the apostles. The apostles lived like Jesus—a life of suffering, expecting exaltation later. The Corinthians were trying to have their exaltation now without crucifixion.<\/p>\nPaul closes this section with an admonition. He softens his words toward some who would be responsive, urging them to copy his lifestyle. The teacher was the message (vv 14-16). Timothy will also faithfully live the truth before them. Then he threatens the “arrogant” (v 18), pointing out that he will not challenge their words but their spiritual power if he comes.<\/p>\n<h5>The Report from the Corinthian Messengers, 5:1–6:20<\/h5>\nPaul now turns to three issues raised by oral reports from the messengers bearing the Corinthians’ letter to him.<\/p>\nThe first issue is that of church discipline (5:12-13). Paul cites a case of flagrant immorality—that of incest. This immorality was so clear (even pagans considered it immoral), that it was not a case of ignorance of Christian principles. Further, the church had taken no action but rather boasted in its tolerance, perhaps on the basis of a misunderstanding of Paul’s teaching on freedom from the law.<\/p>\nPaul presents three principles in this section: (1) the primary goal of church discipline is the repentance and restoration of the offender; (2) the secondary goal of church discipline is the protection of the church (5:6-8); and (3) the church is not to seek to judge or control the actions of evil persons in the world—they are God’s responsibility—but to discipline those within the church (vv 9-13). Paul will use these principles also in the following chapters (cf. 7:12-16).<\/p>\nThe second issue is that of lawsuits between Christians (6:1-11). The Corinthian society was as prone to litigation as our own, and Christians did not see anything wrong in suing each other. Paul was troubled. If Christians are to judge the world, they certainly should not bring the world in to judge issues within the church. Rather than put their cases before “those who are least esteemed by the church” (6:4, rsv<\/span>, i.e., pagan judges), they should decide the cases within the church.<\/p>\nPaul has an even better way than bypassing the pagan courts, and that is to simply suffer the wrong (1 Cor 6:7). Applying the teaching of Jesus quite literally (Mt 5:38-42), Paul argues that it would be best to allow themselves to be defrauded. Instead, the Corinthians are willing to step on their brothers in Christ to get what they feel are their rights. This raises the issue as to whether greed is not still in their hearts (1 Cor 6:9-11). While Paul accepts people who formerly did all sorts of evil (for Jesus has cleansed them), he makes it very clear that anyone presently practicing greed or immorality is not part of the kingdom, whatever their doctrinal commitments may be.<\/p>\nThe final issue in this section is that of casual sexual intercourse (6:12-20). In a world where virginity was important if a woman wished to be married and where slaves in the temple of Aphrodite were available as prostitutes, prostitution was the major form of casual sex. The libertine party used two slogans: “All things are lawful for me,” a saying that may well have been derived from Paul’s teaching, and “Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food”—that is, since the body works this way, it must be the Creator’s purpose. Paul qualifies rather than contradicts their slogans. Freedom is subordinate to other goals (6:12, 20). The body is not made to be used as we wish, but is to be dedicated to the Lord, as the doctrine of the resurrection demonstrates (vv 13-14).<\/p>\nFurthermore, sexual intercourse is an act of the whole person, unlike eating (Paul cites Gn 2:24; cf. Jesus in Mt 19:5). Therefore, this act takes a member (i.e., the person) from the body of Christ and makes him a unity with a prostitute (1 Cor 6:15-17). Thus immorality is unlike other sins that are external to the self, for it changes the self and thus defiles the body, the place where the Holy Spirit dwells. It disregards the fact that Christ has redeemed the body, and that the whole of the Christian belongs to God, not to the Christian.<\/p>\n<h5>Paul’s Answers to the Corinthians, 7:1–16:4<\/h5>\nNow Paul turns to the Corinthians’ own issues, building on the answers he has already given to questions they did not ask.<\/p>\nThe first issue is that of marriage (7:1-24). The slogan of the ascetic party in Corinth (perhaps a reaction against the libertines of ch 6) was “It is good for a man not to touch a woman” (7:1, kjv<\/span>). The Corinthians applied this slogan to both married and unmarried, arguing that married Christians should abstain from sexual relations. Paul clarified the matter with three points. First, he said that this was totally unrealistic, for total abstinence would lead to immorality (vv 2, 7-9). Second, when people get married they no longer own their own bodies; their bodies belong to each other for their mutual benefit (vv 3-4). Sexual refusal denies a spouse what rightly belongs to him or her. Third, abstinence is allowed for limited periods by mutual agreement as a type of fast to help focus on Christ (v 5).<\/p>\nWhile Paul will address the issue of the unmarried more fully in 7:25-40, in a side remark he indicates that he is himself content to be unmarried. But since some do not have this gift, full sexual expression in marriage is far better than fighting passion (7:7-9). Once two Christians are married, divorce is unthinkable. A clear word of Christ proves this (Mt 5:31-32; Mk 10:11-12; Lk 16:18 and parallels), so there are no exceptions (Paul either does not know of the exception clause in Mt 19:9 or he understands it as referring to something like premarital unchastity discovered before the wedding, not to adultery after the wedding). Although in some cases a Christian couple must live separately, it is always with a view to reconciliation. The teaching of Jesus does not allow him to think of the marriage as ending (1 Cor 7:10-11).<\/p>\nBut what if the spouse is not a Christian? Paul applies his principles to a situation for which Jesus did not leave a clear word. First, since Jesus told Christians not to divorce, even in this situation the Christian may not initiate a divorce (7:12-13). Second, since Christians are not to control or judge non-Christians (6:12-13), the Christian does not need to continue the relationship if the non-Christian insists on a divorce (7:15). Third, far from defiling the Christian (as the relationship in 6:15 does), the Christian will make the relationship holy, with positive results for the children and the possible salvation of the spouse (7:14, 16). While this is no call to remain in situations of physical or sexual abuse, it is a call to remain faithful to a mixed marriage situation.<\/p>\nPaul does not believe that one normally needs to change one’s life situation to serve Christ (7:17-24). Therefore, normally each person should remain in that state of life in which he or she was when called to Christ. Paul’s examples show that he was thinking in terms of marriage or singleness, Jew (circumcision) or Gentile, slave or free, not in terms of situations that might be immoral in themselves. In the case of slaves, they can accept freedom if it becomes available, but it does not make an essential difference in their real state before God or their ability to serve Christ (vv 21-23).<\/p>\nThe second issue is that of the unmarried (7:25-40). Paul argues that single people and widows may marry—it is not wrong. Yet he advises them to remain single. Since all in this age is passing away, it would be good to stay single so as to avoid the extra suffering to which marriage exposes a person (vv 25-31). What is more, marriage always divides one’s attention between the Lord and the legitimate needs of the spouse. One must not abandon the spouse or ignore his or her needs in order to serve the Lord, but one can remain single so that the Lord can be the sole focus of life and devotion (vv 32-35). Finally, if one is in a situation in which marriage is expected, the person must make his own decision as to whether he should marry the woman for her sake (and perhaps that of the wider family) or whether he can and should simply care for her as a single person (vv 36-38). Paul closes this section by repeating his general principles (vv 39-40).<\/p>\nThe third issue Paul deals with is that of food that has been offered to idols (8:1–11:1). Most meat that was available in the marketplace came either from animals slaughtered as sacrifices in the temples or from groups of animals from which one was offered as a dedicatory sacrifice. To scrupulous Jews, all of this meat would be untouched. Furthermore, pagans invited Christians to feasts in their homes and to private feasts held in the precincts of pagan temples, where trade guilds also held feasts. Paul discusses these issues and uses them to teach wider principles of Christian conduct.<\/p>\nFirst, love, not knowledge, is the key to correct behavior (8:1-13). Some Corinthians felt superior because they were convinced that idols had no reality (there is only one God), and therefore any food offered to them was still fit to eat. Paul again accepts their slogans, but counters with the statement, “Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up” (v 1, niv<\/span>). God is not concerned with what we know or eat, but he is concerned with whether or not we love our fellow Christians. The concern is not that a fellow Christian might become enraged because one indulged, but that he or she might have a vulnerable conscience and indulge himself, even though he believed it wrong and thus in his own eyes apostasizes from the faith (i.e., rebels against Christ). Such leading astray is not love. It would be better never to eat meat than to lead a fellow Christian into sin.<\/p>\nSecond, he points out that one should subordinate one’s own interests to those of others, especially those of Christ and his gospel (9:1-23). Both the examples of the apostles, who expected the church to support them and their families (cf. Lk 10:5-7), and Scripture prove that Paul had the right to demand support from the Corinthians. This had not been his practice, for he had normally made tents to support his ministry, though he did accept gifts from other churches. Paul did this to prevent people from thinking he was peddling religion for profit (9:12) and for the personal satisfaction of doing more than he had to do (vv 16-17). This was part of Paul’s larger policy of subordinating his own personal preferences and interests to those of Christ and his gospel (vv 19-23).<\/p>\nThird, the bravado of the strong who demonstrate their liberty with disregard of fellow Christians is spiritually dangerous (9:24–10:22). It is not who begins but who completes the Christian life that counts; therefore, it is a life of discipline, not relaxed license (9:24-27). Israel in the wilderness presents an example of failure in this regard. They had “baptism” and “the Lord’s Supper” (10:2-4), just like the church, yet most of them did not make it to the Promised Land. The reason God destroyed them was simple: they turned to sin. Likewise, the Christian has to be careful not to be so proud about faith and freedom that he becomes careless about sin and falls from the faith (v 12). On the other hand, Christians need not be fearful, for the temptation is not more powerful than they are; God has provided a way of escape, if they will take it (v 13).<\/p>\nAnother link between the Israelites and the Corinthians pertains to partaking of a sacrificial meal (10:14-22). In the Lord’s Supper there is a sharing of the blood and body of Christ, just as real as Israel’s sacrifices on the altar. Food offered to idols is also a sharing, not with the supposed god, but with the real demon that is behind the idol. To try to share at both tables is to provoke God’s jealousy just as Israel did (v 22).<\/p>\nA summary of the discussion draws the three chapters together (10:23–11:1). Since the food is not changed by being offered to idols, and since all food really belongs to God, one may eat anything sold in the market—do not ask any questions (10:25-26). Likewise, the Christian may eat anything served at a dinner in the home of an unbeliever. However, if someone points out that the food was offered to idols, the Christian should pass it by, not because it would hurt him, but because it is an issue with the person who raised the question, and the Christian is concerned about the good of his neighbor (vv 27-30). In other words, follow Paul’s example as he patterns himself in turn after Christ, who served others rather than himself. Act so that God’s reputation and character shine through even in what one eats (v 31); try to offend no one but to benefit each person in moving him toward salvation (v 32).<\/p>\nThe fourth issue Paul deals with is that of order in church meetings (11:2–14:40). The Corinthians’ house churches had lively meetings, but rather than showing unity in Christ, they demonstrated selfishness. Paul had no desire to change what they did; he did want to change how they did it.<\/p>\nThe first problem in the meetings was the behavior of married women (11:1-16). The sign of marriage in that day was the wearing of a veil or distinctive hairstyle, as a ring is today. Women praying and delivering prophecies in church was no issue for Paul, but the women may have felt that this loosed them from their husbands (cf. Mk 12:25) and therefore was a reason to set aside their veils. Paul argues that husband and wife are intimately joined, just as humans are to God (1 Cor 11:3). Therefore as humans should not shame but glorify God, so the wife should act toward her husband. Thus, while Paul approves of ministry by women, he puts marriage first.<\/p>\nThe second problem in the meetings was that of making class distinctions (11:17-34). Until the weekly Lord’s Supper began to be turned into the sacrifice of the Mass in the third and fourth centuries, it was a full shared meal. Middle- and upper-class Christians could come earlier to the church gatherings and also provide better food and drink for themselves. Following the customs of pagan clubs, they had no scruples against starting early and feasting as befit their class, so long as at least simple food was provided for the slaves and peasants who could not come as early (v 21). This shamed the poorer Christians and made them feel class distinctions keenly (v 22). This, argues Paul, is not the Lord’s Supper but a sham (v 20).<\/p>\nPaul repeats the words of institution to point out that they all are participating in Christ’s body and blood (cf. 10:16-17), not their own meal. To do it in an unworthy manner, with divisions and class distinctions among them, is to profane his meal by failing to demonstrate the unity of his body, the church (11:29), and thus invite his judgment, which they were already experiencing. Instead, they should examine their own motives and truly gather as one to eat this common meal.<\/p>\nThe third problem in their meetings was the use of spiritual gifts (12:1–14:40). It is possible that some people in these house churches, under the influence of Gnostic ideas in which the spiritual is good and the material evil, and feeling inspired by a spirit, cried out, “Jesus [meaning the human Jesus as opposed to the spiritual Christ] be cursed.” It is not the Spirit of God saying this, argues Paul, for the Spirit in us cries the basic Christian confession, “Jesus is Lord.”<\/p>\nOthers in these churches were exalting their own particular gift, especially the gift of tongues, shouting down others or refusing to give them a turn. There is only one Spirit and he gives all the gifts, Paul argues (12:4-6). The Spirit manifests himself sovereignly in each Christian, not simply for the Christian’s own benefit, but for the good of all (v 7). Since it is the Spirit, not a given manifestation, that the Christian has, the gifts manifested could change from meeting to meeting.<\/p>\nThat same Spirit has made all Christians into one organic unity in Christ (12:12-13). Thus not only does the one Spirit give all the gifts—all are equally inspired—but all the gifts are equally needed for the proper functioning of the body of Christ (vv 14-26). No one can say that his lack of a given gift makes him less a part of the body; indeed, the less noticeable gifts may well be the more important. Thus, within the body of Christ, there are not only different manifestations of the Spirit through individuals in a given meeting, but different ministries or functions of individuals in the body (vv 27-31).<\/p>\nTherefore, it is not the demonstration of a particular gift that shows one’s spirituality, but how one demonstrates it—that is, whether one manifests it with love (13:1-13). Any gift exercised for selfish purposes may be a genuine gift of the Spirit, but it is worthless to the individual (vv 1-3). This is because love is the opposite of selfishness (vv 4-7). In fact, the gifts of the Spirit are only for the period between Jesus’ first coming and his second coming, when the kingdom of God will be perfectly revealed and the King will be present in person, and thus the intermediary gifts of the Spirit will be no longer necessary (vv 10, 12). It is not giftedness but faith and hope that will have a reward then, and love, which is the greatest, because it will continue as Christians live in perfect love with each other and with Jesus (v 13).<\/p>\nApplying this to Corinth, Paul argues that while one should desire all the gifts, love dictates that prophecy should be the gift of choice in the church meetings (14:1-25). The Corinthians had evidently been stressing tongues. Tongues without interpretation is of little value to anyone except to the speaker himself. It does not build anyone up; its confusion seems madness to outsiders. Outside the church meetings there is a role for tongues, both as a sign of judgment (v 21) and for private devotion (v 18), but inside, only with interpretation. Prophecy, however, both builds up and convicts, and thus is to be sought in the meetings.<\/p>\nIn the church meetings, then, both gifts and order are to prevail (14:26-40). All types of gifts are allowed expression with a goal of mutual edification, not selfish demonstration (v 26). Tongues speakers must have an interpreter; both they and prophets must speak in turn, with time being taken to evaluate the utterances after every few speakers (vv 27-33). Furthermore, the women, who were perhaps chatting in the service (perhaps due to habits learned in Jewish synagogues, where they were segregated and did not participate) are to cease their chattering, pay attention, and learn, asking questions at home if they do not understand (vv 34-36). In his concluding summary, Paul states that all should be done in an orderly manner (vv 37-40).<\/p>\nThe fifth issue Paul deals with is that of the resurrection of the dead (ch 15). Some of the problems mentioned earlier concerning loose morals (chs 5–6), ascetic denial, sexuality (ch 7), or feeling one was resurrected already (ch 11) point to the fact that some Corinthians did not believe in the resurrection of the body, though they apparently believed in the resurrection of Jesus and the immortality of the human soul.<\/p>\nPaul reaffirms that the resurrection of Jesus is an essential part of the gospel message (15:1-19). The unified voice of the church was that Jesus not only died but rose again and appeared to numerous witnesses (vv 3-11). If they were consistent in their antiresurrection argument, Christ could not have been raised. Yet if this were the case, the whole gospel message is false and all their hopes for salvation are in vain (vv 12-19).<\/p>\nSince Christ has been raised, Christians will also be raised because of their solidarity with him (15:20-28). As they had experienced the results of being in Adam, so now they will experience the results of being in Christ. But resurrection does not happen at once. There are progressive stages: (a) Christ was first; (b) Christians will be raised at his coming; (c) Christ must reign until he extends kingdom rule over the whole world, destroying all demonic powers (including death itself); and (d) then he will turn over the perfected kingdom to the Father (vv 23-28).<\/p>\nResurrection hope also explains Christian practices such as baptizing people on behalf of others who had died (probably people who had turned to Christ but had died before they could be baptized, 15:29), and willingness to risk death for Christ (vv 30-32).<\/p>\nPaul admits that there are intellectual problems involved, but these are solved when one realizes that resurrection includes both continuity and discontinuity (15:35-50). Just as seed and plant are the same and yet different, and just as many types of bodies exist, so it is with the resurrection. What was perishable, dishonorable, weak, and physical (i.e., in Adam) will be raised imperishable, glorious, powerful, and spiritual (i.e., in Christ). Indeed, it is only as Christians thus become like Christ, the heavenly man, that they can become part of God’s kingdom.<\/p>\nWith excitement Paul shares his real hope, that of transformation (15:51-58). At the coming of Christ the dead will be raised and transformed. But the living will also need transformation, and this will happen in a split second, making all of them impervious to death. Then they will truly know the victory already present in Jesus’ resurrection (vv 54-57). A concluding summary draws the practical conclusion that this teaching should give them assurance of a reward for anything done for Christ now (v 58).<\/p>\nThe sixth issue Paul deals with is that of the collection for the needy Jerusalem church (16:1-4). Because of famine in Judea in the 40s, the church there had become impoverished. Partly because of the need and partly to further the unity of the church, Paul took up a collection in some of his churches for the Judean church. He answers the Corinthians’ practical queries by stating that the collection should be made weekly according to ability, not all at once when Paul arrives (16:2). When he comes, he will send off the money with their own messengers. Paul remains vague about whether or not he will accompany them, allaying suspicions that somehow he plans to profit from it (cf. 2 Cor 8–9).<\/p>\n<h5>Final Remarks and Closing, 16:5-24<\/h5>\nHaving come to the end, Paul discusses his travel plans, including his intention for a lengthy visit whenever he leaves Ephesus (cf. 2 Cor 1). Timothy was either coming with the letter or else would arrive shortly after another mission; they were to respect him and help him return. Paul points out that he urged Apollos to visit Corinth, in case some suspect Paul is against him. A closing formal exhortation to firm faith and love leads into his final customary greetings. He praises the Corinthian messengers who had brought him their letter (16:15-18) and sends greetings from Aquila and Prisca (Priscilla), his comissionaries who had helped him found the church in Corinth (Acts 18:2-3, 18). Referring to the customary greeting in the church, he tells them to greet each other with a kiss on each cheek (16:20). Paul then takes the pen from the scribe, as was normal, and writes the closing exhortation—placing a curse on those who do not love Jesus, the common Aramaic expression used in the church “Come, O Lord” (Marana tha,<\/em> perhaps used to close services), and providing an assurance of his own love for them (vv 21-24).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Acts of the Apostles, Book of the; Corinth; Corinthians, Second Letter to the; Paul, The Apostle.<\/p>","summary_ro":"CORINTHIANS, First Letter to the Preview • Author • Date and Origin • Background • Purpose and Teaching • Content Author There is no doubt about who wrote 1 Corinthians, for all scholars agree that the apostle Paul wrote it on his third missionary journey while he was living in Ephesus. By this time Paul was a mature, middle-aged (perhaps 55 years old) missionary, fully seasoned from planting churches around a quarter of the Mediterranean world. Date and Origin Paul worked in Corinth from abo...","summary_en":"CORINTHIANS, First Letter to the Preview • Author • Date and Origin • Background • Purpose and Teaching • Content Author There is no doubt about who wrote 1 Corinthians, for all scholars agree that the apostle Paul wrote it on his third missionary journey while he was living in Ephesus. By this time Paul was a mature, middle-aged (perhaps 55 years old) missionary, fully seasoned from planting churches around a quarter of the Mediterranean world. Date and Origin Paul worked in Corinth from abo...","source":"Articles\/C.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":9771,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Divorce","title_en":"Divorce","content_ro":"<h3>DIVORCE<\/h3>\nBiblical provisions regulating divorce are closely bound up with the various definitions given to marriage within the successive phases of God’s progressive revelation in history.<\/p>\nIn the Genesis Creation account, marriage is defined as the “one flesh” union established by God in the context of a sinless environment (Gn 2:24). Given such conditions, the dissolution of the marriage relationship was inconceivable. During his ministry, Jesus affirmed this aspect of God’s original design for marriage. He described the implications of the “one flesh” relationship as the abrogation of the separatedness of the spouses and the creation of an inviolable union (Mt 19:6).<\/p>\nThe Old Testament’s View on Divorce<\/p>\nThe disruptions brought about by the fall had grievous consequences for the male\/female relationship. Having allowed sin to sever their primary dependency on God, man and woman became respectively subject to the elements from which they had been originally made. Man became subject to the dust of the ground whence he had come (Gn 2:7; 3:19), and woman became subject to the man from whom she had been formed (2:22; 3:16). Prior to the fall, man and woman had enjoyed a relationship of equality as cosharers in the divine image (1:27) and as partners in the divine mandate to exercise dominion over creation (v 28). After the fall man became ruler over woman, and woman became subject to man (3:16).<\/p>\nAs a result of these new conditions, man assumed rights of disposition over woman that he did not possess prior to the fall. The “one flesh” relation was violated when the right of rulership opened the way for the male ruler to multiply the number of his female subjects. This disparity between male and female resulted in the practice of polygamy (Gn 4:19; 16:3; 29:30) and of serial monogamy, which required the termination of each successive marriage by an act of divorce (Dt 24:1-4). Thus, the emergence of the practice of divorce appeared as the inevitable consequence of the principle of male rulership. Neither rulership nor divorce was part of God’s original design for the marriage relationship. The Mosaic regulation on divorce was a concession made by God to the fallen condition of mankind (Mt 19:8). Characteristically, the option of divorce was a right available only to the male rulers. As subjects of their male rulers, wives became the victims of divorce. Men could divorce their wives; women could not divorce their husbands.<\/p>\nAs unfair as it may seem, the Deuteronomic provisions for divorce were actually intended to offer a modicum of protection for its female victims. A husband had to justify a divorce action against his wife by citing something indecent about her. He was to give his divorced wife a bill of divorce that accounted for her marriage to him (Dt 24:1). Moreover, a divorced husband was forbidden to remarry his ex-wife after her subsequent marriage, since his original divorce was viewed as a defilement of her (v 4).<\/p>\nAlthough the Mosaic dispositions on divorce were granted as a divine concession to Israel’s hardness of heart, the OT emphatically states that God hates divorce (Mal 2:16). The right of divorce was grudgingly granted as an accommodation to the principle of male rulership that had resulted from the fall. But God’s original design, reflected in the “one flesh” marital relation, remained the standard for the union of man and woman in marriage.<\/p>\nJesus’ Teaching on Divorce<\/p>\nInasmuch as Christ’s ministry of redemption signaled a return to God’s original purposes in Creation, the old covenant regulations on divorce were abrogated in the Christian community. In order to justify the inviolability of the marriage bond among his followers, Jesus directed them to the creational model. Referring negatively to the intervening Mosaic allowance for divorce, Jesus upheld God’s original creation order by stating that “from the beginning it was not so” (Mt 19:8). Christ repudiated the fall and affirmed the Creation design.<\/p>\nIn Matthew 5:31-32 Jesus explicitly abrogated the Mosaic legislation that allowed men to divorce their wives. He viewed the practice as a violation of the integrity of women. Adulterous men who divorce their wives reduce them to the status of whores, using them as commodities to be passed around through the expediency of easy divorce. By divorcing their wives, men treat them as adulteresses. By marrying a woman discarded from a previous marriage, a man perpetuates the demeaning process and becomes guilty of adultery.<\/p>\nJesus deliberately withdrew from men the ruler’s right of discarding a wife at will and reinstated the creational pattern of the lifelong “one flesh” union. His disciples understood his intent accurately. But the principle of male privilege was so deeply ingrained in their mentality that they declared the freedom available in celibacy preferable to a commitment to lifelong monogamous marriage (Mt 19:10).<\/p>\nNot only did Jesus reaffirm the validity of the “one flesh” union for the community of redemption, but the NT reinforced the inviolability of the marriage bond by defining it as an earthly copy of the relationship between Christ and the church (Eph 5:25).<\/p>\nDespite such strong sanctions for the permanency of the marriage bond, the NT permits divorce as an exception intended to protect the innocent spouse in the case of immorality and desertion. Jesus made exceptions that established the right of a spouse wronged by an unfaithful mate to press for divorce (Mt 5:32; 19:9). Obviously, the wronged spouse has the option of maintaining the marriage bond despite the breach of commitment by the unfaithful mate. But in view of the exception allowed by Scripture, the obligation to maintain or reinstate the disrupted marriage may not be imposed upon the innocent spouse.<\/p>\nThe other exception that justifies divorce, according to the NT, is desertion. Although the provisions of 1 Corinthians 7:15 refer primarily to desertion by an unbelieving spouse, it should be noted that a believer guilty of desertion is to be treated as an unbeliever (1 Tm 5:8). Behavior equivalent to the abandonment of the marriage relationship constitutes a breach of conjugal commitment and becomes subject to the provision stated in 1 Corinthians 7:15.<\/p>\nIn either case, adultery or desertion, the aggrieved party has the right to seek divorce from the offending spouse and, having obtained it, becomes again a single person. Should repentance and reconciliation fail to restore the violated union, the aggrieved spouse is not bound to the marriage. According to Scripture, a person who is not bound is free to remarry, but only “in the Lord,” meaning to another Christian (1 Cor 7:39). The injunction for a single person who does not have the gift of celibacy to marry (v 9) applies to a person formerly married but who has become single by a scripturally legitimate divorce. In keeping with Christ’s teaching in Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18, the remarriage of believers may not be approved when the divorce has been used as a means of changing mates, since such intent makes the divorce adulterous.<\/p>\nMany factors usually combine to destroy a marriage; therefore, the church must deal with each case of divorce and remarriage on an individual basis, taking into account God’s inexhaustible capacity to forgive sin and to restore broken lives. Obviously, the scriptural restrictions on divorce do not apply to believers whose broken marriages predate their conversion, since God’s forgiveness wipes clean the sin of their pre-Christian past and makes them new creatures in Christ.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Adultery; Civil Law and Justice; Marriage, Marriage Customs; Sex, Sexuality.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>DIVORCE<\/h3>\nBiblical provisions regulating divorce are closely bound up with the various definitions given to marriage within the successive phases of God’s progressive revelation in history.<\/p>\nIn the Genesis Creation account, marriage is defined as the “one flesh” union established by God in the context of a sinless environment (Gn 2:24). Given such conditions, the dissolution of the marriage relationship was inconceivable. During his ministry, Jesus affirmed this aspect of God’s original design for marriage. He described the implications of the “one flesh” relationship as the abrogation of the separatedness of the spouses and the creation of an inviolable union (Mt 19:6).<\/p>\nThe Old Testament’s View on Divorce<\/p>\nThe disruptions brought about by the fall had grievous consequences for the male\/female relationship. Having allowed sin to sever their primary dependency on God, man and woman became respectively subject to the elements from which they had been originally made. Man became subject to the dust of the ground whence he had come (Gn 2:7; 3:19), and woman became subject to the man from whom she had been formed (2:22; 3:16). Prior to the fall, man and woman had enjoyed a relationship of equality as cosharers in the divine image (1:27) and as partners in the divine mandate to exercise dominion over creation (v 28). After the fall man became ruler over woman, and woman became subject to man (3:16).<\/p>\nAs a result of these new conditions, man assumed rights of disposition over woman that he did not possess prior to the fall. The “one flesh” relation was violated when the right of rulership opened the way for the male ruler to multiply the number of his female subjects. This disparity between male and female resulted in the practice of polygamy (Gn 4:19; 16:3; 29:30) and of serial monogamy, which required the termination of each successive marriage by an act of divorce (Dt 24:1-4). Thus, the emergence of the practice of divorce appeared as the inevitable consequence of the principle of male rulership. Neither rulership nor divorce was part of God’s original design for the marriage relationship. The Mosaic regulation on divorce was a concession made by God to the fallen condition of mankind (Mt 19:8). Characteristically, the option of divorce was a right available only to the male rulers. As subjects of their male rulers, wives became the victims of divorce. Men could divorce their wives; women could not divorce their husbands.<\/p>\nAs unfair as it may seem, the Deuteronomic provisions for divorce were actually intended to offer a modicum of protection for its female victims. A husband had to justify a divorce action against his wife by citing something indecent about her. He was to give his divorced wife a bill of divorce that accounted for her marriage to him (Dt 24:1). Moreover, a divorced husband was forbidden to remarry his ex-wife after her subsequent marriage, since his original divorce was viewed as a defilement of her (v 4).<\/p>\nAlthough the Mosaic dispositions on divorce were granted as a divine concession to Israel’s hardness of heart, the OT emphatically states that God hates divorce (Mal 2:16). The right of divorce was grudgingly granted as an accommodation to the principle of male rulership that had resulted from the fall. But God’s original design, reflected in the “one flesh” marital relation, remained the standard for the union of man and woman in marriage.<\/p>\nJesus’ Teaching on Divorce<\/p>\nInasmuch as Christ’s ministry of redemption signaled a return to God’s original purposes in Creation, the old covenant regulations on divorce were abrogated in the Christian community. In order to justify the inviolability of the marriage bond among his followers, Jesus directed them to the creational model. Referring negatively to the intervening Mosaic allowance for divorce, Jesus upheld God’s original creation order by stating that “from the beginning it was not so” (Mt 19:8). Christ repudiated the fall and affirmed the Creation design.<\/p>\nIn Matthew 5:31-32 Jesus explicitly abrogated the Mosaic legislation that allowed men to divorce their wives. He viewed the practice as a violation of the integrity of women. Adulterous men who divorce their wives reduce them to the status of whores, using them as commodities to be passed around through the expediency of easy divorce. By divorcing their wives, men treat them as adulteresses. By marrying a woman discarded from a previous marriage, a man perpetuates the demeaning process and becomes guilty of adultery.<\/p>\nJesus deliberately withdrew from men the ruler’s right of discarding a wife at will and reinstated the creational pattern of the lifelong “one flesh” union. His disciples understood his intent accurately. But the principle of male privilege was so deeply ingrained in their mentality that they declared the freedom available in celibacy preferable to a commitment to lifelong monogamous marriage (Mt 19:10).<\/p>\nNot only did Jesus reaffirm the validity of the “one flesh” union for the community of redemption, but the NT reinforced the inviolability of the marriage bond by defining it as an earthly copy of the relationship between Christ and the church (Eph 5:25).<\/p>\nDespite such strong sanctions for the permanency of the marriage bond, the NT permits divorce as an exception intended to protect the innocent spouse in the case of immorality and desertion. Jesus made exceptions that established the right of a spouse wronged by an unfaithful mate to press for divorce (Mt 5:32; 19:9). Obviously, the wronged spouse has the option of maintaining the marriage bond despite the breach of commitment by the unfaithful mate. But in view of the exception allowed by Scripture, the obligation to maintain or reinstate the disrupted marriage may not be imposed upon the innocent spouse.<\/p>\nThe other exception that justifies divorce, according to the NT, is desertion. Although the provisions of 1 Corinthians 7:15 refer primarily to desertion by an unbelieving spouse, it should be noted that a believer guilty of desertion is to be treated as an unbeliever (1 Tm 5:8). Behavior equivalent to the abandonment of the marriage relationship constitutes a breach of conjugal commitment and becomes subject to the provision stated in 1 Corinthians 7:15.<\/p>\nIn either case, adultery or desertion, the aggrieved party has the right to seek divorce from the offending spouse and, having obtained it, becomes again a single person. Should repentance and reconciliation fail to restore the violated union, the aggrieved spouse is not bound to the marriage. According to Scripture, a person who is not bound is free to remarry, but only “in the Lord,” meaning to another Christian (1 Cor 7:39). The injunction for a single person who does not have the gift of celibacy to marry (v 9) applies to a person formerly married but who has become single by a scripturally legitimate divorce. In keeping with Christ’s teaching in Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18, the remarriage of believers may not be approved when the divorce has been used as a means of changing mates, since such intent makes the divorce adulterous.<\/p>\nMany factors usually combine to destroy a marriage; therefore, the church must deal with each case of divorce and remarriage on an individual basis, taking into account God’s inexhaustible capacity to forgive sin and to restore broken lives. Obviously, the scriptural restrictions on divorce do not apply to believers whose broken marriages predate their conversion, since God’s forgiveness wipes clean the sin of their pre-Christian past and makes them new creatures in Christ.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Adultery; Civil Law and Justice; Marriage, Marriage Customs; Sex, Sexuality.<\/p>","summary_ro":"DIVORCE Biblical provisions regulating divorce are closely bound up with the various definitions given to marriage within the successive phases of God’s progressive revelation in history. In the Genesis Creation account, marriage is defined as the “one flesh” union established by God in the context of a sinless environment (Gn 2:24). Given such conditions, the dissolution of the marriage relationship was inconceivable. During his ministry, Jesus affirmed this aspect of God’s original design f...","summary_en":"DIVORCE Biblical provisions regulating divorce are closely bound up with the various definitions given to marriage within the successive phases of God’s progressive revelation in history. In the Genesis Creation account, marriage is defined as the “one flesh” union established by God in the context of a sinless environment (Gn 2:24). Given such conditions, the dissolution of the marriage relationship was inconceivable. During his ministry, Jesus affirmed this aspect of God’s original design f...","source":"Articles\/D.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":10922,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Letter to the Ephesians","title_en":"Letter to the Ephesians","content_ro":"<h3>EPHESIANS, Letter to the<\/h3>\nLetter to the Christians in Ephesus and the surrouding churches written with a magnificence that both instructs and inspires the reader. It provides a sweeping view of the role of the church as history moves toward the ultimate recognition of the universal headship of Christ.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Author<\/p>\n• Destination<\/p>\n• Date and Origin<\/p>\n• Background<\/p>\n• Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n• Content<\/p>\nAuthor<\/p>\nThe writer of the letter identifies himself as the apostle Paul (Eph 1:1; 3:1). He also describes his own ministry in terms that reflect what we know of Paul (3:7, 13; 4:1; 6:19-20). This claim is confirmed by the testimonies of Irenaeus, Origen, Polycarp, Tertullian, and Ignatius, who in his own espistle to the Ephesians alludes to the frequent and affectionate mention made by Paul of the Christian state, privileges, and persons of the Ephesians.<\/p>\nThere are some characteristics of the letter, however, that have caused many scholars to question its clear claim to Pauline authorship. Some of these characteristics would be a problem only if the letter were intended exclusively for people in Ephesus, but such was probably not the case. Otherwise, it would be hard to understand why, after establishing the church there over a three-year period, Paul would write as though author and recipients had only a secondhand knowledge of each other. It would also be strange that the warm personal words of greeting to various individuals that are found in other Pauline letters are missing here. There is instead only a general greeting to “the brothers” (6:23). But all this can be easily explained once it is understood that the epistle was an encyclical for several churches.<\/p>\nDestination<\/p>\nThis epistle was addressed, most probably, to several churches in the district around Ephesus—namely, Asia. The Epistle to the Ephesians, so-called, was not really intended to be only for the church at Ephesus. Most modern scholars are convinced that it was an encyclical that went to several churches in Asia, including Ephesus. There are several reasons to affirm this. First, the earliest manuscripts (the Chester Beatty Papyrus—P46, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus) do not contain the words “in Ephesus” in Ephesians 1:1. It appears that Paul purposely left the name of the locality out, so as to be filled in later as the letter circulated to each locality. (The Greek construction in 1:1 calls for a prepositional phrase designating a locality to be present in the sentence.) Since Ephesus was the leading city of Asia, it was quite natural for scribes to assign this epistle to the church at Ephesus. Second, the Epistle to the Ephesians has all the marks of being a general treatise rather than an epistle to a specific local church. Paul had lived with the believers at Ephesus for three years (Acts 20:31). He knew them intimately, yet in this epistle there are no personal greetings or specific exhortations. When we consider Paul’s manner in many of his other epistles, it would be quite unlike him to have excluded these personal expressions. Quite the contrary, Paul speaks to the saints whom he has only heard about and who have only heard about him (see Eph 1:15; 3:1). It is possible that this epistle was the one sent to Laodicea.<\/p>\n\nIn all fairness it must be said that the encyclical theory has been opposed by some scholars. For example, Henry Alford makes the following objections to this theory: (1) It is at variance with the spirit of the epistle, which is clearly addressed to one set of persons throughout, coexisting in one place and as one body and under the same circumstances. (2) It is improbable that the apostle, who in two of his epistles (2 Corinthians and Galatians) has so plainly specified their encyclical character, should have here omitted such specification. (3) The absence of personal greetings is not an argument for either of the two theories, for similarly there are none in Galatians, Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, and 1 Timothy. The better he knows the parties addressed, and the more general and solemn the subject, the less he seems to give of these individual notices.<\/p>\nDate and Origin<\/p>\nEphesians 3:1, 4:1, and 6:20 indicate that the letter was written while Paul was a prisoner. Since he was imprisoned several times, it is necessary to narrow the options. The first major imprisonment may have been at Ephesus itself, but this is obviously not in consideration. The second was at Caesarea for two years (Acts 24:27; cf. 23:23-24, 33). It is possible that Paul wrote some letters at that time, but most scholars think that Ephesians (along with Colossians, Philemon, and probably Philippians) was written during Paul’s imprisonment at Rome (28:16, 30). This probably took place sometime between AD<\/span> 59 and 63 and lasted for two years. This period of time, following about 25 years of spiritual growth and 12 years or so of missionary experience, gave Paul a splendid opportunity for reflection and writing.<\/p>\nBackground<\/p>\nEphesus was the most important city in Asia Minor, located on the Cayster River, with a harbor on the Aegean Sea. With this location it became a center for commercial travel, and major trade routes led to it from several directions. A great pagan temple dedicated to the goddess Artemis (Diana) was located in Ephesus. Paul made the city a center of evangelistic and church-building ministry (Acts 19), spending three years there (20:31). It was natural, therefore, for a letter intended for a wide readership in that part of Asia Minor to have Ephesus as its main destination.<\/p>\nPaul’s first visit to Ephesus (on the seacoast of Lydia, near the river Cayster) is related in Acts 18:19-21. The work, begun by his disputations with the Jews in his short visit, was carried on by Apollos (vv 24-26) and Aquila and Priscilla (18:26). At his second visit, after his journey to Jerusalem, and thence to the east regions of Asia Minor, he remained at Ephesus “three years” (19:10—the “two years” in this verse are only part<\/em> of the time—and 20:31); therefore, the founding and rearing of this church occupied an unusually large portion of the apostle’s time and care. The language in the epistle shows a warmth of feeling and a free outpouring of thought, and a union in spiritual privileges and hope between him and them, such as are natural from one so long and so intimately associated with those whom he addresses. On his last journey to Jerusalem, he sailed by Ephesus and summoned the elders of the Ephesian church to meet him at Miletus, where he delivered his remarkable farewell charge (20:18-35).<\/p>\n\nPurpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\nIt may be said that the purpose of Ephesians is “doxological”; that is, it should cause the readers to glorify God, both in grateful praise and in manner of life. This is seen in the opening section, which is like a hymn in style: “Praise God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Eph 1:3; cf. the Doxology often sung in church). Paul says three times in the first chapter that the result of God’s blessings should be praise (vv 6, 12, 14).<\/p>\nWhile the letter contains much doctrinal and moral instruction (with the latter solidly based on the former), its purpose is not only teaching or exhortation, important as these are. It is rather to lift up its readers to a new vantage point that will help them to identify with the risen, ascended Christ and to share his perspective on the church and its role in the world.<\/p>\nIn this connection a significant term occurs in 1:3 and elsewhere. It is perhaps best translated “heavenly realms.” It is different in form from the usual word for “heaven” and seems to have a special significance in Ephesians as the realm of Jesus’ victorious reign in the present age. This is seen in 1:20, read in the context of verses 19-23. Whatever beings there may be, Christ is above them all. The believer, although obviously on earth physically, “sits with Christ” in the heavenly realms (2:6) and is “blessed” (1:3), drawing on the unlimited resources of heaven for his daily life. It is also in this realm that the spiritual conflict takes place (6:12).<\/p>\nPaul thus makes it clear that Christians are not to have a limited or merely earthly viewpoint. Those who do, mistakenly think that their enemies are people (6:12) and our resources human (2 Cor 10:3-4). With this orientation to the heavenly world of the Lord’s present exaltation, the reader is prepared to understand that the church does not function merely to carry out routine activities here, but that it displays the wisdom of God to beings who exist in the heavenly realms (Eph 3:10). Even the function of church leaders is discussed in terms of the gifts of the Christ who has ascended to the heavens (4:8-10).<\/p>\nThere is a strong sense of ultimate purpose in Ephesians. The first chapter contains a number of different expressions of purpose. The great goal of history is expressed in 1:10. The sense of purpose is never lost. The church is even seen, in chapter 3, as the expression of God’s eternal, secret plan. There is also a movement throughout the letter, from (1) reconciliation of individuals to God, to (2) their reconciliation to each other, to (3) their life together in the church. There is no arguing of points along the way, such as one finds in most of the letters, but rather a connected series of affirmations, each leading the reader on to the next.<\/p>\nPaul discusses a number of topics from this heavenly perspective and the sense of purpose this provides. These topics will be discussed below in such a way as to show their interconnection, rather than necessarily in the order of their importance or prominence in Ephesians.<\/p>\n<h5>The Church<\/h5>\nPaul employs a number of figures of speech to describe the church, including a household, a temple, and a body (1:22-23; 2:19-22). Actually, it may be insufficient to call the word “body” a figure of speech, because it seems to be more than that. There is a sense in which Christ and the church have an actual organic relationship, in which he functions as the head and believers as parts of his body.<\/p>\nThe church is the result of the reconciling work of Christ, whose death has made peace between mutually hostile Jews and Gentiles (2:11-18). The ensuing unity was long planned by God (3:2-6), and is furthered by a proper attitude and mutual ministry (ch 4).<\/p>\nAn especially remarkable feature of Ephesians is the parallel drawn between the relationship between a husband and wife and that between Christ and the church (5:22-33). In this comparison the prior reality is not marriage, with the relationship of Christ and the church only providing an illustration. Rather, the essential reality is Christ and the church.<\/p>\n<h5>The Headship of Christ<\/h5>\nNot only is Christ the head of the church, but he is head over all things to the church’s benefit (1:22). The meaning of 1:10 is that the presently disparate parts and beings of the universe will be brought into order under the headship of Christ. This universal headship is anticipated in the ascension and present exaltation of Christ. The expression of universal domination—“God has put all things under his feet” (1:22, from Ps 8:6)—fortifies this expectation.<\/p>\n<h5>The “Mystery” or “Secret Plan”<\/h5>\nThe Greek word “mystery” has a special meaning in early Jewish and Christian literature. It refers to the private eternal decisions of God concerning his saving work and his ultimate purposes in history, which are revealed stage by stage. The term is used in connection with the kingdom in the Gospels (Mt 13:11), with the preaching of the gospel in 1 Corinthians 1:18–2:16, with the destiny of Israel in Romans 11:25, and elsewhere with differing applications. Finally, Revelation 10:6-7 declares that there will be no more delay, but that God’s “mystery,” initially announced by the prophets, will reach its completion.<\/p>\nThe aspect of God’s plan that Paul presents in Ephesians 3:3-6 is not only the inclusion of Gentiles among God’s people but their complete integration with Jews in the church. The extent of this was not revealed prior to the time of Paul’s ministry.<\/p>\nContent<\/p>\n<h5>The Divine Purpose: The Glory and Headship of Christ (1:1-14)<\/h5>\nThis whole section constitutes a “doxology.” Paul reminds readers, by expressing his own prayer of praise, of all the blessings God has given believers. These include being chosen to live in God’s presence without guilt (v 4), being given the destiny of full sonship (v 5), and being forgiven because Christ died for them.<\/p>\nBut Paul is not only giving a recitation of what God has done; he interweaves a number of words and phrases indicating why<\/em> God has acted, that is, what God’s purposes<\/em> are. Various translations use different English words to represent Greek expressions of purpose, such as “chose,” “predestined,” “plan,” “will,” “secret reason,” “good pleasure,” “purpose” (vv 4-10). Perhaps the most comprehensive statement is in verses 11-12.<\/p>\nIt is clear from this that the ultimate purpose of God’s saving work is not merely the happiness of believers but the glory of God through the Lord Jesus Christ. The Spirit is given to guarantee not only the believer’s security but also God’s investment, so to speak, in the believer.<\/p>\n<h5>Prayer That Christians May Realize God’s Purpose and Power (1:15-23)<\/h5>\nPaul’s prayer issues from his opening section, constituting a request that believers may appropriate all that is contained in that statement. It is here that the fact of Jesus’ death, resurrection, and ascension is cited as the basis for the believer’s present vantage point and power.<\/p>\n<h5>Steps toward the Fulfillment of God’s Purpose (2:1–3:21)<\/h5>\nThe first step was the death of Christ in order to save individuals from sin and death (2:1-10). Since this was at God’s initiative, not man’s, and since man was spiritually “dead” and helpless, salvation can only be by grace.<\/p>\nThe second step was the reconciliation of people not only to God but to each other (2:11-18). Paul thus moves from the individual to the corporate aspect of salvation. This was particularly significant for Gentiles, who previously did not have even a formal relationship with God. One of the key words in this section is “peace” (vv 14-17).<\/p>\nStep three goes beyond reconciliation to the actual uniting of Jews and Gentiles in one “household” (2:19-22). God has not only brought people individually to himself, and to each other as individuals, but has formed a new corporate entity, a new society that is described both in political and family terms. Ultimately, believers together form a corporate body in whom God is exalted.<\/p>\nThis third step is amplified in a fourth step, the revelation of God’s eternal purpose in the formation of this one body, the church (3:1-13). Using the biblical concept of the “mystery,” Paul shows how the church displays the wisdom of God to all who may be looking on throughout the universe. This immediately gives the believer a new awareness of the reason for his salvation and participation in the church. Self-centeredness and boredom with the routine of church activity give way to a sense of meaning and purpose.<\/p>\nThese steps are now summarized in a second prayer (3:14-21). An exalted series of petitions culminate in another “doxology.” This expresses Paul’s awe over the infinite power of God to accomplish all that he has described in the epistle thus far, and his desire that this will indeed result in great glory to God both in the church and in Christ.<\/p>\n<h5>Practical Ways to Fulfill God’s Purpose in the Church (4:1–6:20)<\/h5>\nDoctrine and life are never separated in Paul’s thinking, but in Ephesians the connection is even more vital than usual. The believer’s life is to be lived in a manner worthy of the great purposes of God. The believer’s “calling” is not merely to be saved or eternally happy, but to participate with the entire body, the church, in bringing glory to God. This contributes to the realization of the prayer in 3:20-21.<\/p>\nThe first way to fulfill God’s purpose is to maintain the unity he established in the church. This is accomplished by recognizing the strong basis for unity (“one Lord, one faith,” etc., 4:5-6). Then believers must acknowledge diversity in that unity, remembering that God has given each one special abilities (vv 7-8). These abilities are to be used to bring the church both individually and corporately to maturity. This diversity in unity constitutes the second way in which God’s purpose is fulfilled. Christian maturity enables the individual members of the church to relate to each other in love (v 16).<\/p>\nThe third way to accomplish the purposes of God is by renewal of personal life (4:17–5:21). Paul emphasizes the kind of lifestyle that is expected of a Christian by contrasting the behavior patterns that had characterized the believers before their conversion. But the new life of the believer is not simply structured as a reaction against the old. Rather, the Lord has given both his teachings and the example of his own sacrificial love (4:20-21, 32; 5:1-2). The believer should cast off his old way of life, his old self or character. (The actual term is “old man” in Paul’s wording, not, as is often thought, “old nature.”) He should at the same time put on the “new man,” which, in Paul’s words in verse 24, is “created according to God” (niv<\/span> “created to be like God”). The section closes with the important exhortation to be filled with the Spirit (5:18).<\/p>\nThe expression of the new character in interpersonal relations is the fourth way in which believers can forward the purposes of God in the church. Unity is either achieved or broken in accordance with the presence or absence of the proper submission described in 5:22–6:9. The basic principle of submission is first expressed by verse 21 as a result of the Spirit’s full control.<\/p>\nMarriage then provides the first example of mutual submission. The wife submits to the husband, and this in turn is an expression of her submission, along with that of the whole church, to the Lord. The husband loves his wife as Christ loved the church. While the husband’s love is not described as submission, in effect, love does cost the lover his freedom. Jesus thus expressed his love for the church by his death (5:25). Further, husband and wife are bound together in a unity, just as God intended at the time of creation (Gn 2:24, quoted here in 5:31). This unity portrays that spiritual unity that exists between Christ and the church.<\/p>\nIt should be noted that this list of examples is similar to a pattern used elsewhere in the NT (e.g., Col 3:18–4:1; 1 Pt 3:1-7). Thus, following the example of marriage, Paul turns to the relationship that should exist between parent and child. The child obeys the father; the father refrains from excessive reactions (6:1-4). The last example is that of slaves and masters.<\/p>\n\nThe final way in which believers forward God’s great purposes is to carry on the spiritual conflict by depending on spiritual resources (Eph 6:10-20). Drawing on imagery both from the OT and from contemporary Roman warfare, Paul shows that the heavenly perspective is essential for victory. This includes dependence on God as expressed in prayer (vv 18-20). He acknowledges his own need in this respect.<\/p>\nThe conclusion to the letter (6:21-24) is a word of encouragement and an explanation of Paul’s decision to send the letter in the good hands of Tychicus. One of the concluding words is “grace,” a word that underlies the entire divine process described in Ephesians.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Colossians, Letter to the; Ephesus; Paul, The Apostle.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>EPHESIANS, Letter to the<\/h3>\nLetter to the Christians in Ephesus and the surrouding churches written with a magnificence that both instructs and inspires the reader. It provides a sweeping view of the role of the church as history moves toward the ultimate recognition of the universal headship of Christ.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Author<\/p>\n• Destination<\/p>\n• Date and Origin<\/p>\n• Background<\/p>\n• Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n• Content<\/p>\nAuthor<\/p>\nThe writer of the letter identifies himself as the apostle Paul (Eph 1:1; 3:1). He also describes his own ministry in terms that reflect what we know of Paul (3:7, 13; 4:1; 6:19-20). This claim is confirmed by the testimonies of Irenaeus, Origen, Polycarp, Tertullian, and Ignatius, who in his own espistle to the Ephesians alludes to the frequent and affectionate mention made by Paul of the Christian state, privileges, and persons of the Ephesians.<\/p>\nThere are some characteristics of the letter, however, that have caused many scholars to question its clear claim to Pauline authorship. Some of these characteristics would be a problem only if the letter were intended exclusively for people in Ephesus, but such was probably not the case. Otherwise, it would be hard to understand why, after establishing the church there over a three-year period, Paul would write as though author and recipients had only a secondhand knowledge of each other. It would also be strange that the warm personal words of greeting to various individuals that are found in other Pauline letters are missing here. There is instead only a general greeting to “the brothers” (6:23). But all this can be easily explained once it is understood that the epistle was an encyclical for several churches.<\/p>\nDestination<\/p>\nThis epistle was addressed, most probably, to several churches in the district around Ephesus—namely, Asia. The Epistle to the Ephesians, so-called, was not really intended to be only for the church at Ephesus. Most modern scholars are convinced that it was an encyclical that went to several churches in Asia, including Ephesus. There are several reasons to affirm this. First, the earliest manuscripts (the Chester Beatty Papyrus—P46, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus) do not contain the words “in Ephesus” in Ephesians 1:1. It appears that Paul purposely left the name of the locality out, so as to be filled in later as the letter circulated to each locality. (The Greek construction in 1:1 calls for a prepositional phrase designating a locality to be present in the sentence.) Since Ephesus was the leading city of Asia, it was quite natural for scribes to assign this epistle to the church at Ephesus. Second, the Epistle to the Ephesians has all the marks of being a general treatise rather than an epistle to a specific local church. Paul had lived with the believers at Ephesus for three years (Acts 20:31). He knew them intimately, yet in this epistle there are no personal greetings or specific exhortations. When we consider Paul’s manner in many of his other epistles, it would be quite unlike him to have excluded these personal expressions. Quite the contrary, Paul speaks to the saints whom he has only heard about and who have only heard about him (see Eph 1:15; 3:1). It is possible that this epistle was the one sent to Laodicea.<\/p>\n\nIn all fairness it must be said that the encyclical theory has been opposed by some scholars. For example, Henry Alford makes the following objections to this theory: (1) It is at variance with the spirit of the epistle, which is clearly addressed to one set of persons throughout, coexisting in one place and as one body and under the same circumstances. (2) It is improbable that the apostle, who in two of his epistles (2 Corinthians and Galatians) has so plainly specified their encyclical character, should have here omitted such specification. (3) The absence of personal greetings is not an argument for either of the two theories, for similarly there are none in Galatians, Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, and 1 Timothy. The better he knows the parties addressed, and the more general and solemn the subject, the less he seems to give of these individual notices.<\/p>\nDate and Origin<\/p>\nEphesians 3:1, 4:1, and 6:20 indicate that the letter was written while Paul was a prisoner. Since he was imprisoned several times, it is necessary to narrow the options. The first major imprisonment may have been at Ephesus itself, but this is obviously not in consideration. The second was at Caesarea for two years (Acts 24:27; cf. 23:23-24, 33). It is possible that Paul wrote some letters at that time, but most scholars think that Ephesians (along with Colossians, Philemon, and probably Philippians) was written during Paul’s imprisonment at Rome (28:16, 30). This probably took place sometime between AD<\/span> 59 and 63 and lasted for two years. This period of time, following about 25 years of spiritual growth and 12 years or so of missionary experience, gave Paul a splendid opportunity for reflection and writing.<\/p>\nBackground<\/p>\nEphesus was the most important city in Asia Minor, located on the Cayster River, with a harbor on the Aegean Sea. With this location it became a center for commercial travel, and major trade routes led to it from several directions. A great pagan temple dedicated to the goddess Artemis (Diana) was located in Ephesus. Paul made the city a center of evangelistic and church-building ministry (Acts 19), spending three years there (20:31). It was natural, therefore, for a letter intended for a wide readership in that part of Asia Minor to have Ephesus as its main destination.<\/p>\nPaul’s first visit to Ephesus (on the seacoast of Lydia, near the river Cayster) is related in Acts 18:19-21. The work, begun by his disputations with the Jews in his short visit, was carried on by Apollos (vv 24-26) and Aquila and Priscilla (18:26). At his second visit, after his journey to Jerusalem, and thence to the east regions of Asia Minor, he remained at Ephesus “three years” (19:10—the “two years” in this verse are only part<\/em> of the time—and 20:31); therefore, the founding and rearing of this church occupied an unusually large portion of the apostle’s time and care. The language in the epistle shows a warmth of feeling and a free outpouring of thought, and a union in spiritual privileges and hope between him and them, such as are natural from one so long and so intimately associated with those whom he addresses. On his last journey to Jerusalem, he sailed by Ephesus and summoned the elders of the Ephesian church to meet him at Miletus, where he delivered his remarkable farewell charge (20:18-35).<\/p>\n\nPurpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\nIt may be said that the purpose of Ephesians is “doxological”; that is, it should cause the readers to glorify God, both in grateful praise and in manner of life. This is seen in the opening section, which is like a hymn in style: “Praise God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Eph 1:3; cf. the Doxology often sung in church). Paul says three times in the first chapter that the result of God’s blessings should be praise (vv 6, 12, 14).<\/p>\nWhile the letter contains much doctrinal and moral instruction (with the latter solidly based on the former), its purpose is not only teaching or exhortation, important as these are. It is rather to lift up its readers to a new vantage point that will help them to identify with the risen, ascended Christ and to share his perspective on the church and its role in the world.<\/p>\nIn this connection a significant term occurs in 1:3 and elsewhere. It is perhaps best translated “heavenly realms.” It is different in form from the usual word for “heaven” and seems to have a special significance in Ephesians as the realm of Jesus’ victorious reign in the present age. This is seen in 1:20, read in the context of verses 19-23. Whatever beings there may be, Christ is above them all. The believer, although obviously on earth physically, “sits with Christ” in the heavenly realms (2:6) and is “blessed” (1:3), drawing on the unlimited resources of heaven for his daily life. It is also in this realm that the spiritual conflict takes place (6:12).<\/p>\nPaul thus makes it clear that Christians are not to have a limited or merely earthly viewpoint. Those who do, mistakenly think that their enemies are people (6:12) and our resources human (2 Cor 10:3-4). With this orientation to the heavenly world of the Lord’s present exaltation, the reader is prepared to understand that the church does not function merely to carry out routine activities here, but that it displays the wisdom of God to beings who exist in the heavenly realms (Eph 3:10). Even the function of church leaders is discussed in terms of the gifts of the Christ who has ascended to the heavens (4:8-10).<\/p>\nThere is a strong sense of ultimate purpose in Ephesians. The first chapter contains a number of different expressions of purpose. The great goal of history is expressed in 1:10. The sense of purpose is never lost. The church is even seen, in chapter 3, as the expression of God’s eternal, secret plan. There is also a movement throughout the letter, from (1) reconciliation of individuals to God, to (2) their reconciliation to each other, to (3) their life together in the church. There is no arguing of points along the way, such as one finds in most of the letters, but rather a connected series of affirmations, each leading the reader on to the next.<\/p>\nPaul discusses a number of topics from this heavenly perspective and the sense of purpose this provides. These topics will be discussed below in such a way as to show their interconnection, rather than necessarily in the order of their importance or prominence in Ephesians.<\/p>\n<h5>The Church<\/h5>\nPaul employs a number of figures of speech to describe the church, including a household, a temple, and a body (1:22-23; 2:19-22). Actually, it may be insufficient to call the word “body” a figure of speech, because it seems to be more than that. There is a sense in which Christ and the church have an actual organic relationship, in which he functions as the head and believers as parts of his body.<\/p>\nThe church is the result of the reconciling work of Christ, whose death has made peace between mutually hostile Jews and Gentiles (2:11-18). The ensuing unity was long planned by God (3:2-6), and is furthered by a proper attitude and mutual ministry (ch 4).<\/p>\nAn especially remarkable feature of Ephesians is the parallel drawn between the relationship between a husband and wife and that between Christ and the church (5:22-33). In this comparison the prior reality is not marriage, with the relationship of Christ and the church only providing an illustration. Rather, the essential reality is Christ and the church.<\/p>\n<h5>The Headship of Christ<\/h5>\nNot only is Christ the head of the church, but he is head over all things to the church’s benefit (1:22). The meaning of 1:10 is that the presently disparate parts and beings of the universe will be brought into order under the headship of Christ. This universal headship is anticipated in the ascension and present exaltation of Christ. The expression of universal domination—“God has put all things under his feet” (1:22, from Ps 8:6)—fortifies this expectation.<\/p>\n<h5>The “Mystery” or “Secret Plan”<\/h5>\nThe Greek word “mystery” has a special meaning in early Jewish and Christian literature. It refers to the private eternal decisions of God concerning his saving work and his ultimate purposes in history, which are revealed stage by stage. The term is used in connection with the kingdom in the Gospels (Mt 13:11), with the preaching of the gospel in 1 Corinthians 1:18–2:16, with the destiny of Israel in Romans 11:25, and elsewhere with differing applications. Finally, Revelation 10:6-7 declares that there will be no more delay, but that God’s “mystery,” initially announced by the prophets, will reach its completion.<\/p>\nThe aspect of God’s plan that Paul presents in Ephesians 3:3-6 is not only the inclusion of Gentiles among God’s people but their complete integration with Jews in the church. The extent of this was not revealed prior to the time of Paul’s ministry.<\/p>\nContent<\/p>\n<h5>The Divine Purpose: The Glory and Headship of Christ (1:1-14)<\/h5>\nThis whole section constitutes a “doxology.” Paul reminds readers, by expressing his own prayer of praise, of all the blessings God has given believers. These include being chosen to live in God’s presence without guilt (v 4), being given the destiny of full sonship (v 5), and being forgiven because Christ died for them.<\/p>\nBut Paul is not only giving a recitation of what God has done; he interweaves a number of words and phrases indicating why<\/em> God has acted, that is, what God’s purposes<\/em> are. Various translations use different English words to represent Greek expressions of purpose, such as “chose,” “predestined,” “plan,” “will,” “secret reason,” “good pleasure,” “purpose” (vv 4-10). Perhaps the most comprehensive statement is in verses 11-12.<\/p>\nIt is clear from this that the ultimate purpose of God’s saving work is not merely the happiness of believers but the glory of God through the Lord Jesus Christ. The Spirit is given to guarantee not only the believer’s security but also God’s investment, so to speak, in the believer.<\/p>\n<h5>Prayer That Christians May Realize God’s Purpose and Power (1:15-23)<\/h5>\nPaul’s prayer issues from his opening section, constituting a request that believers may appropriate all that is contained in that statement. It is here that the fact of Jesus’ death, resurrection, and ascension is cited as the basis for the believer’s present vantage point and power.<\/p>\n<h5>Steps toward the Fulfillment of God’s Purpose (2:1–3:21)<\/h5>\nThe first step was the death of Christ in order to save individuals from sin and death (2:1-10). Since this was at God’s initiative, not man’s, and since man was spiritually “dead” and helpless, salvation can only be by grace.<\/p>\nThe second step was the reconciliation of people not only to God but to each other (2:11-18). Paul thus moves from the individual to the corporate aspect of salvation. This was particularly significant for Gentiles, who previously did not have even a formal relationship with God. One of the key words in this section is “peace” (vv 14-17).<\/p>\nStep three goes beyond reconciliation to the actual uniting of Jews and Gentiles in one “household” (2:19-22). God has not only brought people individually to himself, and to each other as individuals, but has formed a new corporate entity, a new society that is described both in political and family terms. Ultimately, believers together form a corporate body in whom God is exalted.<\/p>\nThis third step is amplified in a fourth step, the revelation of God’s eternal purpose in the formation of this one body, the church (3:1-13). Using the biblical concept of the “mystery,” Paul shows how the church displays the wisdom of God to all who may be looking on throughout the universe. This immediately gives the believer a new awareness of the reason for his salvation and participation in the church. Self-centeredness and boredom with the routine of church activity give way to a sense of meaning and purpose.<\/p>\nThese steps are now summarized in a second prayer (3:14-21). An exalted series of petitions culminate in another “doxology.” This expresses Paul’s awe over the infinite power of God to accomplish all that he has described in the epistle thus far, and his desire that this will indeed result in great glory to God both in the church and in Christ.<\/p>\n<h5>Practical Ways to Fulfill God’s Purpose in the Church (4:1–6:20)<\/h5>\nDoctrine and life are never separated in Paul’s thinking, but in Ephesians the connection is even more vital than usual. The believer’s life is to be lived in a manner worthy of the great purposes of God. The believer’s “calling” is not merely to be saved or eternally happy, but to participate with the entire body, the church, in bringing glory to God. This contributes to the realization of the prayer in 3:20-21.<\/p>\nThe first way to fulfill God’s purpose is to maintain the unity he established in the church. This is accomplished by recognizing the strong basis for unity (“one Lord, one faith,” etc., 4:5-6). Then believers must acknowledge diversity in that unity, remembering that God has given each one special abilities (vv 7-8). These abilities are to be used to bring the church both individually and corporately to maturity. This diversity in unity constitutes the second way in which God’s purpose is fulfilled. Christian maturity enables the individual members of the church to relate to each other in love (v 16).<\/p>\nThe third way to accomplish the purposes of God is by renewal of personal life (4:17–5:21). Paul emphasizes the kind of lifestyle that is expected of a Christian by contrasting the behavior patterns that had characterized the believers before their conversion. But the new life of the believer is not simply structured as a reaction against the old. Rather, the Lord has given both his teachings and the example of his own sacrificial love (4:20-21, 32; 5:1-2). The believer should cast off his old way of life, his old self or character. (The actual term is “old man” in Paul’s wording, not, as is often thought, “old nature.”) He should at the same time put on the “new man,” which, in Paul’s words in verse 24, is “created according to God” (niv<\/span> “created to be like God”). The section closes with the important exhortation to be filled with the Spirit (5:18).<\/p>\nThe expression of the new character in interpersonal relations is the fourth way in which believers can forward the purposes of God in the church. Unity is either achieved or broken in accordance with the presence or absence of the proper submission described in 5:22–6:9. The basic principle of submission is first expressed by verse 21 as a result of the Spirit’s full control.<\/p>\nMarriage then provides the first example of mutual submission. The wife submits to the husband, and this in turn is an expression of her submission, along with that of the whole church, to the Lord. The husband loves his wife as Christ loved the church. While the husband’s love is not described as submission, in effect, love does cost the lover his freedom. Jesus thus expressed his love for the church by his death (5:25). Further, husband and wife are bound together in a unity, just as God intended at the time of creation (Gn 2:24, quoted here in 5:31). This unity portrays that spiritual unity that exists between Christ and the church.<\/p>\nIt should be noted that this list of examples is similar to a pattern used elsewhere in the NT (e.g., Col 3:18–4:1; 1 Pt 3:1-7). Thus, following the example of marriage, Paul turns to the relationship that should exist between parent and child. The child obeys the father; the father refrains from excessive reactions (6:1-4). The last example is that of slaves and masters.<\/p>\n\nThe final way in which believers forward God’s great purposes is to carry on the spiritual conflict by depending on spiritual resources (Eph 6:10-20). Drawing on imagery both from the OT and from contemporary Roman warfare, Paul shows that the heavenly perspective is essential for victory. This includes dependence on God as expressed in prayer (vv 18-20). He acknowledges his own need in this respect.<\/p>\nThe conclusion to the letter (6:21-24) is a word of encouragement and an explanation of Paul’s decision to send the letter in the good hands of Tychicus. One of the concluding words is “grace,” a word that underlies the entire divine process described in Ephesians.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Colossians, Letter to the; Ephesus; Paul, The Apostle.<\/p>","summary_ro":"EPHESIANS, Letter to the Letter to the Christians in Ephesus and the surrouding churches written with a magnificence that both instructs and inspires the reader. It provides a sweeping view of the role of the church as history moves toward the ultimate recognition of the universal headship of Christ. Preview • Author • Destination • Date and Origin • Background • Purpose and Theological Teaching • Content Author The writer of the letter identifies himself as the apostle Paul (Eph 1:1; 3:1). H...","summary_en":"EPHESIANS, Letter to the Letter to the Christians in Ephesus and the surrouding churches written with a magnificence that both instructs and inspires the reader. It provides a sweeping view of the role of the church as history moves toward the ultimate recognition of the universal headship of Christ. Preview • Author • Destination • Date and Origin • Background • Purpose and Theological Teaching • Content Author The writer of the letter identifies himself as the apostle Paul (Eph 1:1; 3:1). H...","source":"Articles\/E.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":12384,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Flesh","title_en":"Flesh","content_ro":"<h3>FLESH<\/h3>\nThe body; the physical being of humans; the human person and human existence; the carnal nature of humans.<\/p>\nIn the Old Testament<\/p>\nTerm commonly used to designate the material stuff of the body, whether of people (Gn 40:19) or of animals (Lv 6:27). However, “flesh” is used in the OT with a variety of meanings. Sometimes it is used as equivalent for the whole body (Prv 14:30), and the meaning is extended to designate the whole person (“my flesh also shall rest in hope,” Ps 16:9, kjv<\/span>). This idea leads to the union of two different persons, man and wife as “one flesh” (Gn 2:24), and a man can say of his relatives, “I am your bone and your flesh” (Jgs 9:2). The idea of flesh as the whole person leads to the expression “all flesh,” denoting the totality of humankind, sometimes including also the animal world.<\/p>\nPerhaps the most distinctive use of “flesh” in the OT is found in those passages where it designates human weakness and frailty over against God. “My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for he is flesh” (Gn 6:3, rsv<\/span>). In Psalm 78:39, God attributes sin to the fact that men are but flesh. In 2 Chronicles 32:8 the arm of flesh of the king of Assyria (i.e., his weakness) is contrasted with the all-powerful God. The one who puts trust in God need not fear what “flesh” can do (Ps 56:4), but the one who puts trust in human flesh instead of in God is under a curse (Jer 17:5). In Isaiah 31:3 flesh is contrasted with spirit, as weakness is with strength.<\/p>\nHowever, nowhere in the OT is flesh viewed as sinful. Flesh is conceived as being created by God of the dust of the earth (Gn 2:7), and as God’s creation, it is good.<\/p>\nIn the New Testament<\/p>\nPaul ascribes many—often unique—definitions to the word “flesh” (Greek sarx<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h5>Flesh as the Stuff of the Body<\/h5>\n“Flesh” is frequently used to describe the tissues that constitute the body. There are different kinds of flesh—“of men,” “of animals,” “of birds,” “of fish” (1 Cor 15:39). Pain and suffering may be experienced in the flesh (2 Cor 12:7). Circumcision is done in the flesh (Rom 2:28). While “flesh” in such references is not sinful, it is corruptible and cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor 15:50). Jesus’ body was also a body of flesh (Col 1:22).<\/p>\n<h5>Flesh as the Body Itself<\/h5>\nBy a natural transition, the part is used for the whole, and in many places “flesh” is synonymous with the body as a whole rather than designating the fleshy part of the body. Paul may thus speak either of being absent in the body (1 Cor 5:3) or in the flesh (Col 2:5). Paul can say that the life of Jesus may be manifested in our body or in our mortal flesh (2 Cor 4:10-11). “He who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her. For, as it is written, ‘The two shall become one flesh’ ” (1 Cor 6:16, rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h5>Flesh as Person with Reference to Origin<\/h5>\nFollowing OT usage, “flesh” was used by Paul to refer not merely to the stuff of the body or to the body itself, but concretely to the person as constituted by flesh. In this usage the word may refer to the person’s human relationship, the physical origin and the natural ties that bind one to other humans. Paul speaks of his kinsmen “according to the flesh,” his fellow Jews (Rom 9:3, kjv<\/span>), and even uses “my flesh” (11:14, kjv<\/span>) as a synonym for these kinsmen. The “children of the flesh” (9:8) are those born by natural generation in contrast to those born as a result of divine intervention. Christ was descended from David according to the flesh (1:3). The phrase does not designate the source merely of his bodily life but of his entire human existence, including both his body and his human spirit.<\/p>\n<h5>Flesh as Human Existence<\/h5>\nAnother use of “flesh” simply designates human existence. As long as a person lives in the body, that one is “in the flesh.” Thus, Paul can speak of the life that he lives “in the flesh” as lived by faith in the Son of God (Gal 2:20, rsv<\/span>). Referring to Jesus’ earthly ministry, Paul says that he abolished “in the flesh” the enmity between Jew and Gentile (Eph 2:15). Peter has the same meaning when he speaks of Jesus having been put to death “in the flesh” (1 Pt 3:18). So also John: “Jesus Christ is come in the flesh” (1 Jn 4:2). This usage is reflected most notably in the Johannine saying “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (Jn 1:14).<\/p>\n<h5>Flesh as Human Existence in Terms of Outward Presentation<\/h5>\n“Flesh” also extends beyond humans in their bodily life to include other factors crucial to human existence. Thus, “confidence in the flesh” (Phil 3:3, rsv<\/span>) does not mean confidence in the body but confidence in the whole complex of the outward realm of human existence. It includes Paul’s Jewish ancestry, his strict religious training, his zeal, and his prominence in Jewish religious circles. The phrase to “glory after the flesh” (2 Cor 11:18, kjv<\/span>) is rendered “boast about their human achievements” in the nlt<\/span>. A good showing “in the flesh” is practically synonymous with worldly prominence (Gal 6:11-14). The Judaizers insisted upon circumcision to promote a sense of prideful attainment in the religious life so that they might have a ground of glorying. But these external distinctions and grounds for glorying no longer appealed to Paul, because the world had been crucified to him and he to the world.<\/p>\n“Flesh” is also used of outward relationships, as when describing the social ties existing between slave and master (Eph 6:5; Col 3:22; Phlm 1:16). “In the flesh” also describes the realm of marital relationships, which entails certain troublesome problems (1 Cor 7:28).<\/p>\nThis usage illuminates an otherwise difficult saying, “Henceforth know we no man after the flesh; yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more” (2 Cor 5:16, kjv<\/span>). The rsv<\/span> correctly renders the phrase “from a human point of view.” The verse does not mean that Paul had heard and seen Jesus in Jerusalem at some previous time and had gained some acquaintance with Christ “after the flesh.” “After the flesh” modifies the verb “to know,” not the noun “Christ.” Before his conversion, Paul knew all people “after the flesh”; that is, he judged them by worldly, human standards. To know Christ “after the flesh” means to look at him through merely human eyes. As a Jew, Paul had felt that Jesus was a deluded messianic pretender. According to the Jewish understanding, the Messiah was to reign over the earth as a Davidic king, save his people Israel, and punish the hated Gentiles. But Paul surrendered this false human view and came to know Christ as he really is—the incarnate Son of God, the Savior of all who believe. As a Christian, Paul no longer judged others according to the flesh.<\/p>\n<h5>Flesh as Fallen Humanity<\/h5>\nWhen Paul says that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor 15:50, rsv<\/span>), he does not mean that humans cannot inherit the kingdom of God but rather that human fallenness cannot; as the next clause shows, “neither does corruption inherit incorruption.” The weak, fallen, corruptible body cannot inherit the kingdom of God; there must be a change; the “corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality” (1 Cor 15:53, kjv<\/span>). This is not the salvation of the soul or spirit but the exchange of one kind of body for another that is suited to the final glorious kingdom of God.<\/p>\nWhen Peter confessed the messiahship of Jesus, Jesus replied, “Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven” (Mt 16:17, rsv<\/span>). The meaning of this verse is obvious. This knowledge of Jesus’ messiahship was not a human deduction; it could be achieved only by divine revelation.<\/p>\n<h5>Flesh as Sinful Humanity<\/h5>\nThere remains a group of ethical references that are distinctly Pauline. The most important feature of this usage is that man is seen not only as fallen and weak before God, but as fallen and sinful. Flesh is contrasted with human spirit regenerated by the divine Spirit, and without the aid of the Spirit, one cannot please God. The most vivid passage is the first part of Romans 8, where Paul sharply contrasts those who are “in the flesh” with those who are “in the Spirit.” To be “in the Spirit” in this sense does not mean to be in a state of ecstasy but to be living one’s life in that spiritual realm that is controlled by the Spirit of God. Those who are “in the flesh,” that is, unregenerate, cannot please God. There are two contrasting and mutually exclusive realms: “in the flesh” and “in the Spirit.” To be “in the Spirit” means to be indwelt by God’s Holy Spirit, that is, to be a regenerate person.<\/p>\nIn Romans 7–8 Paul makes it clear that the unregenerate person cannot please God by loving and serving him as God requires. Thus, the Law was unable to make mankind truly righteous, because the flesh is weak (8:2). To live after the flesh is death; to live after the Spirit is life (8:6). Elsewhere Paul says, “For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing” (7:18, kjv<\/span>). Flesh here cannot be the physical flesh, for the body of flesh is the temple of the Spirit (1 Cor 6:19) and a member of Christ (6:15) and is to be the means of glorifying God (6:20). Paul, therefore, means that in his unregenerate nature there dwells none of the goodness that God demands.<\/p>\nWhile Paul makes a sharp and absolute contrast between being “in the flesh” (unregenerate) and “in the Spirit” (regenerate), when one becomes regenerate and comes to be “in the Spirit,” that person is no longer in the flesh, but the flesh is still in him. In fact, there remains in the believer a struggle between the flesh and the Spirit. Writing to people who are “in the Spirit,” Paul says, “For the flesh lusteth [strives] against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would” (Gal 5:17, kjv<\/span>). Because the Christian life is the battleground of these two opposing principles, it is impossible to be the perfect person that one would wish to be.<\/p>\nThe same situation is reflected in 1 Corinthians 2:14–3:3 where Paul describes three classes of people: the “natural” (2:14, kjv<\/span>); the “carnal,” that is, fleshly man (3:1, 3, kjv<\/span>); and the “spiritual man” (3:1, kjv<\/span>). The “natural man” is unregenerate. Those who are “in the flesh” (Rom 8:9) have devoted the whole of their life to the human level and hence are unable to know the things of God. “Spiritual man” refers to those whose life is ruled by the Spirit of God, so that the fruits of the Spirit (Gal 5:22-23) are evident in their life. Between these two there is a third class—those who are “fleshly” yet who are babes in Christ. Therefore, they must be “in the Spirit,” yet they do not walk “according to the Spirit.” Because they are “babes in Christ,” the Spirit of God dwells in them, yet the Holy Spirit is not allowed to have full control over them, and they are still walking “like men” (1 Cor 3:3), manifesting the works of the flesh in jealousy and strife.<\/p>\n<h5>Works of the Flesh<\/h5>\nIn Galatians 5:19-23 Paul contrasts the life in the flesh and the life in the Spirit: “Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like” (Gal 5:19-21, kjv<\/span>). The important thing to note about this list is that while some of these are sins of bodily and sexual appetite, others are religious sins—idolatry, witchcraft—and several are sins “of the spirit,” that is, of the disposition—hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife. The words “seditions” and “heresies” refer not to theological heresies but to a factious, divisive spirit. This proves conclusively that for Paul the “flesh” is not synonymous with the body but includes the whole person, with all the inner attitudes and disposition.<\/p>\n<h5>Victory over the Flesh<\/h5>\nWhile a struggle remains in the Christian between the Spirit and the flesh, Paul knows of a way of victory for the Spirit. The flesh of the body comes within the sphere of sanctification (1 Thes 5:23), but the flesh as the unregenerate human nature can only be put to death.<\/p>\nThis is called the tension between the objective and the subjective. Because certain things have happened in Christ (objective), certain inevitable results should accrue (subjective). In Paul’s view, the flesh has already been put to death in the death of Christ. Those who belong to Christ have already crucified the flesh with its passions and desires (Gal 5:24). Paul elsewhere says, “I have been crucified with Christ” (2:20) and “our old self was crucified with him” (Rom 6:6). Such references make it clear that “flesh” and the “self” are in some ways to be identified. This identity is further supported in the teaching about crucifixion, for Paul means the same thing by the crucifixion of the flesh that he means when he says, “How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? We were baptized into his death. We are buried with him by baptism into death” (vv 1-4). It is I myself who have died with Christ.<\/p>\nThis crucifixion and death of the flesh does not, however, work automatically. It is an event that must be appropriated by faith. This involves two aspects. First, believers are to recognize that the flesh has been crucified with Christ. “Reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom 6:11, kjv<\/span>). One cannot consider the self dead with Christ to sin unless that person has actually died and been crucified with Christ, but because this has already happened at the moment of saving faith, it can be put into daily practice. Those who have died with Christ are to “mortify [put to death] the deeds of the body” (8:13, kjv<\/span>). “Body” is here used as a vehicle for the works of the “flesh”—the sensual life of the unregenerate nature. Those who have been brought from death into life are to yield their members to God as instruments of righteousness (6:13). One who has died with Christ is to “mortify” (kjv<\/span>), that is, put to death what is earthly—fornication, uncleanness, covetousness (Col 3:5). Having already put off the old nature and put on the new, the believer is to put on compassion, kindness, lowliness and the like.<\/p>\nVictory over the flesh is sometimes described as walking in the Spirit. “Walk by the Spirit, and do not gratify the desires of the flesh” (Gal 5:16, rsv<\/span>; cf. Rom 8:4). Walking in the Spirit means to live each moment under the control of the Holy Spirit.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Body; Sin.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>FLESH<\/h3>\nThe body; the physical being of humans; the human person and human existence; the carnal nature of humans.<\/p>\nIn the Old Testament<\/p>\nTerm commonly used to designate the material stuff of the body, whether of people (Gn 40:19) or of animals (Lv 6:27). However, “flesh” is used in the OT with a variety of meanings. Sometimes it is used as equivalent for the whole body (Prv 14:30), and the meaning is extended to designate the whole person (“my flesh also shall rest in hope,” Ps 16:9, kjv<\/span>). This idea leads to the union of two different persons, man and wife as “one flesh” (Gn 2:24), and a man can say of his relatives, “I am your bone and your flesh” (Jgs 9:2). The idea of flesh as the whole person leads to the expression “all flesh,” denoting the totality of humankind, sometimes including also the animal world.<\/p>\nPerhaps the most distinctive use of “flesh” in the OT is found in those passages where it designates human weakness and frailty over against God. “My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for he is flesh” (Gn 6:3, rsv<\/span>). In Psalm 78:39, God attributes sin to the fact that men are but flesh. In 2 Chronicles 32:8 the arm of flesh of the king of Assyria (i.e., his weakness) is contrasted with the all-powerful God. The one who puts trust in God need not fear what “flesh” can do (Ps 56:4), but the one who puts trust in human flesh instead of in God is under a curse (Jer 17:5). In Isaiah 31:3 flesh is contrasted with spirit, as weakness is with strength.<\/p>\nHowever, nowhere in the OT is flesh viewed as sinful. Flesh is conceived as being created by God of the dust of the earth (Gn 2:7), and as God’s creation, it is good.<\/p>\nIn the New Testament<\/p>\nPaul ascribes many—often unique—definitions to the word “flesh” (Greek sarx<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h5>Flesh as the Stuff of the Body<\/h5>\n“Flesh” is frequently used to describe the tissues that constitute the body. There are different kinds of flesh—“of men,” “of animals,” “of birds,” “of fish” (1 Cor 15:39). Pain and suffering may be experienced in the flesh (2 Cor 12:7). Circumcision is done in the flesh (Rom 2:28). While “flesh” in such references is not sinful, it is corruptible and cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor 15:50). Jesus’ body was also a body of flesh (Col 1:22).<\/p>\n<h5>Flesh as the Body Itself<\/h5>\nBy a natural transition, the part is used for the whole, and in many places “flesh” is synonymous with the body as a whole rather than designating the fleshy part of the body. Paul may thus speak either of being absent in the body (1 Cor 5:3) or in the flesh (Col 2:5). Paul can say that the life of Jesus may be manifested in our body or in our mortal flesh (2 Cor 4:10-11). “He who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her. For, as it is written, ‘The two shall become one flesh’ ” (1 Cor 6:16, rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h5>Flesh as Person with Reference to Origin<\/h5>\nFollowing OT usage, “flesh” was used by Paul to refer not merely to the stuff of the body or to the body itself, but concretely to the person as constituted by flesh. In this usage the word may refer to the person’s human relationship, the physical origin and the natural ties that bind one to other humans. Paul speaks of his kinsmen “according to the flesh,” his fellow Jews (Rom 9:3, kjv<\/span>), and even uses “my flesh” (11:14, kjv<\/span>) as a synonym for these kinsmen. The “children of the flesh” (9:8) are those born by natural generation in contrast to those born as a result of divine intervention. Christ was descended from David according to the flesh (1:3). The phrase does not designate the source merely of his bodily life but of his entire human existence, including both his body and his human spirit.<\/p>\n<h5>Flesh as Human Existence<\/h5>\nAnother use of “flesh” simply designates human existence. As long as a person lives in the body, that one is “in the flesh.” Thus, Paul can speak of the life that he lives “in the flesh” as lived by faith in the Son of God (Gal 2:20, rsv<\/span>). Referring to Jesus’ earthly ministry, Paul says that he abolished “in the flesh” the enmity between Jew and Gentile (Eph 2:15). Peter has the same meaning when he speaks of Jesus having been put to death “in the flesh” (1 Pt 3:18). So also John: “Jesus Christ is come in the flesh” (1 Jn 4:2). This usage is reflected most notably in the Johannine saying “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (Jn 1:14).<\/p>\n<h5>Flesh as Human Existence in Terms of Outward Presentation<\/h5>\n“Flesh” also extends beyond humans in their bodily life to include other factors crucial to human existence. Thus, “confidence in the flesh” (Phil 3:3, rsv<\/span>) does not mean confidence in the body but confidence in the whole complex of the outward realm of human existence. It includes Paul’s Jewish ancestry, his strict religious training, his zeal, and his prominence in Jewish religious circles. The phrase to “glory after the flesh” (2 Cor 11:18, kjv<\/span>) is rendered “boast about their human achievements” in the nlt<\/span>. A good showing “in the flesh” is practically synonymous with worldly prominence (Gal 6:11-14). The Judaizers insisted upon circumcision to promote a sense of prideful attainment in the religious life so that they might have a ground of glorying. But these external distinctions and grounds for glorying no longer appealed to Paul, because the world had been crucified to him and he to the world.<\/p>\n“Flesh” is also used of outward relationships, as when describing the social ties existing between slave and master (Eph 6:5; Col 3:22; Phlm 1:16). “In the flesh” also describes the realm of marital relationships, which entails certain troublesome problems (1 Cor 7:28).<\/p>\nThis usage illuminates an otherwise difficult saying, “Henceforth know we no man after the flesh; yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more” (2 Cor 5:16, kjv<\/span>). The rsv<\/span> correctly renders the phrase “from a human point of view.” The verse does not mean that Paul had heard and seen Jesus in Jerusalem at some previous time and had gained some acquaintance with Christ “after the flesh.” “After the flesh” modifies the verb “to know,” not the noun “Christ.” Before his conversion, Paul knew all people “after the flesh”; that is, he judged them by worldly, human standards. To know Christ “after the flesh” means to look at him through merely human eyes. As a Jew, Paul had felt that Jesus was a deluded messianic pretender. According to the Jewish understanding, the Messiah was to reign over the earth as a Davidic king, save his people Israel, and punish the hated Gentiles. But Paul surrendered this false human view and came to know Christ as he really is—the incarnate Son of God, the Savior of all who believe. As a Christian, Paul no longer judged others according to the flesh.<\/p>\n<h5>Flesh as Fallen Humanity<\/h5>\nWhen Paul says that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor 15:50, rsv<\/span>), he does not mean that humans cannot inherit the kingdom of God but rather that human fallenness cannot; as the next clause shows, “neither does corruption inherit incorruption.” The weak, fallen, corruptible body cannot inherit the kingdom of God; there must be a change; the “corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality” (1 Cor 15:53, kjv<\/span>). This is not the salvation of the soul or spirit but the exchange of one kind of body for another that is suited to the final glorious kingdom of God.<\/p>\nWhen Peter confessed the messiahship of Jesus, Jesus replied, “Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven” (Mt 16:17, rsv<\/span>). The meaning of this verse is obvious. This knowledge of Jesus’ messiahship was not a human deduction; it could be achieved only by divine revelation.<\/p>\n<h5>Flesh as Sinful Humanity<\/h5>\nThere remains a group of ethical references that are distinctly Pauline. The most important feature of this usage is that man is seen not only as fallen and weak before God, but as fallen and sinful. Flesh is contrasted with human spirit regenerated by the divine Spirit, and without the aid of the Spirit, one cannot please God. The most vivid passage is the first part of Romans 8, where Paul sharply contrasts those who are “in the flesh” with those who are “in the Spirit.” To be “in the Spirit” in this sense does not mean to be in a state of ecstasy but to be living one’s life in that spiritual realm that is controlled by the Spirit of God. Those who are “in the flesh,” that is, unregenerate, cannot please God. There are two contrasting and mutually exclusive realms: “in the flesh” and “in the Spirit.” To be “in the Spirit” means to be indwelt by God’s Holy Spirit, that is, to be a regenerate person.<\/p>\nIn Romans 7–8 Paul makes it clear that the unregenerate person cannot please God by loving and serving him as God requires. Thus, the Law was unable to make mankind truly righteous, because the flesh is weak (8:2). To live after the flesh is death; to live after the Spirit is life (8:6). Elsewhere Paul says, “For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing” (7:18, kjv<\/span>). Flesh here cannot be the physical flesh, for the body of flesh is the temple of the Spirit (1 Cor 6:19) and a member of Christ (6:15) and is to be the means of glorifying God (6:20). Paul, therefore, means that in his unregenerate nature there dwells none of the goodness that God demands.<\/p>\nWhile Paul makes a sharp and absolute contrast between being “in the flesh” (unregenerate) and “in the Spirit” (regenerate), when one becomes regenerate and comes to be “in the Spirit,” that person is no longer in the flesh, but the flesh is still in him. In fact, there remains in the believer a struggle between the flesh and the Spirit. Writing to people who are “in the Spirit,” Paul says, “For the flesh lusteth [strives] against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would” (Gal 5:17, kjv<\/span>). Because the Christian life is the battleground of these two opposing principles, it is impossible to be the perfect person that one would wish to be.<\/p>\nThe same situation is reflected in 1 Corinthians 2:14–3:3 where Paul describes three classes of people: the “natural” (2:14, kjv<\/span>); the “carnal,” that is, fleshly man (3:1, 3, kjv<\/span>); and the “spiritual man” (3:1, kjv<\/span>). The “natural man” is unregenerate. Those who are “in the flesh” (Rom 8:9) have devoted the whole of their life to the human level and hence are unable to know the things of God. “Spiritual man” refers to those whose life is ruled by the Spirit of God, so that the fruits of the Spirit (Gal 5:22-23) are evident in their life. Between these two there is a third class—those who are “fleshly” yet who are babes in Christ. Therefore, they must be “in the Spirit,” yet they do not walk “according to the Spirit.” Because they are “babes in Christ,” the Spirit of God dwells in them, yet the Holy Spirit is not allowed to have full control over them, and they are still walking “like men” (1 Cor 3:3), manifesting the works of the flesh in jealousy and strife.<\/p>\n<h5>Works of the Flesh<\/h5>\nIn Galatians 5:19-23 Paul contrasts the life in the flesh and the life in the Spirit: “Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like” (Gal 5:19-21, kjv<\/span>). The important thing to note about this list is that while some of these are sins of bodily and sexual appetite, others are religious sins—idolatry, witchcraft—and several are sins “of the spirit,” that is, of the disposition—hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife. The words “seditions” and “heresies” refer not to theological heresies but to a factious, divisive spirit. This proves conclusively that for Paul the “flesh” is not synonymous with the body but includes the whole person, with all the inner attitudes and disposition.<\/p>\n<h5>Victory over the Flesh<\/h5>\nWhile a struggle remains in the Christian between the Spirit and the flesh, Paul knows of a way of victory for the Spirit. The flesh of the body comes within the sphere of sanctification (1 Thes 5:23), but the flesh as the unregenerate human nature can only be put to death.<\/p>\nThis is called the tension between the objective and the subjective. Because certain things have happened in Christ (objective), certain inevitable results should accrue (subjective). In Paul’s view, the flesh has already been put to death in the death of Christ. Those who belong to Christ have already crucified the flesh with its passions and desires (Gal 5:24). Paul elsewhere says, “I have been crucified with Christ” (2:20) and “our old self was crucified with him” (Rom 6:6). Such references make it clear that “flesh” and the “self” are in some ways to be identified. This identity is further supported in the teaching about crucifixion, for Paul means the same thing by the crucifixion of the flesh that he means when he says, “How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? We were baptized into his death. We are buried with him by baptism into death” (vv 1-4). It is I myself who have died with Christ.<\/p>\nThis crucifixion and death of the flesh does not, however, work automatically. It is an event that must be appropriated by faith. This involves two aspects. First, believers are to recognize that the flesh has been crucified with Christ. “Reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom 6:11, kjv<\/span>). One cannot consider the self dead with Christ to sin unless that person has actually died and been crucified with Christ, but because this has already happened at the moment of saving faith, it can be put into daily practice. Those who have died with Christ are to “mortify [put to death] the deeds of the body” (8:13, kjv<\/span>). “Body” is here used as a vehicle for the works of the “flesh”—the sensual life of the unregenerate nature. Those who have been brought from death into life are to yield their members to God as instruments of righteousness (6:13). One who has died with Christ is to “mortify” (kjv<\/span>), that is, put to death what is earthly—fornication, uncleanness, covetousness (Col 3:5). Having already put off the old nature and put on the new, the believer is to put on compassion, kindness, lowliness and the like.<\/p>\nVictory over the flesh is sometimes described as walking in the Spirit. “Walk by the Spirit, and do not gratify the desires of the flesh” (Gal 5:16, rsv<\/span>; cf. Rom 8:4). Walking in the Spirit means to live each moment under the control of the Holy Spirit.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Body; Sin.<\/p>","summary_ro":"FLESH The body; the physical being of humans; the human person and human existence; the carnal nature of humans. In the Old Testament Term commonly used to designate the material stuff of the body, whether of people (Gn 40:19) or of animals (Lv 6:27). However, “flesh” is used in the OT with a variety of meanings. Sometimes it is used as equivalent for the whole body (Prv 14:30), and the meaning is extended to designate the whole person (“my flesh also shall rest in hope,” Ps 16:9, kjv). This ...","summary_en":"FLESH The body; the physical being of humans; the human person and human existence; the carnal nature of humans. In the Old Testament Term commonly used to designate the material stuff of the body, whether of people (Gn 40:19) or of animals (Lv 6:27). However, “flesh” is used in the OT with a variety of meanings. Sometimes it is used as equivalent for the whole body (Prv 14:30), and the meaning is extended to designate the whole person (“my flesh also shall rest in hope,” Ps 16:9, kjv). This ...","source":"Articles\/F.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":24453,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Marriage Customs Marriage","title_en":"Marriage Customs Marriage","content_ro":"<h3>MARRIAGE, MARRIAGE CUSTOMS<\/h3>\nThe joining together of male and female in matrimony, as practiced by various cultures.<\/p>\nThe idea of marriage was ordained by God in his instruction to Adam that a man should leave his father and mother, and that he and his wife should be as one flesh (Gn 2:24).<\/p>\nSeveral forms of marriage are referred to in the OT, the earliest of which seems to be based on a matrilineal principle. Although there appears to be some evidence for this in the middle Bronze Age and in the early monarchy, it is difficult to be certain about the matter, despite the importance in Egypt, and perhaps elsewhere, of the role of the mother in determining descent.<\/p>\nGenerally, the bride left her parents when she married and went to live with her husband’s clan, as Rebekah did (Gn 24:58-59). The phrase “to marry a wife” is from a root meaning to “become master” (Dt 21:13), and the wife frequently treated her husband as, and referred to him as, master.<\/p>\nHebrew genealogical lists indicate that descent was reckoned through the male line (Gn 5:10; 36:9-43; Nm 1:1-15; Ru 4:18-22; 1 Chr 1:1-9). The important right of naming a child, indicating power and authority over that child, was exercised almost equally between father and mother in biblical references (cf. Gn 4:1, 25-26; 5:29; 35:18; 1 Sm 1:20; 4:21; Is 8:3; Hos 1:4-9). Sons were frequently named after their fathers and were identified with them.<\/p>\nThe father was the authority figure in the home in a patriarchal society. His wife and children were regarded as his possessions in somewhat the same way as his fields and livestock (Ex 20:17; Dt 5:21). He had the right to sell his daughters (Ex 21:7; Neh 5:5), and even had the power of life and death over his children.<\/p>\nThe ease with which a man could terminate a marriage by divorcing his wife also shows the measure of his authority in the family (Dt 24:1-4; cf. 22:13-21).<\/p>\nA levirate marriage was instituted to preserve a family name and inheritance. When a man died, the responsibility for maintaining his widow and any children that she might have fell upon her husband’s closest male relative. The order of responsibility is set out in Deuteronomy 25:5-10. Normally, the brother of the deceased husband living with the clan was expected to enter into a levirate marriage with the widow. If she was childless, the firstborn of the new marriage was regarded as a child of the deceased. Levirate marriage was also known to the Canaanites, Assyrians, and Hittites.<\/p>\nThe most familiar levirate situation in the OT, although not conforming strictly to the law of Deuteronomy 25, is described in the book of Ruth. It was essential for Ruth to find some close male relative to marry her so that the family name and property could be preserved. The closest male relative declined the responsibility, feeling that it was a double imposition, first, to have to purchase the land and support Ruth, and second, to know that the first son would be regarded as her dead husband’s child, bearing his name and inheriting the land. Boaz agreed to undertake the responsibility (Ru 2:20–4:10).<\/p>\nDespite numerous examples of polygamy cited in the OT, there is no doubt that the vast majority of the Israelites were monogamous. There are no examples given of large polygamous marriages in the families of commoners.<\/p>\nThe original instruction to Adam was that a “man . . . cleaves to his wife” (Gn 2:24). Hebrew laws generally imply that a marriage with one wife is the most acceptable form of marriage (Ex 20:17; 21:5; Lv 18:8, 16-20; 20:10; Nm 5:12; Dt 5:21). Although this seems to have become the norm by the time of the monarchy, a king such as Solomon did not follow Hebrew traditions in this matter. In the postexilic period marriages were predominantly monogamous, although they were being terminated increasingly by divorce. In the NT period monogamy seems to have been the rule, although persons such as Herod the Great were polygamous. Christ taught that marriage should last the lifetime of the partners, and if a man divorced his wife and married another woman during his previous spouse’s lifetime, he committed adultery (Mt 5:31-32).<\/p>\nMarriage generally took place with those who were close to the immediate family circle, and it was imperative, therefore, that limits on acceptable consanguinity should be imposed. In patriarchal times a man could marry his half sister on his father’s side (Gn 20:12), and this continued to be the case even under David (2 Sm 13:13), although it was specifically forbidden in Leviticus 20:17. As there is some contradiction between the marriage laws of Deuteronomy and those in the Law of Holiness (Dt 25:5; Lv 18:16), it is possible that there was some modification of the stricter Levitical regulations. Marriages between cousins, such as Isaac with Rebekah, and Jacob with Rachel and Leah, were common. When a close relative was interested in marriage, it was almost impossible to refuse (Tb 6:13; 7:11-12). Moses was the offspring of a marriage between nephew and aunt (Ex 6:20; Nm 26:59), which would have been forbidden in Leviticus 18:12-13 and 20:19, as would Jacob’s marriage with two sisters at the same time (Gn 29:30).<\/p>\nWhen the Israelites settled in Canaan, many of them married Canaanite women, much to the consternation of those who desired to maintain the purity of the Hebrew religion (1 Kgs 11:4). Such intermarriage was prohibited under Mosaic law (Ex 34:15-16; Dt 7:3-4), although many Israelites ignored these regulations and continued to indulge in mixed marriages. If a woman was captured in war and was prepared to abandon her native country, an exception could be made (Dt 21:10-14). By contrast, Samson married a Philistine woman who remained with her own people, but who received conjugal visits from her husband periodically (Jgs 14:8–15:2).<\/p>\nThe danger of intermarriage affecting the purity of Hebrew religion was considered so great that in the postexilic period wholesale divorce was ordered where Jews had married foreign wives (Ezr 9:2; 10:3, 16-17). The intent was that the national religion should remain pure, even though homes and families were destroyed. Even in NT times, Paul denounced marriage with non-Christians (2 Cor 6:14-15).<\/p>\nIt is difficult to estimate at what age young people married. A boy was considered to be a man by his early teens, and late in Jewish tradition this transition was celebrated by the bar mitzvah, which generally occurred when the boy was 13.<\/p>\nNormally the young man’s parents chose the bride. The resulting discussion about the marriage occurred between the groom’s parents and the bride’s parents, and often neither of the young people was consulted. It was not essential for the eldest in the family to be married first (Gn 29:26). When Abraham decided that Isaac should be married, a servant was sent to choose a bride from among Abraham’s relatives in Mesopotamia. The servant made contact with the bride’s brother and mother (24:33-53), and it was only afterward that Rebekah was asked to give her consent (vv 57-58). Her father was possibly incapacitated; otherwise, it would have been unlikely that her consent would have been asked at all.<\/p>\nOne of the reasons why the average young man would not have been able to afford more than one wife was the practice of the bride-price, which had to be paid to the bride’s father. It was possible to substitute service for the bride-price (Gn 29:15-30), or the completion of an appointed task (1 Sm 18:25-27). A specific sum is mentioned for the bride-price in the case of a virgin who had been raped and who had to be purchased by her seducer. The price was set at 50 shekels, but this was considered to be a punishment; it is probable that the normal amount was between 10 and 320 shekels (Lv 27:4-5).<\/p>\nAt the time of the second temple, a virgin bride was considered to be worth 50 shekels, and a widow or divorced woman about half that sum. During this period, a virgin bride was normally married in midweek so that, if her husband found her not to be a virgin, he could bring proof to the court the following day, which would still be in advance of the Sabbath. A widow or a divorced woman normally married on the equivalent of a Thursday, giving her a full day with her husband before the Sabbath.<\/p>\nMarriage was a covenant or alliance between two families. It thus united them, and by extending the kinship, the overall size of the group was increased. This was important in a society where responsibilities for relatives, however distant, were accepted unhesitatingly. The covenant concept also could have political overtones, as with the marriage between Solomon and the Egyptian princess (1 Kgs 11:1) or Ahab of Israel and Jezebel of Tyre (16:31).<\/p>\nThe sealing of the covenant included the transfer of gifts, which would establish the wealth and status of the donor and of the bride (Gn 34:12). In the ancient Near East, the giving of a gift was thought to include a part of the donor, so that the giver was actually offering a portion of himself. The gift that sealed the covenant also established the donor’s authority over the bride.<\/p>\nThe next stage in the marriage procedure was the betrothal. First mentioned in Exodus 22:16, the term is used several times in Deuteronomy (Dt 20:7; 22:23-24). The betrothal had the legal status of a marriage (Dt 28:30; 2 Sm 3:14), and anyone violating a betrothed virgin would be stoned, according to the law of Deuteronomy, for violating his neighbor’s “wife” (Dt 22:23-24). The meaning of a betrothal involved taking possession, in a manner similar to that of receiving tribute. Nevertheless, there remained a distinction between betrothing a woman and taking her as a wife (20:7). During the period of betrothal, the prospective groom was exempt from military service. It was assumed that the betrothal was a formal part of a permanent relationship (Mt 1:18; Lk 1:27; 2:5).<\/p>\nA man who was to marry another’s daughter was already regarded as a son-in-law at the time of betrothal (Gn 19:14). Mary, as Joseph’s betrothed, was actually considered his wife, although he did not have intercourse with her until after the birth of Jesus.<\/p>\nThe first biblical record of a wedding being celebrated by a feast is in the story of Jacob (Gn 29:22). There was no actual marriage contract recorded until its mention in the book of Tobit (Tb 7:12). This contract was not considered valid until the couple had cohabited for a week (Gn 29:27; Jgs 14:12, 18). When Samson left his bride before the end of the seven-day period, the bride’s parents considered the marriage void and gave her to another man (Jgs 14:20).<\/p>\nThe wedding was an occasion of great family rejoicing. The special clothing of the bride and groom (Is 61:10; Ez 16:9-13) included for the bride a fine dress often adorned with jewels (Ps 45:14-15; Is 61:10) and other ornaments, while the bridegroom had fine clothing and wore a diadem (Sg 3:11; Is 61:10). The bride wore a veil (Gn 24:65; Sg 4:3), which was removed in the bridal chamber. This would account for Rebekah’s need to veil herself in the presence of Isaac, her fiancé (Gn 24:65), and also for the ease with which Laban was able to replace Rachel with Leah on Jacob’s wedding night (29:23-25).<\/p>\nSymbolic ceremonies may sometimes have been included as part of the betrothal or wedding ceremonies, such as Ruth’s request that Boaz spread his skirt over her to indicate that he was taking her to wife (Ru 3:9). Another ritual may have been the ceremonial removal of the bride’s girdle by the groom in the nuptial chamber, which was a room or tent specially prepared for the newly married couple. The marriage was normally consummated on the first night (Gn 29:23; Tb 8:1), and the stained linen would be retained as evidence of the bride’s virginity.<\/p>\nIn a contrast to the elaborate procession and feasting of the marriage, divorce was simple. A man could divorce his wife if he found fault with her in any particular matter, and this right was not abolished until the 11th century AD<\/span>. Divorce was discouraged, however, and gradually the procedure became more complex, being hedged about with a number of deterrents.<\/p>\nAs the laws regarding divorce became more complex, so the procedure became increasingly expensive. At a later time a lawyer, or sometimes a rabbi, would give advice, especially on such matters as the return of property rightly belonging to the bride or her family.<\/p>\nIf a bride was found to have committed adultery, the husband was thought to be entitled to a divorce. This was also the case if he even suspected her of infidelity. He could also divorce his wife if he felt that she had violated normal morality, had become apostate, or had been less than efficient in the management of her household. If a woman refused her husband his conjugal rights for a period of at least one year, she could be divorced. Other grounds for divorcing a wife included insulting behavior to a husband or his relatives, contracting an incurable disease, or refusing to accompany her husband when he moved the domicile to a new area.<\/p>\nIn general, the status of the wife was low. Despite the fact that she gave advice, managed the household, educated the young children, and worked alongside her husband when necessary, he was still her master, and her role was to obey. She was little more than a servant, although better than a slave, for she could not be sold even though she could be divorced.<\/p>\nIn the frequent figurative uses of marriage in the OT, the Hebrew people and God are referred to in terms of bride and bridegroom (Is 62:4-5; Jer 2:2). The desolation that is about to overtake Judah is contrasted by Jeremiah with the celebration of a wedding feast (Jer 7:34; 16:9; 25:10). Figurative forms are used again in Hosea, where God rejects the relationship with his wife, Israel (Hos 2:2), but is prepared to accept her again if she resumes her faithful practices (vv 19-20).<\/p>\nIn the NT, John the Baptist compares his sense of joy with that of a friend of the groom at a wedding (Jn 3:29), while Jesus himself made reference to the wedding preparations in the parable of the wise and foolish virgins (Mt 25:1-12). In the story of the marriage feast (22:1-14) Christ mentions quite incidentally the fact that wedding robes were provided for the guests at such ceremonies. The theme of the Christian church as the bride of Christ occurs in such books as 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, and Revelation.<\/p>\nJesus’ Teachings on Marriage and Adultery<\/p>\nIn the realm of civil law there are changes of emphasis in Jesus’ teaching over against the OT. For example, the OT did not regard infidelity by a husband as adultery against his wife. When challenged by the Jews, Jesus said that originally God had made one wife for a man; therefore, there should be no divorce (Mk 10:2-9). Further, he stated if a man does divorce his wife and marry again, he “commits adultery against her” (v 11). Thus, Jesus made man and woman equal as regards adultery. An unfaithful husband is just as adulterous as an unfaithful wife. This revolutionary teaching struck the disciples as severe (see Mt 19:10), but it illustrates what Jesus meant when he said their righteousness must be greater than that of the Jewish leaders (5:20).<\/p>\nThere is a slight difference in Matthew’s account of Jesus’ teaching, which has led some scholars to argue that Jesus was not quite as strict as the above summary suggests. According to Matthew 19:9, a wife’s “unchastity” (probably some sexual misconduct) allows an aggrieved husband to divorce her and marry again. If this remark concluded the passage, this interpretation would be the simplest. However, from the context it is more likely that Jesus allowed innocent spouses to separate from their wives but not to remarry. This explains why the disciples were so shocked and why Jesus went on to speak about some who refuse to marry for the sake of the kingdom of heaven (Mt 19:12). This was also the way the church interpreted the passage for the first five centuries. They allowed Christians to separate but not to remarry (cf. 1 Cor 7:11).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Adultery; Civil Law and Justice; Concubinage, Concubines; Divorce; Family Life and Relations; Sex, Sexuality; Virgin.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MARRIAGE, MARRIAGE CUSTOMS<\/h3>\nThe joining together of male and female in matrimony, as practiced by various cultures.<\/p>\nThe idea of marriage was ordained by God in his instruction to Adam that a man should leave his father and mother, and that he and his wife should be as one flesh (Gn 2:24).<\/p>\nSeveral forms of marriage are referred to in the OT, the earliest of which seems to be based on a matrilineal principle. Although there appears to be some evidence for this in the middle Bronze Age and in the early monarchy, it is difficult to be certain about the matter, despite the importance in Egypt, and perhaps elsewhere, of the role of the mother in determining descent.<\/p>\nGenerally, the bride left her parents when she married and went to live with her husband’s clan, as Rebekah did (Gn 24:58-59). The phrase “to marry a wife” is from a root meaning to “become master” (Dt 21:13), and the wife frequently treated her husband as, and referred to him as, master.<\/p>\nHebrew genealogical lists indicate that descent was reckoned through the male line (Gn 5:10; 36:9-43; Nm 1:1-15; Ru 4:18-22; 1 Chr 1:1-9). The important right of naming a child, indicating power and authority over that child, was exercised almost equally between father and mother in biblical references (cf. Gn 4:1, 25-26; 5:29; 35:18; 1 Sm 1:20; 4:21; Is 8:3; Hos 1:4-9). Sons were frequently named after their fathers and were identified with them.<\/p>\nThe father was the authority figure in the home in a patriarchal society. His wife and children were regarded as his possessions in somewhat the same way as his fields and livestock (Ex 20:17; Dt 5:21). He had the right to sell his daughters (Ex 21:7; Neh 5:5), and even had the power of life and death over his children.<\/p>\nThe ease with which a man could terminate a marriage by divorcing his wife also shows the measure of his authority in the family (Dt 24:1-4; cf. 22:13-21).<\/p>\nA levirate marriage was instituted to preserve a family name and inheritance. When a man died, the responsibility for maintaining his widow and any children that she might have fell upon her husband’s closest male relative. The order of responsibility is set out in Deuteronomy 25:5-10. Normally, the brother of the deceased husband living with the clan was expected to enter into a levirate marriage with the widow. If she was childless, the firstborn of the new marriage was regarded as a child of the deceased. Levirate marriage was also known to the Canaanites, Assyrians, and Hittites.<\/p>\nThe most familiar levirate situation in the OT, although not conforming strictly to the law of Deuteronomy 25, is described in the book of Ruth. It was essential for Ruth to find some close male relative to marry her so that the family name and property could be preserved. The closest male relative declined the responsibility, feeling that it was a double imposition, first, to have to purchase the land and support Ruth, and second, to know that the first son would be regarded as her dead husband’s child, bearing his name and inheriting the land. Boaz agreed to undertake the responsibility (Ru 2:20–4:10).<\/p>\nDespite numerous examples of polygamy cited in the OT, there is no doubt that the vast majority of the Israelites were monogamous. There are no examples given of large polygamous marriages in the families of commoners.<\/p>\nThe original instruction to Adam was that a “man . . . cleaves to his wife” (Gn 2:24). Hebrew laws generally imply that a marriage with one wife is the most acceptable form of marriage (Ex 20:17; 21:5; Lv 18:8, 16-20; 20:10; Nm 5:12; Dt 5:21). Although this seems to have become the norm by the time of the monarchy, a king such as Solomon did not follow Hebrew traditions in this matter. In the postexilic period marriages were predominantly monogamous, although they were being terminated increasingly by divorce. In the NT period monogamy seems to have been the rule, although persons such as Herod the Great were polygamous. Christ taught that marriage should last the lifetime of the partners, and if a man divorced his wife and married another woman during his previous spouse’s lifetime, he committed adultery (Mt 5:31-32).<\/p>\nMarriage generally took place with those who were close to the immediate family circle, and it was imperative, therefore, that limits on acceptable consanguinity should be imposed. In patriarchal times a man could marry his half sister on his father’s side (Gn 20:12), and this continued to be the case even under David (2 Sm 13:13), although it was specifically forbidden in Leviticus 20:17. As there is some contradiction between the marriage laws of Deuteronomy and those in the Law of Holiness (Dt 25:5; Lv 18:16), it is possible that there was some modification of the stricter Levitical regulations. Marriages between cousins, such as Isaac with Rebekah, and Jacob with Rachel and Leah, were common. When a close relative was interested in marriage, it was almost impossible to refuse (Tb 6:13; 7:11-12). Moses was the offspring of a marriage between nephew and aunt (Ex 6:20; Nm 26:59), which would have been forbidden in Leviticus 18:12-13 and 20:19, as would Jacob’s marriage with two sisters at the same time (Gn 29:30).<\/p>\nWhen the Israelites settled in Canaan, many of them married Canaanite women, much to the consternation of those who desired to maintain the purity of the Hebrew religion (1 Kgs 11:4). Such intermarriage was prohibited under Mosaic law (Ex 34:15-16; Dt 7:3-4), although many Israelites ignored these regulations and continued to indulge in mixed marriages. If a woman was captured in war and was prepared to abandon her native country, an exception could be made (Dt 21:10-14). By contrast, Samson married a Philistine woman who remained with her own people, but who received conjugal visits from her husband periodically (Jgs 14:8–15:2).<\/p>\nThe danger of intermarriage affecting the purity of Hebrew religion was considered so great that in the postexilic period wholesale divorce was ordered where Jews had married foreign wives (Ezr 9:2; 10:3, 16-17). The intent was that the national religion should remain pure, even though homes and families were destroyed. Even in NT times, Paul denounced marriage with non-Christians (2 Cor 6:14-15).<\/p>\nIt is difficult to estimate at what age young people married. A boy was considered to be a man by his early teens, and late in Jewish tradition this transition was celebrated by the bar mitzvah, which generally occurred when the boy was 13.<\/p>\nNormally the young man’s parents chose the bride. The resulting discussion about the marriage occurred between the groom’s parents and the bride’s parents, and often neither of the young people was consulted. It was not essential for the eldest in the family to be married first (Gn 29:26). When Abraham decided that Isaac should be married, a servant was sent to choose a bride from among Abraham’s relatives in Mesopotamia. The servant made contact with the bride’s brother and mother (24:33-53), and it was only afterward that Rebekah was asked to give her consent (vv 57-58). Her father was possibly incapacitated; otherwise, it would have been unlikely that her consent would have been asked at all.<\/p>\nOne of the reasons why the average young man would not have been able to afford more than one wife was the practice of the bride-price, which had to be paid to the bride’s father. It was possible to substitute service for the bride-price (Gn 29:15-30), or the completion of an appointed task (1 Sm 18:25-27). A specific sum is mentioned for the bride-price in the case of a virgin who had been raped and who had to be purchased by her seducer. The price was set at 50 shekels, but this was considered to be a punishment; it is probable that the normal amount was between 10 and 320 shekels (Lv 27:4-5).<\/p>\nAt the time of the second temple, a virgin bride was considered to be worth 50 shekels, and a widow or divorced woman about half that sum. During this period, a virgin bride was normally married in midweek so that, if her husband found her not to be a virgin, he could bring proof to the court the following day, which would still be in advance of the Sabbath. A widow or a divorced woman normally married on the equivalent of a Thursday, giving her a full day with her husband before the Sabbath.<\/p>\nMarriage was a covenant or alliance between two families. It thus united them, and by extending the kinship, the overall size of the group was increased. This was important in a society where responsibilities for relatives, however distant, were accepted unhesitatingly. The covenant concept also could have political overtones, as with the marriage between Solomon and the Egyptian princess (1 Kgs 11:1) or Ahab of Israel and Jezebel of Tyre (16:31).<\/p>\nThe sealing of the covenant included the transfer of gifts, which would establish the wealth and status of the donor and of the bride (Gn 34:12). In the ancient Near East, the giving of a gift was thought to include a part of the donor, so that the giver was actually offering a portion of himself. The gift that sealed the covenant also established the donor’s authority over the bride.<\/p>\nThe next stage in the marriage procedure was the betrothal. First mentioned in Exodus 22:16, the term is used several times in Deuteronomy (Dt 20:7; 22:23-24). The betrothal had the legal status of a marriage (Dt 28:30; 2 Sm 3:14), and anyone violating a betrothed virgin would be stoned, according to the law of Deuteronomy, for violating his neighbor’s “wife” (Dt 22:23-24). The meaning of a betrothal involved taking possession, in a manner similar to that of receiving tribute. Nevertheless, there remained a distinction between betrothing a woman and taking her as a wife (20:7). During the period of betrothal, the prospective groom was exempt from military service. It was assumed that the betrothal was a formal part of a permanent relationship (Mt 1:18; Lk 1:27; 2:5).<\/p>\nA man who was to marry another’s daughter was already regarded as a son-in-law at the time of betrothal (Gn 19:14). Mary, as Joseph’s betrothed, was actually considered his wife, although he did not have intercourse with her until after the birth of Jesus.<\/p>\nThe first biblical record of a wedding being celebrated by a feast is in the story of Jacob (Gn 29:22). There was no actual marriage contract recorded until its mention in the book of Tobit (Tb 7:12). This contract was not considered valid until the couple had cohabited for a week (Gn 29:27; Jgs 14:12, 18). When Samson left his bride before the end of the seven-day period, the bride’s parents considered the marriage void and gave her to another man (Jgs 14:20).<\/p>\nThe wedding was an occasion of great family rejoicing. The special clothing of the bride and groom (Is 61:10; Ez 16:9-13) included for the bride a fine dress often adorned with jewels (Ps 45:14-15; Is 61:10) and other ornaments, while the bridegroom had fine clothing and wore a diadem (Sg 3:11; Is 61:10). The bride wore a veil (Gn 24:65; Sg 4:3), which was removed in the bridal chamber. This would account for Rebekah’s need to veil herself in the presence of Isaac, her fiancé (Gn 24:65), and also for the ease with which Laban was able to replace Rachel with Leah on Jacob’s wedding night (29:23-25).<\/p>\nSymbolic ceremonies may sometimes have been included as part of the betrothal or wedding ceremonies, such as Ruth’s request that Boaz spread his skirt over her to indicate that he was taking her to wife (Ru 3:9). Another ritual may have been the ceremonial removal of the bride’s girdle by the groom in the nuptial chamber, which was a room or tent specially prepared for the newly married couple. The marriage was normally consummated on the first night (Gn 29:23; Tb 8:1), and the stained linen would be retained as evidence of the bride’s virginity.<\/p>\nIn a contrast to the elaborate procession and feasting of the marriage, divorce was simple. A man could divorce his wife if he found fault with her in any particular matter, and this right was not abolished until the 11th century AD<\/span>. Divorce was discouraged, however, and gradually the procedure became more complex, being hedged about with a number of deterrents.<\/p>\nAs the laws regarding divorce became more complex, so the procedure became increasingly expensive. At a later time a lawyer, or sometimes a rabbi, would give advice, especially on such matters as the return of property rightly belonging to the bride or her family.<\/p>\nIf a bride was found to have committed adultery, the husband was thought to be entitled to a divorce. This was also the case if he even suspected her of infidelity. He could also divorce his wife if he felt that she had violated normal morality, had become apostate, or had been less than efficient in the management of her household. If a woman refused her husband his conjugal rights for a period of at least one year, she could be divorced. Other grounds for divorcing a wife included insulting behavior to a husband or his relatives, contracting an incurable disease, or refusing to accompany her husband when he moved the domicile to a new area.<\/p>\nIn general, the status of the wife was low. Despite the fact that she gave advice, managed the household, educated the young children, and worked alongside her husband when necessary, he was still her master, and her role was to obey. She was little more than a servant, although better than a slave, for she could not be sold even though she could be divorced.<\/p>\nIn the frequent figurative uses of marriage in the OT, the Hebrew people and God are referred to in terms of bride and bridegroom (Is 62:4-5; Jer 2:2). The desolation that is about to overtake Judah is contrasted by Jeremiah with the celebration of a wedding feast (Jer 7:34; 16:9; 25:10). Figurative forms are used again in Hosea, where God rejects the relationship with his wife, Israel (Hos 2:2), but is prepared to accept her again if she resumes her faithful practices (vv 19-20).<\/p>\nIn the NT, John the Baptist compares his sense of joy with that of a friend of the groom at a wedding (Jn 3:29), while Jesus himself made reference to the wedding preparations in the parable of the wise and foolish virgins (Mt 25:1-12). In the story of the marriage feast (22:1-14) Christ mentions quite incidentally the fact that wedding robes were provided for the guests at such ceremonies. The theme of the Christian church as the bride of Christ occurs in such books as 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, and Revelation.<\/p>\nJesus’ Teachings on Marriage and Adultery<\/p>\nIn the realm of civil law there are changes of emphasis in Jesus’ teaching over against the OT. For example, the OT did not regard infidelity by a husband as adultery against his wife. When challenged by the Jews, Jesus said that originally God had made one wife for a man; therefore, there should be no divorce (Mk 10:2-9). Further, he stated if a man does divorce his wife and marry again, he “commits adultery against her” (v 11). Thus, Jesus made man and woman equal as regards adultery. An unfaithful husband is just as adulterous as an unfaithful wife. This revolutionary teaching struck the disciples as severe (see Mt 19:10), but it illustrates what Jesus meant when he said their righteousness must be greater than that of the Jewish leaders (5:20).<\/p>\nThere is a slight difference in Matthew’s account of Jesus’ teaching, which has led some scholars to argue that Jesus was not quite as strict as the above summary suggests. According to Matthew 19:9, a wife’s “unchastity” (probably some sexual misconduct) allows an aggrieved husband to divorce her and marry again. If this remark concluded the passage, this interpretation would be the simplest. However, from the context it is more likely that Jesus allowed innocent spouses to separate from their wives but not to remarry. This explains why the disciples were so shocked and why Jesus went on to speak about some who refuse to marry for the sake of the kingdom of heaven (Mt 19:12). This was also the way the church interpreted the passage for the first five centuries. They allowed Christians to separate but not to remarry (cf. 1 Cor 7:11).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Adultery; Civil Law and Justice; Concubinage, Concubines; Divorce; Family Life and Relations; Sex, Sexuality; Virgin.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MARRIAGE, MARRIAGE CUSTOMS The joining together of male and female in matrimony, as practiced by various cultures. The idea of marriage was ordained by God in his instruction to Adam that a man should leave his father and mother, and that he and his wife should be as one flesh (Gn 2:24). Several forms of marriage are referred to in the OT, the earliest of which seems to be based on a matrilineal principle. Although there appears to be some evidence for this in the middle Bronze Age and in the...","summary_en":"MARRIAGE, MARRIAGE CUSTOMS The joining together of male and female in matrimony, as practiced by various cultures. The idea of marriage was ordained by God in his instruction to Adam that a man should leave his father and mother, and that he and his wife should be as one flesh (Gn 2:24). Several forms of marriage are referred to in the OT, the earliest of which seems to be based on a matrilineal principle. Although there appears to be some evidence for this in the middle Bronze Age and in the...","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":33382,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Book of Ruth","title_en":"Book of Ruth","content_ro":"<h3>RUTH, Book of<\/h3>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Author and Date<\/p>\n• Purpose<\/p>\n• Content<\/p>\n• Message<\/p>\nAuthor and Date<\/p>\nThe author of the book is unknown. The question of authorship has particular connection with the date of writing, and a few clues provide at least an educated guess. The book must have been written sometime after the beginning of David’s reign. The information in Ruth 4:18-22, which pertains to the historical significance of Ruth as David’s great-grandmother, bears this out. Since foreign marriages were not approved in the book of Ruth, it scarcely could have been written during the period in which Solomon began his policy of foreign marriages. Also, David’s close friendship with Moab might have prompted someone in his kingdom to write the book, thus presenting objective rationale for David’s actions (see 1 Sm 22:3-5). Consequently, the author may have been someone close to David, possibly Samuel, Nathan, or Abiathar.<\/p>\nThe time of the narrative is indicated by the opening statement: “In the days when the judges ruled. . . .” The dates of the judges probably comprise a period of about 300 years, beginning with the judgeship of Othniel and concluding with that of Samson, though Samuel also served as a judge. If the genealogical information is complete in Ruth 4:18-22, the events took place during the life of David’s great-grandfather and mark the birth of his grandfather. Allowing a 35-year generation span, the events would have taken place somewhere about the turn of the 11th century BC<\/span>, or about 100 years before David’s birth.<\/p>\nPurpose<\/p>\nThe book’s purpose is closely related to its date of composition. Assuming an early date, that is, one close to David’s lifetime, its principal thrust must be the authentication of the Davidic line. The book may be considered as a justification for including the godly Moabitess in the nation of Israel.<\/p>\nContent<\/p>\n<h5>Introduction (1:1-5)<\/h5>\nDriven by famine, Elimelech, with his wife, Naomi, and his two sons, Mahlon and Chilion, cross the Jordan to stay for a period of time in Moab, where there is sufficient provision. The two sons, after marrying Moabite women, die, and their father dies as well. Naomi is left a widow, with two foreign daughters-in-law.<\/p>\n\n<h5>Return to Bethlehem (1:6-22)<\/h5>\nHearing reports from Bethlehem that the famine has ended, Naomi makes preparations to return. Both of her daughters-in-law, Orpah and Ruth, accompany her for at least a portion of the journey. Probably thinking of the problems they might encounter as foreigners in Judah, Naomi strongly urges the girls to stay in their own land. Both of the young widows refuse, but Naomi presents the facts. First, she is not pregnant, so the chance of a younger brother fulfilling the levirate responsibility is not imminent. Second, she has no prospects of remarriage and consequently no prospect of further children. Then she also notes that even if the first two conditions were met immediately, the possibility of their waiting was impossible. Orpah is persuaded and kisses her mother-in-law good-bye.<\/p>\nBut Ruth “clung to her” (1:18). The verb, having the connotation of being glued to something, is the same verb used of marriage (Gn 2:24). Ruth demonstrated her serious intentions by making five commitments (Ru 1:16-17). In essence, Ruth renounced her former life in order to gain a life that she considered of greater value. She decided to follow the God of Israel and his laws. Ruth’s appeal to the God of Israel was more than equal to Naomi’s pleas, and the two of them returned together.<\/p>\nTheir arrival in Bethlehem was traumatic for Naomi. Having left Bethlehem with a husband and two sons, she returned empty. She told her friends to call her “Mara” (bitter). But she had returned at a propitious time, the beginning of the harvest season.<\/p>\n<h5>Reaping in the Fields of Boaz (2:1-23)<\/h5>\nThe first verse of the chapter provides the setting for the narrative that follows by introducing Boaz, a wealthy relative of Elimelech.<\/p>\nIn the second verse, Ruth volunteered to glean the fields by following the reapers and picking up the small amounts left behind. Gleaners were also permitted to harvest the grain in the corners of the fields—a provision for the poor contained in the law (Lv 19:9-10).<\/p>\nRuth happened to come to the field of Boaz. When he visited this field, he noticed Ruth, inquired about her, and learned her identity. His overseer reported that she had industriously worked the fields from early morning until that time. Boaz, attracted to her because of her loyalty and concern for Naomi, graciously made additional provisions for her. She was given a favored position in reaping, directly behind the main body of reapers. Further, she was to receive water that had been drawn for her by the young men—an unorthodox arrangement.<\/p>\nRuth, falling before Boaz in a gesture of great humility and respect, asked why she—as a foreigner—should receive such favor. Boaz gave two reasons: her kindness to her mother-in-law, and her spiritual insight, which led her to seek after Israel’s God, “under whose wings you have come to take refuge” (Ru 2:12, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nShe was also given a place at the reapers’ table and, upon Boaz’s orders, returned to the fields, this time to reap from the unharvested grain. At the end of the day she returned home to Naomi and told her of the day’s events. Naomi informed Ruth that Boaz had the right of redemption (see discussion below). Ruth returned to his fields until the end of the harvest season.<\/p>\n<h5>Relying upon the Kinsman (3:1-18)<\/h5>\nNaomi advised Ruth to approach Boaz as a go’el<\/span>,<\/em> or kinsman-redeemer. The plan suggested by Naomi seems peculiar, yet some thoughts may give a certain coloring to it. (1) Naomi seems to have believed that Boaz was the nearest kinsman, being ignorant of the yet nearer one (3:12). Consequently, according to Israelite law (Dt 25:5ff.), it would be the duty of Boaz to marry Ruth to produce offspring, since her husband died. (2) The general presentation of Naomi’s character in this book is that of a God-fearing woman. It is certain that, however curious in its external form, there can be nothing counseled here that is repugnant to God’s law or shocking to a virtuous man such as Boaz. Otherwise, Naomi would have been frustrating her own purpose.<\/p>\nBoaz’s response to Ruth’s actions demonstrated his gentlemanly concerns for her. He explained to her that he was not the nearest kinsman but promised that he would take care of the necessary procedures the next day. Protecting her reputation, Boaz sent her home before daylight. Naomi predicted that Boaz would settle the matter that very day.<\/p>\n<h5>Redeeming the Inheritance (4:1-22)<\/h5>\nBoaz went to the place of business, the city gate. The city gate area comprised the forum where the public affairs of the city were discussed. Boaz indicated that he wished to discuss a matter of business with the nearer kinsman. Ten of the city elders acted as witnesses. The first matter at hand was to deal with the issue of property. Boaz asked this nearer kinsman if he was willing to acquire property for Naomi. This is stated in the traditional stipulation: “Your purchase of the land from Naomi also requires that you marry Ruth, the Moabite widow” (4:5, nlt<\/span>). The nearer kinsman was unwilling to marry Ruth because this would inevitably cost him some financial loss, since he would have to divide his own property with any son of his born to Ruth. Thus he relinquished his rights by the custom of taking off his shoe. (The shoe was symbolic of the land rights that belonged to the inheritance.) So Boaz took the part of being the kinsman-redeemer. The marriage of Boaz and Ruth produced a son who, under Israel’s laws, was reckoned as Naomi’s child and heir.<\/p>\nMessage<\/p>\nFirst, the book of Ruth traces the lineage of Ruth to David. The completion of that line is in Matthew 1 and finds its fulfillment in Jesus.<\/p>\nA second teaching is the beauty of God’s grace. A foreigner, even a Moabitess, can be linked with Israel’s blessing.<\/p>\nTheologically, the concept of kinsman-redeemer as a type of Messiah is clearly evident. He must be a blood relative, have the ability to purchase, be willing to buy the inheritance, and be willing to marry the widow of the deceased kinsman.<\/p>\nAnd finally, the love that Ruth showed to Naomi provides a pattern of devotion. The women of Bethlehem told Naomi, “Your daughter-in-law . . . loves you so much and [is] better to you than seven sons!” (4:15, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>RUTH, Book of<\/h3>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Author and Date<\/p>\n• Purpose<\/p>\n• Content<\/p>\n• Message<\/p>\nAuthor and Date<\/p>\nThe author of the book is unknown. The question of authorship has particular connection with the date of writing, and a few clues provide at least an educated guess. The book must have been written sometime after the beginning of David’s reign. The information in Ruth 4:18-22, which pertains to the historical significance of Ruth as David’s great-grandmother, bears this out. Since foreign marriages were not approved in the book of Ruth, it scarcely could have been written during the period in which Solomon began his policy of foreign marriages. Also, David’s close friendship with Moab might have prompted someone in his kingdom to write the book, thus presenting objective rationale for David’s actions (see 1 Sm 22:3-5). Consequently, the author may have been someone close to David, possibly Samuel, Nathan, or Abiathar.<\/p>\nThe time of the narrative is indicated by the opening statement: “In the days when the judges ruled. . . .” The dates of the judges probably comprise a period of about 300 years, beginning with the judgeship of Othniel and concluding with that of Samson, though Samuel also served as a judge. If the genealogical information is complete in Ruth 4:18-22, the events took place during the life of David’s great-grandfather and mark the birth of his grandfather. Allowing a 35-year generation span, the events would have taken place somewhere about the turn of the 11th century BC<\/span>, or about 100 years before David’s birth.<\/p>\nPurpose<\/p>\nThe book’s purpose is closely related to its date of composition. Assuming an early date, that is, one close to David’s lifetime, its principal thrust must be the authentication of the Davidic line. The book may be considered as a justification for including the godly Moabitess in the nation of Israel.<\/p>\nContent<\/p>\n<h5>Introduction (1:1-5)<\/h5>\nDriven by famine, Elimelech, with his wife, Naomi, and his two sons, Mahlon and Chilion, cross the Jordan to stay for a period of time in Moab, where there is sufficient provision. The two sons, after marrying Moabite women, die, and their father dies as well. Naomi is left a widow, with two foreign daughters-in-law.<\/p>\n\n<h5>Return to Bethlehem (1:6-22)<\/h5>\nHearing reports from Bethlehem that the famine has ended, Naomi makes preparations to return. Both of her daughters-in-law, Orpah and Ruth, accompany her for at least a portion of the journey. Probably thinking of the problems they might encounter as foreigners in Judah, Naomi strongly urges the girls to stay in their own land. Both of the young widows refuse, but Naomi presents the facts. First, she is not pregnant, so the chance of a younger brother fulfilling the levirate responsibility is not imminent. Second, she has no prospects of remarriage and consequently no prospect of further children. Then she also notes that even if the first two conditions were met immediately, the possibility of their waiting was impossible. Orpah is persuaded and kisses her mother-in-law good-bye.<\/p>\nBut Ruth “clung to her” (1:18). The verb, having the connotation of being glued to something, is the same verb used of marriage (Gn 2:24). Ruth demonstrated her serious intentions by making five commitments (Ru 1:16-17). In essence, Ruth renounced her former life in order to gain a life that she considered of greater value. She decided to follow the God of Israel and his laws. Ruth’s appeal to the God of Israel was more than equal to Naomi’s pleas, and the two of them returned together.<\/p>\nTheir arrival in Bethlehem was traumatic for Naomi. Having left Bethlehem with a husband and two sons, she returned empty. She told her friends to call her “Mara” (bitter). But she had returned at a propitious time, the beginning of the harvest season.<\/p>\n<h5>Reaping in the Fields of Boaz (2:1-23)<\/h5>\nThe first verse of the chapter provides the setting for the narrative that follows by introducing Boaz, a wealthy relative of Elimelech.<\/p>\nIn the second verse, Ruth volunteered to glean the fields by following the reapers and picking up the small amounts left behind. Gleaners were also permitted to harvest the grain in the corners of the fields—a provision for the poor contained in the law (Lv 19:9-10).<\/p>\nRuth happened to come to the field of Boaz. When he visited this field, he noticed Ruth, inquired about her, and learned her identity. His overseer reported that she had industriously worked the fields from early morning until that time. Boaz, attracted to her because of her loyalty and concern for Naomi, graciously made additional provisions for her. She was given a favored position in reaping, directly behind the main body of reapers. Further, she was to receive water that had been drawn for her by the young men—an unorthodox arrangement.<\/p>\nRuth, falling before Boaz in a gesture of great humility and respect, asked why she—as a foreigner—should receive such favor. Boaz gave two reasons: her kindness to her mother-in-law, and her spiritual insight, which led her to seek after Israel’s God, “under whose wings you have come to take refuge” (Ru 2:12, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nShe was also given a place at the reapers’ table and, upon Boaz’s orders, returned to the fields, this time to reap from the unharvested grain. At the end of the day she returned home to Naomi and told her of the day’s events. Naomi informed Ruth that Boaz had the right of redemption (see discussion below). Ruth returned to his fields until the end of the harvest season.<\/p>\n<h5>Relying upon the Kinsman (3:1-18)<\/h5>\nNaomi advised Ruth to approach Boaz as a go’el<\/span>,<\/em> or kinsman-redeemer. The plan suggested by Naomi seems peculiar, yet some thoughts may give a certain coloring to it. (1) Naomi seems to have believed that Boaz was the nearest kinsman, being ignorant of the yet nearer one (3:12). Consequently, according to Israelite law (Dt 25:5ff.), it would be the duty of Boaz to marry Ruth to produce offspring, since her husband died. (2) The general presentation of Naomi’s character in this book is that of a God-fearing woman. It is certain that, however curious in its external form, there can be nothing counseled here that is repugnant to God’s law or shocking to a virtuous man such as Boaz. Otherwise, Naomi would have been frustrating her own purpose.<\/p>\nBoaz’s response to Ruth’s actions demonstrated his gentlemanly concerns for her. He explained to her that he was not the nearest kinsman but promised that he would take care of the necessary procedures the next day. Protecting her reputation, Boaz sent her home before daylight. Naomi predicted that Boaz would settle the matter that very day.<\/p>\n<h5>Redeeming the Inheritance (4:1-22)<\/h5>\nBoaz went to the place of business, the city gate. The city gate area comprised the forum where the public affairs of the city were discussed. Boaz indicated that he wished to discuss a matter of business with the nearer kinsman. Ten of the city elders acted as witnesses. The first matter at hand was to deal with the issue of property. Boaz asked this nearer kinsman if he was willing to acquire property for Naomi. This is stated in the traditional stipulation: “Your purchase of the land from Naomi also requires that you marry Ruth, the Moabite widow” (4:5, nlt<\/span>). The nearer kinsman was unwilling to marry Ruth because this would inevitably cost him some financial loss, since he would have to divide his own property with any son of his born to Ruth. Thus he relinquished his rights by the custom of taking off his shoe. (The shoe was symbolic of the land rights that belonged to the inheritance.) So Boaz took the part of being the kinsman-redeemer. The marriage of Boaz and Ruth produced a son who, under Israel’s laws, was reckoned as Naomi’s child and heir.<\/p>\nMessage<\/p>\nFirst, the book of Ruth traces the lineage of Ruth to David. The completion of that line is in Matthew 1 and finds its fulfillment in Jesus.<\/p>\nA second teaching is the beauty of God’s grace. A foreigner, even a Moabitess, can be linked with Israel’s blessing.<\/p>\nTheologically, the concept of kinsman-redeemer as a type of Messiah is clearly evident. He must be a blood relative, have the ability to purchase, be willing to buy the inheritance, and be willing to marry the widow of the deceased kinsman.<\/p>\nAnd finally, the love that Ruth showed to Naomi provides a pattern of devotion. The women of Bethlehem told Naomi, “Your daughter-in-law . . . loves you so much and [is] better to you than seven sons!” (4:15, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>","summary_ro":"RUTH, Book of Preview • Author and Date • Purpose • Content • Message Author and Date The author of the book is unknown. The question of authorship has particular connection with the date of writing, and a few clues provide at least an educated guess. The book must have been written sometime after the beginning of David’s reign. The information in Ruth 4:18-22, which pertains to the historical significance of Ruth as David’s great-grandmother, bears this out. Since foreign marriages were not ...","summary_en":"RUTH, Book of Preview • Author and Date • Purpose • Content • Message Author and Date The author of the book is unknown. The question of authorship has particular connection with the date of writing, and a few clues provide at least an educated guess. The book must have been written sometime after the beginning of David’s reign. The information in Ruth 4:18-22, which pertains to the historical significance of Ruth as David’s great-grandmother, bears this out. Since foreign marriages were not ...","source":"Articles\/R.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":34878,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"the Shema*","title_en":"the Shema*","content_ro":"<h3>SHEMA*, The<\/h3>\nThe declaration “Hear, O Israel, Yahweh our God is one Yahweh” (Dt 6:4). Shema<\/span> comes from the first Hebrew word of the verse, shema<\/span>,<\/em> “hear.” Verses 4-9 make up the whole of this foundational biblical truth. While several translations of verse 4 are grammatically correct, Jesus’ words in Mark 12:29 correspond most closely to the one given above. Religious Jews recite the Shema three times daily as part of their devotional life; no Sabbath worship is conducted in the synagogue without its proclamation.<\/p>\nWithin the Shema is found both a fundamental doctrinal truth and a resultant obligation. There is an urgency connected to the teaching: the word shema<\/span> demands that the hearer respond with his total being to the fact and demands of this essential revelation.<\/p>\nWith regard to the teaching pertaining to the nature of God, the word “one” (echad<\/span>) designates a compound unity rather than an absolute singular. While the eminent medieval Jewish theologian Maimonides insisted that God was yachid<\/span> (an absolute singular), the OT does not use this word to define God’s nature. The compound singular word for “one” first occurs in Genesis 2:24 where a man and woman, though separate entities, are seen to be one (echad<\/span>) in marriage. Understandably, Jesus could freely quote Deuteronomy 6:4 without infringing upon the truth of his own deity.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Deuteronomy, Book of.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SHEMA*, The<\/h3>\nThe declaration “Hear, O Israel, Yahweh our God is one Yahweh” (Dt 6:4). Shema<\/span> comes from the first Hebrew word of the verse, shema<\/span>,<\/em> “hear.” Verses 4-9 make up the whole of this foundational biblical truth. While several translations of verse 4 are grammatically correct, Jesus’ words in Mark 12:29 correspond most closely to the one given above. Religious Jews recite the Shema three times daily as part of their devotional life; no Sabbath worship is conducted in the synagogue without its proclamation.<\/p>\nWithin the Shema is found both a fundamental doctrinal truth and a resultant obligation. There is an urgency connected to the teaching: the word shema<\/span> demands that the hearer respond with his total being to the fact and demands of this essential revelation.<\/p>\nWith regard to the teaching pertaining to the nature of God, the word “one” (echad<\/span>) designates a compound unity rather than an absolute singular. While the eminent medieval Jewish theologian Maimonides insisted that God was yachid<\/span> (an absolute singular), the OT does not use this word to define God’s nature. The compound singular word for “one” first occurs in Genesis 2:24 where a man and woman, though separate entities, are seen to be one (echad<\/span>) in marriage. Understandably, Jesus could freely quote Deuteronomy 6:4 without infringing upon the truth of his own deity.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Deuteronomy, Book of.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SHEMA*, The The declaration “Hear, O Israel, Yahweh our God is one Yahweh” (Dt 6:4). Shema comes from the first Hebrew word of the verse, shema, “hear.” Verses 4-9 make up the whole of this foundational biblical truth. While several translations of verse 4 are grammatically correct, Jesus’ words in Mark 12:29 correspond most closely to the one given above. Religious Jews recite the Shema three times daily as part of their devotional life; no Sabbath worship is conducted in the synagogue witho...","summary_en":"SHEMA*, The The declaration “Hear, O Israel, Yahweh our God is one Yahweh” (Dt 6:4). Shema comes from the first Hebrew word of the verse, shema, “hear.” Verses 4-9 make up the whole of this foundational biblical truth. While several translations of verse 4 are grammatically correct, Jesus’ words in Mark 12:29 correspond most closely to the one given above. Religious Jews recite the Shema three times daily as part of their devotional life; no Sabbath worship is conducted in the synagogue witho...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":38552,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Woman","title_en":"Woman","content_ro":"<h3>WOMAN<\/h3>\nMan’s companion created by God.<\/p>\nHer Creation<\/p>\nGenesis provides two accounts of the creation of the first man and woman. In the first, Genesis 1:26-28, God created humans in his image, as male and female. Hence, the female shares with the male the image of God, reflects his power and majesty on earth, and is commanded to multiply and bring dominion to the earth. From Genesis 1:26-28 there is no suggestion of inferiority of the female to the male, nor is there any suggestion of her submission to his dominance. Rather, they are pictured together, the male and the female, as the representation of their Maker.<\/p>\nGenesis 2:20-25 is the second portrayal of the creation of the first woman. In Genesis 2 the male was made before the female, a point that seems to give him some precedence. This may not be pressed too far, however, as the pattern in the creation texts is to move progressively from the lesser to the finer work! Yet it is because of his prior creation that the male is given the prerogative to name the female (Gn 2:23). In Semitic thought, the giving of names signifies dominion or ownership. This means that Adam’s naming of his wife was an act of lordship. However, the name that he gives her is the equivalent to his own, meaning the male affirmed her equality with him. Paradoxically, then, this hierarchical relationship is also a relationship of equals.<\/p>\nThe situation in Genesis 1 and 2 reveals a balanced relationship between the man and the woman who were the parents of all mankind: two persons who were altogether equal in status as coheirs of the mystery of the image of God and yet who dwell in a delicate one-to-one relationship in which one is the leader of the other. In Eden before the fall, this delicate balance was possible.<\/p>\nHer Downfall and Plight<\/p>\nGenesis 3, the story of the fall of mankind, speaks of the breaking of the delicate balance between the man and the woman and the ensuing struggles that have been passed down through the ages. In God’s words to the woman, he announced the pain that would accompany her childbearing (Gn 3:16) and the conflict of interests that would affect her relationship with her husband: “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you” (niv<\/span>). The Hebrew term “desire” (<\/em>teshuqah<\/span>)<\/em> in the Genesis 3 and 4 passages is not a sexual longing but a desire to control, to master, to be in charge (the use of teshuqah<\/span> meaning sexual desire is seen in Sg 7:10). Consequently, after the fall, the desire of woman has been to dominate her husband. Her determination to reject his leadership in their relationship of equals is a breaking of the balance in their relationship. For his part, the man tends to tyrannize the woman.<\/p>\nTo the women who attempt to dominate their husbands, the apostle Paul says, “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord” (Eph 5:22, niv<\/span>). Her natural inclination needs transformation, so that she can submit to her husband as she submits to the Lord. For, Paul argues, the husband is to the wife as Christ is to the church (v 23). The husbands who tend to dominate their wives also need transformation so that they can love their wives, “just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (v 25, niv<\/span>). By these words, the apostle Paul was presenting a means whereby couples could regain the bliss in their relationship that was the mark of Eden before the fall. Paul’s citation of Genesis 2:24 in Ephesians 5:31 is a case in point: here a couple may regain the original oneness that God intended for them. The relationship of equal persons in a hierarchy of responsiveness is stated in the context of mutual submission, which is a mark of their greater submission to the Lord Jesus.<\/p>\nHer Role in Life according to the Bible<\/p>\nA woman is a person in every respect as a man; she shares in the image of God and has the potential of varied ranges of response to culture, community, and life about her. It is a fact of Scripture that women are regularly associated with, and find their sense of worth in, childbearing. Yet the same Scriptures show that the nature of woman is not exhausted by associations with childbearing: she has her own identity in the community, in the church, and before the Lord in the whole of her life, not just when (or if) she bears and nourishes a child. Further, the biblical concept of childbearing always involves the husband, who is her partner at conception, at her side during delivery, and partner with her in the ongoing task of nourishing the child.<\/p>\nThe image of the woman as the childbearer begins with the promise of God in Genesis 3:15, where he announced the ultimate victory over the evil one, Satan, by the offspring of the woman. This promise respecting the offspring of the woman became the universal blessing of God upon woman as the childbearer. Ultimately, through one born of a woman, there would come the final deliverance. There is a sense in which each birth experience is a participation in the continuity of this promise (see 1 Tm 2:15 and its possible relationship to this continuity of women, salvation, and childbearing).<\/p>\nFurther, in the culture of the OT world, a woman’s genuine worth was solely, or largely, perceived in terms of childbearing. Yet it is not in childbearing alone that she finds worth and dignity before God. For the woman, as for the man, the issue of faith in the Lord is central. A woman who has a household of children but no faith in God might regard herself as a fulfilled person. Yet her care of her children is no substitute for piety to God. A woman who has no children, and perhaps no husband, may have her full identity and worth in her relationship with the God in whose image she is made and whose tasks she is commissioned by him to do. The gifts of God in a woman’s life may lead her to find opportunities in the community to express her devotion to God. Women apparently had the same opportunities as men to take a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:2; see also ch 30).<\/p>\nCertain notable women in the Bible led lives of public service. Miriam, the sister of Moses and Aaron (Ex 15:20-21), was a prophetess, musician, and national leader (Nm 12). Long after her time, God spoke through his prophets of the gift he had given to Israel in the person of the national leader Miriam (Mi 6:4). There were other magnificent women who had exemplary lives: Deborah, the prophetess of God and the only named woman judge of Israel (Jgs 4–5); Esther, the Hebrew queen of Xerxes who saved her people from the rash acts of the Persian king, a result of a frightful conspiracy; and Huldah, the prophetess who was the agent of the Lord’s word to Josiah at the inception of his revival (2 Chr 34:22-28). Huldah’s reception and transmission of the word of the Lord is the more remarkable because she was a contemporary with Jeremiah and Zephaniah. In this case God chose to speak through a woman.<\/p>\nIn the NT, certain women were noted for their public ministries: the daughters of Philip, Phoebe, Priscilla, Junias, Tryphena, Tryphosa, Persis, Euodia, and Syntyche. These women mark the beginning of the fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy of a day in which women as well as men would be the instruments of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Jl 2:28-29). Women such as Sarah, Ruth, and Hannah exercised their faith in God in the context of the home and family as well. And preeminently there is Mary, mother of Jesus, in whom the ideal of womanhood is conjoined to the fulfillment of the ancient promise to Eve that she would one day be the great victor over the enemy of mankind.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Eve; Man.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>WOMAN<\/h3>\nMan’s companion created by God.<\/p>\nHer Creation<\/p>\nGenesis provides two accounts of the creation of the first man and woman. In the first, Genesis 1:26-28, God created humans in his image, as male and female. Hence, the female shares with the male the image of God, reflects his power and majesty on earth, and is commanded to multiply and bring dominion to the earth. From Genesis 1:26-28 there is no suggestion of inferiority of the female to the male, nor is there any suggestion of her submission to his dominance. Rather, they are pictured together, the male and the female, as the representation of their Maker.<\/p>\nGenesis 2:20-25 is the second portrayal of the creation of the first woman. In Genesis 2 the male was made before the female, a point that seems to give him some precedence. This may not be pressed too far, however, as the pattern in the creation texts is to move progressively from the lesser to the finer work! Yet it is because of his prior creation that the male is given the prerogative to name the female (Gn 2:23). In Semitic thought, the giving of names signifies dominion or ownership. This means that Adam’s naming of his wife was an act of lordship. However, the name that he gives her is the equivalent to his own, meaning the male affirmed her equality with him. Paradoxically, then, this hierarchical relationship is also a relationship of equals.<\/p>\nThe situation in Genesis 1 and 2 reveals a balanced relationship between the man and the woman who were the parents of all mankind: two persons who were altogether equal in status as coheirs of the mystery of the image of God and yet who dwell in a delicate one-to-one relationship in which one is the leader of the other. In Eden before the fall, this delicate balance was possible.<\/p>\nHer Downfall and Plight<\/p>\nGenesis 3, the story of the fall of mankind, speaks of the breaking of the delicate balance between the man and the woman and the ensuing struggles that have been passed down through the ages. In God’s words to the woman, he announced the pain that would accompany her childbearing (Gn 3:16) and the conflict of interests that would affect her relationship with her husband: “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you” (niv<\/span>). The Hebrew term “desire” (<\/em>teshuqah<\/span>)<\/em> in the Genesis 3 and 4 passages is not a sexual longing but a desire to control, to master, to be in charge (the use of teshuqah<\/span> meaning sexual desire is seen in Sg 7:10). Consequently, after the fall, the desire of woman has been to dominate her husband. Her determination to reject his leadership in their relationship of equals is a breaking of the balance in their relationship. For his part, the man tends to tyrannize the woman.<\/p>\nTo the women who attempt to dominate their husbands, the apostle Paul says, “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord” (Eph 5:22, niv<\/span>). Her natural inclination needs transformation, so that she can submit to her husband as she submits to the Lord. For, Paul argues, the husband is to the wife as Christ is to the church (v 23). The husbands who tend to dominate their wives also need transformation so that they can love their wives, “just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (v 25, niv<\/span>). By these words, the apostle Paul was presenting a means whereby couples could regain the bliss in their relationship that was the mark of Eden before the fall. Paul’s citation of Genesis 2:24 in Ephesians 5:31 is a case in point: here a couple may regain the original oneness that God intended for them. The relationship of equal persons in a hierarchy of responsiveness is stated in the context of mutual submission, which is a mark of their greater submission to the Lord Jesus.<\/p>\nHer Role in Life according to the Bible<\/p>\nA woman is a person in every respect as a man; she shares in the image of God and has the potential of varied ranges of response to culture, community, and life about her. It is a fact of Scripture that women are regularly associated with, and find their sense of worth in, childbearing. Yet the same Scriptures show that the nature of woman is not exhausted by associations with childbearing: she has her own identity in the community, in the church, and before the Lord in the whole of her life, not just when (or if) she bears and nourishes a child. Further, the biblical concept of childbearing always involves the husband, who is her partner at conception, at her side during delivery, and partner with her in the ongoing task of nourishing the child.<\/p>\nThe image of the woman as the childbearer begins with the promise of God in Genesis 3:15, where he announced the ultimate victory over the evil one, Satan, by the offspring of the woman. This promise respecting the offspring of the woman became the universal blessing of God upon woman as the childbearer. Ultimately, through one born of a woman, there would come the final deliverance. There is a sense in which each birth experience is a participation in the continuity of this promise (see 1 Tm 2:15 and its possible relationship to this continuity of women, salvation, and childbearing).<\/p>\nFurther, in the culture of the OT world, a woman’s genuine worth was solely, or largely, perceived in terms of childbearing. Yet it is not in childbearing alone that she finds worth and dignity before God. For the woman, as for the man, the issue of faith in the Lord is central. A woman who has a household of children but no faith in God might regard herself as a fulfilled person. Yet her care of her children is no substitute for piety to God. A woman who has no children, and perhaps no husband, may have her full identity and worth in her relationship with the God in whose image she is made and whose tasks she is commissioned by him to do. The gifts of God in a woman’s life may lead her to find opportunities in the community to express her devotion to God. Women apparently had the same opportunities as men to take a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:2; see also ch 30).<\/p>\nCertain notable women in the Bible led lives of public service. Miriam, the sister of Moses and Aaron (Ex 15:20-21), was a prophetess, musician, and national leader (Nm 12). Long after her time, God spoke through his prophets of the gift he had given to Israel in the person of the national leader Miriam (Mi 6:4). There were other magnificent women who had exemplary lives: Deborah, the prophetess of God and the only named woman judge of Israel (Jgs 4–5); Esther, the Hebrew queen of Xerxes who saved her people from the rash acts of the Persian king, a result of a frightful conspiracy; and Huldah, the prophetess who was the agent of the Lord’s word to Josiah at the inception of his revival (2 Chr 34:22-28). Huldah’s reception and transmission of the word of the Lord is the more remarkable because she was a contemporary with Jeremiah and Zephaniah. In this case God chose to speak through a woman.<\/p>\nIn the NT, certain women were noted for their public ministries: the daughters of Philip, Phoebe, Priscilla, Junias, Tryphena, Tryphosa, Persis, Euodia, and Syntyche. These women mark the beginning of the fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy of a day in which women as well as men would be the instruments of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Jl 2:28-29). Women such as Sarah, Ruth, and Hannah exercised their faith in God in the context of the home and family as well. And preeminently there is Mary, mother of Jesus, in whom the ideal of womanhood is conjoined to the fulfillment of the ancient promise to Eve that she would one day be the great victor over the enemy of mankind.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Eve; Man.<\/p>","summary_ro":"WOMAN Man’s companion created by God. Her Creation Genesis provides two accounts of the creation of the first man and woman. In the first, Genesis 1:26-28, God created humans in his image, as male and female. Hence, the female shares with the male the image of God, reflects his power and majesty on earth, and is commanded to multiply and bring dominion to the earth. From Genesis 1:26-28 there is no suggestion of inferiority of the female to the male, nor is there any suggestion of her submiss...","summary_en":"WOMAN Man’s companion created by God. Her Creation Genesis provides two accounts of the creation of the first man and woman. In the first, Genesis 1:26-28, God created humans in his image, as male and female. Hence, the female shares with the male the image of God, reflects his power and majesty on earth, and is commanded to multiply and bring dominion to the earth. From Genesis 1:26-28 there is no suggestion of inferiority of the female to the male, nor is there any suggestion of her submiss...","source":"Articles\/W.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":42858,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:24","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:24","content_ro":"2:24<\/strong> Marriage between a man and a woman is not just a human social construct but is rooted in the created order. • a man leaves . . . and is joined:<\/em> Marriage entails a shift of loyalty from parents to spouse. • the two are united into one:<\/em> Marriage and its commitments make it the most fundamental covenant relationship observed among humans. Marriage is a powerful image of Israel’s covenant with God (Hos 2:14-23) and of Christ’s relationship to the church (Eph 5:22-32). Marriage is designed as an inseparable, exclusive relationship between a man and a woman. The family unit it creates is the basic building block of human society.<\/p>","content_en":"2:24<\/strong> Marriage between a man and a woman is not just a human social construct but is rooted in the created order. • a man leaves . . . and is joined:<\/em> Marriage entails a shift of loyalty from parents to spouse. • the two are united into one:<\/em> Marriage and its commitments make it the most fundamental covenant relationship observed among humans. Marriage is a powerful image of Israel’s covenant with God (Hos 2:14-23) and of Christ’s relationship to the church (Eph 5:22-32). Marriage is designed as an inseparable, exclusive relationship between a man and a woman. The family unit it creates is the basic building block of human society.<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:24 Marriage between a man and a woman is not just a human social construct but is rooted in the created order. • a man leaves . . . and is joined: Marriage entails a shift of loyalty from parents to spouse. • the two are united into one: Marriage and its commitments make it the most fundamental covenant relationship observed among humans. Marriage is a powerful image of Israel’s covenant with God (Hos 2:14-23) and of Christ’s relationship to the church (Eph 5:22-32). Marriage is designed as...","summary_en":"2:24 Marriage between a man and a woman is not just a human social construct but is rooted in the created order. • a man leaves . . . and is joined: Marriage entails a shift of loyalty from parents to spouse. • the two are united into one: Marriage and its commitments make it the most fundamental covenant relationship observed among humans. Marriage is a powerful image of Israel’s covenant with God (Hos 2:14-23) and of Christ’s relationship to the church (Eph 5:22-32). Marriage is designed as...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":70484,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:24","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:24","content_ro":"2:24<\/strong> Marriage between a man and a woman is not just a human social construct but is rooted in the created order. • a man leaves . . . and is joined:<\/em> Marriage entails a shift of loyalty from parents to spouse. • the two are united into one:<\/em> Marriage and its commitments make it the most fundamental covenant relationship observed among humans. Marriage is a powerful image of Israel’s covenant with God (Hos 2:14-23) and of Christ’s relationship to the church (Eph 5:22-32). Marriage is designed as an inseparable, exclusive relationship between a man and a woman. The family unit it creates is the basic building block of human society.<\/p>","content_en":"2:24<\/strong> Marriage between a man and a woman is not just a human social construct but is rooted in the created order. • a man leaves . . . and is joined:<\/em> Marriage entails a shift of loyalty from parents to spouse. • the two are united into one:<\/em> Marriage and its commitments make it the most fundamental covenant relationship observed among humans. Marriage is a powerful image of Israel’s covenant with God (Hos 2:14-23) and of Christ’s relationship to the church (Eph 5:22-32). Marriage is designed as an inseparable, exclusive relationship between a man and a woman. The family unit it creates is the basic building block of human society.<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:24 Marriage between a man and a woman is not just a human social construct but is rooted in the created order. • a man leaves . . . and is joined: Marriage entails a shift of loyalty from parents to spouse. • the two are united into one: Marriage and its commitments make it the most fundamental covenant relationship observed among humans. Marriage is a powerful image of Israel’s covenant with God (Hos 2:14-23) and of Christ’s relationship to the church (Eph 5:22-32). Marriage is designed as...","summary_en":"2:24 Marriage between a man and a woman is not just a human social construct but is rooted in the created order. • a man leaves . . . and is joined: Marriage entails a shift of loyalty from parents to spouse. • the two are united into one: Marriage and its commitments make it the most fundamental covenant relationship observed among humans. Marriage is a powerful image of Israel’s covenant with God (Hos 2:14-23) and of Christ’s relationship to the church (Eph 5:22-32). Marriage is designed as...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":98110,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:24","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:24","content_ro":"2:24<\/strong> Marriage between a man and a woman is not just a human social construct but is rooted in the created order. • a man leaves . . . and is joined:<\/em> Marriage entails a shift of loyalty from parents to spouse. • the two are united into one:<\/em> Marriage and its commitments make it the most fundamental covenant relationship observed among humans. Marriage is a powerful image of Israel’s covenant with God (Hos 2:14-23) and of Christ’s relationship to the church (Eph 5:22-32). Marriage is designed as an inseparable, exclusive relationship between a man and a woman. The family unit it creates is the basic building block of human society.<\/p>","content_en":"2:24<\/strong> Marriage between a man and a woman is not just a human social construct but is rooted in the created order. • a man leaves . . . and is joined:<\/em> Marriage entails a shift of loyalty from parents to spouse. • the two are united into one:<\/em> Marriage and its commitments make it the most fundamental covenant relationship observed among humans. Marriage is a powerful image of Israel’s covenant with God (Hos 2:14-23) and of Christ’s relationship to the church (Eph 5:22-32). Marriage is designed as an inseparable, exclusive relationship between a man and a woman. The family unit it creates is the basic building block of human society.<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:24 Marriage between a man and a woman is not just a human social construct but is rooted in the created order. • a man leaves . . . and is joined: Marriage entails a shift of loyalty from parents to spouse. • the two are united into one: Marriage and its commitments make it the most fundamental covenant relationship observed among humans. Marriage is a powerful image of Israel’s covenant with God (Hos 2:14-23) and of Christ’s relationship to the church (Eph 5:22-32). Marriage is designed as...","summary_en":"2:24 Marriage between a man and a woman is not just a human social construct but is rooted in the created order. • a man leaves . . . and is joined: Marriage entails a shift of loyalty from parents to spouse. • the two are united into one: Marriage and its commitments make it the most fundamental covenant relationship observed among humans. Marriage is a powerful image of Israel’s covenant with God (Hos 2:14-23) and of Christ’s relationship to the church (Eph 5:22-32). Marriage is designed as...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":125736,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:24","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:24","content_ro":"2:24<\/strong> Marriage between a man and a woman is not just a human social construct but is rooted in the created order. • a man leaves . . . and is joined:<\/em> Marriage entails a shift of loyalty from parents to spouse. • the two are united into one:<\/em> Marriage and its commitments make it the most fundamental covenant relationship observed among humans. Marriage is a powerful image of Israel’s covenant with God (Hos 2:14-23) and of Christ’s relationship to the church (Eph 5:22-32). Marriage is designed as an inseparable, exclusive relationship between a man and a woman. The family unit it creates is the basic building block of human society.<\/p>","content_en":"2:24<\/strong> Marriage between a man and a woman is not just a human social construct but is rooted in the created order. • a man leaves . . . and is joined:<\/em> Marriage entails a shift of loyalty from parents to spouse. • the two are united into one:<\/em> Marriage and its commitments make it the most fundamental covenant relationship observed among humans. Marriage is a powerful image of Israel’s covenant with God (Hos 2:14-23) and of Christ’s relationship to the church (Eph 5:22-32). Marriage is designed as an inseparable, exclusive relationship between a man and a woman. The family unit it creates is the basic building block of human society.<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:24 Marriage between a man and a woman is not just a human social construct but is rooted in the created order. • a man leaves . . . and is joined: Marriage entails a shift of loyalty from parents to spouse. • the two are united into one: Marriage and its commitments make it the most fundamental covenant relationship observed among humans. Marriage is a powerful image of Israel’s covenant with God (Hos 2:14-23) and of Christ’s relationship to the church (Eph 5:22-32). Marriage is designed as...","summary_en":"2:24 Marriage between a man and a woman is not just a human social construct but is rooted in the created order. • a man leaves . . . and is joined: Marriage entails a shift of loyalty from parents to spouse. • the two are united into one: Marriage and its commitments make it the most fundamental covenant relationship observed among humans. Marriage is a powerful image of Israel’s covenant with God (Hos 2:14-23) and of Christ’s relationship to the church (Eph 5:22-32). Marriage is designed as...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":63461,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Marriage and Sexuality","title_en":"Marriage and Sexuality","content_ro":"<h3>Marriage and Sexuality<\/h3>\nFrom the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame.<\/p>\nIn Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young men to avoid the temptations of sexual expression outside of marriage (Prov 2:16-22; 5:1-23; 6:20–7:27). While a young man might find other women physically attractive and seductive, the consequences of acting on these temptations are dire: His family and professional aspirations might be destroyed. Proverbs teaches young men to cultivate a strong relationship with their own wives. They are counseled to have healthy marital sex rather than sleeping with other women (5:15-20).<\/p>\nAlthough this section of Proverbs was originally written to instruct young men, all readers can reflect on these issues of marriage and sexuality. Proverbs urges men and women to recognize the sanctity and beauty of marital love as God, the wise Creator, intended it.<\/p>\nThe New Testament reaffirms the sacredness of sexuality and its proper expression in marriage. Jesus appeals to the creation narrative in Genesis as a way of highlighting the intended permanency of the marriage relationship. After quoting Genesis 2:24, he states, “Since they are no longer two but one, let no one split apart what God has joined together” (Matt 19:3-6). Paul discusses the importance of maintaining sexual intimacy in marriage, lest Satan be afforded an opportunity to tempt (1 Cor 7:3-5). God’s desire is that those who join in marriage would remain faithful to one another, avoiding sexual activity that is destructive to the sacred relationship they have entered (see Heb 13:4).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:18-25; Prov 2:16-22; 5:15-20; 6:20-35; 7:1-27; Jer 5:7-11; Hos 2:20; Mal 2:14-16; Matt 19:4-6; 22:30; 1 Cor 6:15-20; Heb 13:4<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Marriage and Sexuality<\/h3>\nFrom the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame.<\/p>\nIn Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young men to avoid the temptations of sexual expression outside of marriage (Prov 2:16-22; 5:1-23; 6:20–7:27). While a young man might find other women physically attractive and seductive, the consequences of acting on these temptations are dire: His family and professional aspirations might be destroyed. Proverbs teaches young men to cultivate a strong relationship with their own wives. They are counseled to have healthy marital sex rather than sleeping with other women (5:15-20).<\/p>\nAlthough this section of Proverbs was originally written to instruct young men, all readers can reflect on these issues of marriage and sexuality. Proverbs urges men and women to recognize the sanctity and beauty of marital love as God, the wise Creator, intended it.<\/p>\nThe New Testament reaffirms the sacredness of sexuality and its proper expression in marriage. Jesus appeals to the creation narrative in Genesis as a way of highlighting the intended permanency of the marriage relationship. After quoting Genesis 2:24, he states, “Since they are no longer two but one, let no one split apart what God has joined together” (Matt 19:3-6). Paul discusses the importance of maintaining sexual intimacy in marriage, lest Satan be afforded an opportunity to tempt (1 Cor 7:3-5). God’s desire is that those who join in marriage would remain faithful to one another, avoiding sexual activity that is destructive to the sacred relationship they have entered (see Heb 13:4).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:18-25; Prov 2:16-22; 5:15-20; 6:20-35; 7:1-27; Jer 5:7-11; Hos 2:20; Mal 2:14-16; Matt 19:4-6; 22:30; 1 Cor 6:15-20; Heb 13:4<\/p>","summary_ro":"Marriage and Sexuality From the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame. In Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young ...","summary_en":"Marriage and Sexuality From the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame. In Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":91087,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Marriage and Sexuality","title_en":"Marriage and Sexuality","content_ro":"<h3>Marriage and Sexuality<\/h3>\nFrom the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame.<\/p>\nIn Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young men to avoid the temptations of sexual expression outside of marriage (Prov 2:16-22; 5:1-23; 6:20–7:27). While a young man might find other women physically attractive and seductive, the consequences of acting on these temptations are dire: His family and professional aspirations might be destroyed. Proverbs teaches young men to cultivate a strong relationship with their own wives. They are counseled to have healthy marital sex rather than sleeping with other women (5:15-20).<\/p>\nAlthough this section of Proverbs was originally written to instruct young men, all readers can reflect on these issues of marriage and sexuality. Proverbs urges men and women to recognize the sanctity and beauty of marital love as God, the wise Creator, intended it.<\/p>\nThe New Testament reaffirms the sacredness of sexuality and its proper expression in marriage. Jesus appeals to the creation narrative in Genesis as a way of highlighting the intended permanency of the marriage relationship. After quoting Genesis 2:24, he states, “Since they are no longer two but one, let no one split apart what God has joined together” (Matt 19:3-6). Paul discusses the importance of maintaining sexual intimacy in marriage, lest Satan be afforded an opportunity to tempt (1 Cor 7:3-5). God’s desire is that those who join in marriage would remain faithful to one another, avoiding sexual activity that is destructive to the sacred relationship they have entered (see Heb 13:4).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:18-25; Prov 2:16-22; 5:15-20; 6:20-35; 7:1-27; Jer 5:7-11; Hos 2:20; Mal 2:14-16; Matt 19:4-6; 22:30; 1 Cor 6:15-20; Heb 13:4<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Marriage and Sexuality<\/h3>\nFrom the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame.<\/p>\nIn Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young men to avoid the temptations of sexual expression outside of marriage (Prov 2:16-22; 5:1-23; 6:20–7:27). While a young man might find other women physically attractive and seductive, the consequences of acting on these temptations are dire: His family and professional aspirations might be destroyed. Proverbs teaches young men to cultivate a strong relationship with their own wives. They are counseled to have healthy marital sex rather than sleeping with other women (5:15-20).<\/p>\nAlthough this section of Proverbs was originally written to instruct young men, all readers can reflect on these issues of marriage and sexuality. Proverbs urges men and women to recognize the sanctity and beauty of marital love as God, the wise Creator, intended it.<\/p>\nThe New Testament reaffirms the sacredness of sexuality and its proper expression in marriage. Jesus appeals to the creation narrative in Genesis as a way of highlighting the intended permanency of the marriage relationship. After quoting Genesis 2:24, he states, “Since they are no longer two but one, let no one split apart what God has joined together” (Matt 19:3-6). Paul discusses the importance of maintaining sexual intimacy in marriage, lest Satan be afforded an opportunity to tempt (1 Cor 7:3-5). God’s desire is that those who join in marriage would remain faithful to one another, avoiding sexual activity that is destructive to the sacred relationship they have entered (see Heb 13:4).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:18-25; Prov 2:16-22; 5:15-20; 6:20-35; 7:1-27; Jer 5:7-11; Hos 2:20; Mal 2:14-16; Matt 19:4-6; 22:30; 1 Cor 6:15-20; Heb 13:4<\/p>","summary_ro":"Marriage and Sexuality From the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame. In Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young ...","summary_en":"Marriage and Sexuality From the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame. In Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":118713,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Marriage and Sexuality","title_en":"Marriage and Sexuality","content_ro":"<h3>Marriage and Sexuality<\/h3>\nFrom the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame.<\/p>\nIn Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young men to avoid the temptations of sexual expression outside of marriage (Prov 2:16-22; 5:1-23; 6:20–7:27). While a young man might find other women physically attractive and seductive, the consequences of acting on these temptations are dire: His family and professional aspirations might be destroyed. Proverbs teaches young men to cultivate a strong relationship with their own wives. They are counseled to have healthy marital sex rather than sleeping with other women (5:15-20).<\/p>\nAlthough this section of Proverbs was originally written to instruct young men, all readers can reflect on these issues of marriage and sexuality. Proverbs urges men and women to recognize the sanctity and beauty of marital love as God, the wise Creator, intended it.<\/p>\nThe New Testament reaffirms the sacredness of sexuality and its proper expression in marriage. Jesus appeals to the creation narrative in Genesis as a way of highlighting the intended permanency of the marriage relationship. After quoting Genesis 2:24, he states, “Since they are no longer two but one, let no one split apart what God has joined together” (Matt 19:3-6). Paul discusses the importance of maintaining sexual intimacy in marriage, lest Satan be afforded an opportunity to tempt (1 Cor 7:3-5). God’s desire is that those who join in marriage would remain faithful to one another, avoiding sexual activity that is destructive to the sacred relationship they have entered (see Heb 13:4).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:18-25; Prov 2:16-22; 5:15-20; 6:20-35; 7:1-27; Jer 5:7-11; Hos 2:20; Mal 2:14-16; Matt 19:4-6; 22:30; 1 Cor 6:15-20; Heb 13:4<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Marriage and Sexuality<\/h3>\nFrom the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame.<\/p>\nIn Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young men to avoid the temptations of sexual expression outside of marriage (Prov 2:16-22; 5:1-23; 6:20–7:27). While a young man might find other women physically attractive and seductive, the consequences of acting on these temptations are dire: His family and professional aspirations might be destroyed. Proverbs teaches young men to cultivate a strong relationship with their own wives. They are counseled to have healthy marital sex rather than sleeping with other women (5:15-20).<\/p>\nAlthough this section of Proverbs was originally written to instruct young men, all readers can reflect on these issues of marriage and sexuality. Proverbs urges men and women to recognize the sanctity and beauty of marital love as God, the wise Creator, intended it.<\/p>\nThe New Testament reaffirms the sacredness of sexuality and its proper expression in marriage. Jesus appeals to the creation narrative in Genesis as a way of highlighting the intended permanency of the marriage relationship. After quoting Genesis 2:24, he states, “Since they are no longer two but one, let no one split apart what God has joined together” (Matt 19:3-6). Paul discusses the importance of maintaining sexual intimacy in marriage, lest Satan be afforded an opportunity to tempt (1 Cor 7:3-5). God’s desire is that those who join in marriage would remain faithful to one another, avoiding sexual activity that is destructive to the sacred relationship they have entered (see Heb 13:4).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:18-25; Prov 2:16-22; 5:15-20; 6:20-35; 7:1-27; Jer 5:7-11; Hos 2:20; Mal 2:14-16; Matt 19:4-6; 22:30; 1 Cor 6:15-20; Heb 13:4<\/p>","summary_ro":"Marriage and Sexuality From the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame. In Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young ...","summary_en":"Marriage and Sexuality From the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame. In Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":146339,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Marriage and Sexuality","title_en":"Marriage and Sexuality","content_ro":"<h3>Marriage and Sexuality<\/h3>\nFrom the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame.<\/p>\nIn Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young men to avoid the temptations of sexual expression outside of marriage (Prov 2:16-22; 5:1-23; 6:20–7:27). While a young man might find other women physically attractive and seductive, the consequences of acting on these temptations are dire: His family and professional aspirations might be destroyed. Proverbs teaches young men to cultivate a strong relationship with their own wives. They are counseled to have healthy marital sex rather than sleeping with other women (5:15-20).<\/p>\nAlthough this section of Proverbs was originally written to instruct young men, all readers can reflect on these issues of marriage and sexuality. Proverbs urges men and women to recognize the sanctity and beauty of marital love as God, the wise Creator, intended it.<\/p>\nThe New Testament reaffirms the sacredness of sexuality and its proper expression in marriage. Jesus appeals to the creation narrative in Genesis as a way of highlighting the intended permanency of the marriage relationship. After quoting Genesis 2:24, he states, “Since they are no longer two but one, let no one split apart what God has joined together” (Matt 19:3-6). Paul discusses the importance of maintaining sexual intimacy in marriage, lest Satan be afforded an opportunity to tempt (1 Cor 7:3-5). God’s desire is that those who join in marriage would remain faithful to one another, avoiding sexual activity that is destructive to the sacred relationship they have entered (see Heb 13:4).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:18-25; Prov 2:16-22; 5:15-20; 6:20-35; 7:1-27; Jer 5:7-11; Hos 2:20; Mal 2:14-16; Matt 19:4-6; 22:30; 1 Cor 6:15-20; Heb 13:4<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Marriage and Sexuality<\/h3>\nFrom the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame.<\/p>\nIn Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young men to avoid the temptations of sexual expression outside of marriage (Prov 2:16-22; 5:1-23; 6:20–7:27). While a young man might find other women physically attractive and seductive, the consequences of acting on these temptations are dire: His family and professional aspirations might be destroyed. Proverbs teaches young men to cultivate a strong relationship with their own wives. They are counseled to have healthy marital sex rather than sleeping with other women (5:15-20).<\/p>\nAlthough this section of Proverbs was originally written to instruct young men, all readers can reflect on these issues of marriage and sexuality. Proverbs urges men and women to recognize the sanctity and beauty of marital love as God, the wise Creator, intended it.<\/p>\nThe New Testament reaffirms the sacredness of sexuality and its proper expression in marriage. Jesus appeals to the creation narrative in Genesis as a way of highlighting the intended permanency of the marriage relationship. After quoting Genesis 2:24, he states, “Since they are no longer two but one, let no one split apart what God has joined together” (Matt 19:3-6). Paul discusses the importance of maintaining sexual intimacy in marriage, lest Satan be afforded an opportunity to tempt (1 Cor 7:3-5). God’s desire is that those who join in marriage would remain faithful to one another, avoiding sexual activity that is destructive to the sacred relationship they have entered (see Heb 13:4).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 2:18-25; Prov 2:16-22; 5:15-20; 6:20-35; 7:1-27; Jer 5:7-11; Hos 2:20; Mal 2:14-16; Matt 19:4-6; 22:30; 1 Cor 6:15-20; Heb 13:4<\/p>","summary_ro":"Marriage and Sexuality From the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame. In Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young ...","summary_en":"Marriage and Sexuality From the beginning of Scripture, marriage is considered sacred, and appropriate sexual expression is an important part of marriage (Gen 2:23-25). The Fall created a rupture in all relationships, first between God and humans, and then between husband and wife (Gen 3). The division between Adam and Eve was expressed in terms of their sexuality; they could no longer stand naked in the garden without feeling shame. In Proverbs, the wise teacher frequently warns naive young ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"25":[{"id":34521,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Sex, Sexuality*","title_en":"Sex, Sexuality*","content_ro":"<h3>SEX, SEXUALITY*<\/h3>\nUnlike some religious and philosophical systems, the Bible takes a positive view of human sexuality. According to the OT’s account of Creation, it was God himself who made people sexual beings. Being male or female is part of what it means to be created in the image of God (Gn 1:26-28). Above everything else, therefore, sexuality is a precious aspect of what a person is,<\/em> not merely a description of what he or she does.<\/em><\/p>\nIn line with this positive approach, the OT sees nothing embarrassing in the bodily differences between the sexes (Gn 2:25) and nothing shameful in physical expressions of lovemaking (Prv 5:18-19; Eccl 9:9). The Song of Songs, in particular, is a most beautiful love poem. Its powerful language should not be so spiritualized that the physical passion it describes is stripped of its delight and candor.<\/p>\nPaul strikes the same positive note in his letters to Corinth and to Timothy at Ephesus. Sexual vice was rampant in both these cities. Partly as a reaction to this, a negative, ascetic attitude was threatening to take control in the life of Christians. Marriage was being forbidden (1 Tm 4:3) and married couples were abstaining from sexual intercourse in the belief that this would help them to become more spiritually mature (cf. 1 Cor 7:5).<\/p>\nPaul had no hesitation in branding such attitudes as heretical. Recalling his readers to the message of Genesis, he encouraged them to receive God’s gifts thankfully (1 Tm 4:3-5). Husbands and wives, he writes, are mutually obliged to satisfy each other’s sexual needs (1 Cor 7:3-4).<\/p>\nMost obviously, God made sex for procreation (Gn 1:28). But sex is for relationship as well as procreation. Genesis 2 describes how God made woman to fill man’s relationship vacuum (2:18-24). The relational purpose of human sexuality embraces far more than physical intercourse. In this broad sense, being male or being female is a God-given aid to making all sorts of relationships, including some not normally thought of as sexual at all.<\/p>\nThe Bible does not, of course, ignore the darker side of human nature. Having described the goodness of sex in the Creator’s perfect plan, Genesis goes on to explain how man’s disobedience to God spoiled sex, just as it spoiled every other aspect of human life.<\/p>\nNudity became a matter of embarrassment and fear, as men and women eyed each other as sex objects instead of as people with physical differences (Gn 3:7-10). On the relational side, trust and tenderness gave way to betrayal and harshness. Here lies the root cause of all the discrimination and abuse that fuel modern feminist protests. And procreation was spoiled, too, as the marvelous experience of childbirth was marred by unnecessary pain and distress.<\/p>\nThis is the context in which the Bible’s ban on extramarital intercourse should be read; it prohibits adultery (Ex 20:14) and any kind of extramarital or premarital sex (1 Cor 6:18; 1 Thes 4:3). The Bible does not usually pause to back up its prohibitions with arguments, but on the rare occasions when it does expand its veto on extramarital intercourse, the reasons given are highly instructive. There is no appeal to consequences (these things are wrong because they result in disease and unwanted babies) or even to motives (these things are wrong if they are done in an unloving spirit). All extramarital sex is wrong in itself,<\/em> simply because the body is not meant for sexual immorality and those who commit sexual sins sin against their own bodies (1 Cor 6:13, 18). Sexual intercourse is a unique kind of body language that the Creator has designed to express and seal that special, exclusive, life-long relationship between a man and a woman which the Bible labels “marriage.”<\/p>\nThe Bible also prohibits homosexuality (Lv 18:22; Rom 1:26-27; 1 Cor 6:9-10; 1 Tm 1:9-10). The only verses that provide an explanation for this prohibition are Romans 1:24-27. Essentially, these verses indicate that God gave up on those who gave up on him when they turned from worshiping the Creator to worshiping things God made—that is, when they became idolaters. As such, God abandoned them, as they abandoned themselves to their own sinful and sexual desires, especially practicing homosexuality. Thus, homosexuality is seen as a violation of the natural created order and thereby an offense to God the Creator who created men and women, male and female, for procreation.<\/p>\nThe Bible’s advice to anyone caught up in sexual temptation is practical: flee from temptation. When Joseph was invited by another man’s wife to go to bed with her, he left his cloak in her hand and ran out of the house (Gn 39:12). And Paul tells his Christian readers to follow Joseph’s good example (1 Cor 6:18; 2 Tm 2:22). This is an acknowledgment of the power of the normal person’s sex drive, not a counsel of despair. The power of the Holy Spirit, Paul taught, gives any believer the strength to win the war against sexual temptation. He knew Christians who had found the Spirit’s power to gain self-control and conquer the most deeply ingrained habits (1 Cor 6:9-11; Gal 5:22-23; 2 Tm 1:7).<\/p>\nFinally, there is a strong hint in the NT that God is going to end human sexuality just as he began it. There will be no marriage, Jesus taught, in heaven (Mt 22:30). That is an unlikely but fitting climax to the Bible’s teaching on sex and sexuality. When there is no more death, the need to procreate will be over. And when relationships are perfectly loving, there will no longer be any need for a sexual prop to support them. So both of God’s main purposes for human sexuality will be perfectly fulfilled in eternity.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Divorce; Family Life and Relations; Man; Marriage, Marriage Customs; Virgin; Woman.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SEX, SEXUALITY*<\/h3>\nUnlike some religious and philosophical systems, the Bible takes a positive view of human sexuality. According to the OT’s account of Creation, it was God himself who made people sexual beings. Being male or female is part of what it means to be created in the image of God (Gn 1:26-28). Above everything else, therefore, sexuality is a precious aspect of what a person is,<\/em> not merely a description of what he or she does.<\/em><\/p>\nIn line with this positive approach, the OT sees nothing embarrassing in the bodily differences between the sexes (Gn 2:25) and nothing shameful in physical expressions of lovemaking (Prv 5:18-19; Eccl 9:9). The Song of Songs, in particular, is a most beautiful love poem. Its powerful language should not be so spiritualized that the physical passion it describes is stripped of its delight and candor.<\/p>\nPaul strikes the same positive note in his letters to Corinth and to Timothy at Ephesus. Sexual vice was rampant in both these cities. Partly as a reaction to this, a negative, ascetic attitude was threatening to take control in the life of Christians. Marriage was being forbidden (1 Tm 4:3) and married couples were abstaining from sexual intercourse in the belief that this would help them to become more spiritually mature (cf. 1 Cor 7:5).<\/p>\nPaul had no hesitation in branding such attitudes as heretical. Recalling his readers to the message of Genesis, he encouraged them to receive God’s gifts thankfully (1 Tm 4:3-5). Husbands and wives, he writes, are mutually obliged to satisfy each other’s sexual needs (1 Cor 7:3-4).<\/p>\nMost obviously, God made sex for procreation (Gn 1:28). But sex is for relationship as well as procreation. Genesis 2 describes how God made woman to fill man’s relationship vacuum (2:18-24). The relational purpose of human sexuality embraces far more than physical intercourse. In this broad sense, being male or being female is a God-given aid to making all sorts of relationships, including some not normally thought of as sexual at all.<\/p>\nThe Bible does not, of course, ignore the darker side of human nature. Having described the goodness of sex in the Creator’s perfect plan, Genesis goes on to explain how man’s disobedience to God spoiled sex, just as it spoiled every other aspect of human life.<\/p>\nNudity became a matter of embarrassment and fear, as men and women eyed each other as sex objects instead of as people with physical differences (Gn 3:7-10). On the relational side, trust and tenderness gave way to betrayal and harshness. Here lies the root cause of all the discrimination and abuse that fuel modern feminist protests. And procreation was spoiled, too, as the marvelous experience of childbirth was marred by unnecessary pain and distress.<\/p>\nThis is the context in which the Bible’s ban on extramarital intercourse should be read; it prohibits adultery (Ex 20:14) and any kind of extramarital or premarital sex (1 Cor 6:18; 1 Thes 4:3). The Bible does not usually pause to back up its prohibitions with arguments, but on the rare occasions when it does expand its veto on extramarital intercourse, the reasons given are highly instructive. There is no appeal to consequences (these things are wrong because they result in disease and unwanted babies) or even to motives (these things are wrong if they are done in an unloving spirit). All extramarital sex is wrong in itself,<\/em> simply because the body is not meant for sexual immorality and those who commit sexual sins sin against their own bodies (1 Cor 6:13, 18). Sexual intercourse is a unique kind of body language that the Creator has designed to express and seal that special, exclusive, life-long relationship between a man and a woman which the Bible labels “marriage.”<\/p>\nThe Bible also prohibits homosexuality (Lv 18:22; Rom 1:26-27; 1 Cor 6:9-10; 1 Tm 1:9-10). The only verses that provide an explanation for this prohibition are Romans 1:24-27. Essentially, these verses indicate that God gave up on those who gave up on him when they turned from worshiping the Creator to worshiping things God made—that is, when they became idolaters. As such, God abandoned them, as they abandoned themselves to their own sinful and sexual desires, especially practicing homosexuality. Thus, homosexuality is seen as a violation of the natural created order and thereby an offense to God the Creator who created men and women, male and female, for procreation.<\/p>\nThe Bible’s advice to anyone caught up in sexual temptation is practical: flee from temptation. When Joseph was invited by another man’s wife to go to bed with her, he left his cloak in her hand and ran out of the house (Gn 39:12). And Paul tells his Christian readers to follow Joseph’s good example (1 Cor 6:18; 2 Tm 2:22). This is an acknowledgment of the power of the normal person’s sex drive, not a counsel of despair. The power of the Holy Spirit, Paul taught, gives any believer the strength to win the war against sexual temptation. He knew Christians who had found the Spirit’s power to gain self-control and conquer the most deeply ingrained habits (1 Cor 6:9-11; Gal 5:22-23; 2 Tm 1:7).<\/p>\nFinally, there is a strong hint in the NT that God is going to end human sexuality just as he began it. There will be no marriage, Jesus taught, in heaven (Mt 22:30). That is an unlikely but fitting climax to the Bible’s teaching on sex and sexuality. When there is no more death, the need to procreate will be over. And when relationships are perfectly loving, there will no longer be any need for a sexual prop to support them. So both of God’s main purposes for human sexuality will be perfectly fulfilled in eternity.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Divorce; Family Life and Relations; Man; Marriage, Marriage Customs; Virgin; Woman.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SEX, SEXUALITY* Unlike some religious and philosophical systems, the Bible takes a positive view of human sexuality. According to the OT’s account of Creation, it was God himself who made people sexual beings. Being male or female is part of what it means to be created in the image of God (Gn 1:26-28). Above everything else, therefore, sexuality is a precious aspect of what a person is, not merely a description of what he or she does. In line with this positive approach, the OT sees nothing e...","summary_en":"SEX, SEXUALITY* Unlike some religious and philosophical systems, the Bible takes a positive view of human sexuality. According to the OT’s account of Creation, it was God himself who made people sexual beings. Being male or female is part of what it means to be created in the image of God (Gn 1:26-28). Above everything else, therefore, sexuality is a precious aspect of what a person is, not merely a description of what he or she does. In line with this positive approach, the OT sees nothing e...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":42859,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:25","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:25","content_ro":"2:25<\/strong> both naked:<\/em> Prior to the Fall (ch 3), nakedness reflected innocence and trust. After the Fall, it denoted vulnerability and shame<\/em> (see 9:22-23; Lev 18:1-23; Isa 47:3). Shame is more than embarrassment; it connotes exploitation and humiliation (see Deut 28:48; Isa 58:7; Jas 2:15-16).<\/p>","content_en":"2:25<\/strong> both naked:<\/em> Prior to the Fall (ch 3), nakedness reflected innocence and trust. After the Fall, it denoted vulnerability and shame<\/em> (see 9:22-23; Lev 18:1-23; Isa 47:3). Shame is more than embarrassment; it connotes exploitation and humiliation (see Deut 28:48; Isa 58:7; Jas 2:15-16).<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:25 both naked: Prior to the Fall (ch 3), nakedness reflected innocence and trust. After the Fall, it denoted vulnerability and shame (see 9:22-23; Lev 18:1-23; Isa 47:3). Shame is more than embarrassment; it connotes exploitation and humiliation (see Deut 28:48; Isa 58:7; Jas 2:15-16).","summary_en":"2:25 both naked: Prior to the Fall (ch 3), nakedness reflected innocence and trust. After the Fall, it denoted vulnerability and shame (see 9:22-23; Lev 18:1-23; Isa 47:3). Shame is more than embarrassment; it connotes exploitation and humiliation (see Deut 28:48; Isa 58:7; Jas 2:15-16).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":70485,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:25","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:25","content_ro":"2:25<\/strong> both naked:<\/em> Prior to the Fall (ch 3), nakedness reflected innocence and trust. After the Fall, it denoted vulnerability and shame<\/em> (see 9:22-23; Lev 18:1-23; Isa 47:3). Shame is more than embarrassment; it connotes exploitation and humiliation (see Deut 28:48; Isa 58:7; Jas 2:15-16).<\/p>","content_en":"2:25<\/strong> both naked:<\/em> Prior to the Fall (ch 3), nakedness reflected innocence and trust. After the Fall, it denoted vulnerability and shame<\/em> (see 9:22-23; Lev 18:1-23; Isa 47:3). Shame is more than embarrassment; it connotes exploitation and humiliation (see Deut 28:48; Isa 58:7; Jas 2:15-16).<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:25 both naked: Prior to the Fall (ch 3), nakedness reflected innocence and trust. After the Fall, it denoted vulnerability and shame (see 9:22-23; Lev 18:1-23; Isa 47:3). Shame is more than embarrassment; it connotes exploitation and humiliation (see Deut 28:48; Isa 58:7; Jas 2:15-16).","summary_en":"2:25 both naked: Prior to the Fall (ch 3), nakedness reflected innocence and trust. After the Fall, it denoted vulnerability and shame (see 9:22-23; Lev 18:1-23; Isa 47:3). Shame is more than embarrassment; it connotes exploitation and humiliation (see Deut 28:48; Isa 58:7; Jas 2:15-16).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":98111,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:25","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:25","content_ro":"2:25<\/strong> both naked:<\/em> Prior to the Fall (ch 3), nakedness reflected innocence and trust. After the Fall, it denoted vulnerability and shame<\/em> (see 9:22-23; Lev 18:1-23; Isa 47:3). Shame is more than embarrassment; it connotes exploitation and humiliation (see Deut 28:48; Isa 58:7; Jas 2:15-16).<\/p>","content_en":"2:25<\/strong> both naked:<\/em> Prior to the Fall (ch 3), nakedness reflected innocence and trust. After the Fall, it denoted vulnerability and shame<\/em> (see 9:22-23; Lev 18:1-23; Isa 47:3). Shame is more than embarrassment; it connotes exploitation and humiliation (see Deut 28:48; Isa 58:7; Jas 2:15-16).<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:25 both naked: Prior to the Fall (ch 3), nakedness reflected innocence and trust. After the Fall, it denoted vulnerability and shame (see 9:22-23; Lev 18:1-23; Isa 47:3). Shame is more than embarrassment; it connotes exploitation and humiliation (see Deut 28:48; Isa 58:7; Jas 2:15-16).","summary_en":"2:25 both naked: Prior to the Fall (ch 3), nakedness reflected innocence and trust. After the Fall, it denoted vulnerability and shame (see 9:22-23; Lev 18:1-23; Isa 47:3). Shame is more than embarrassment; it connotes exploitation and humiliation (see Deut 28:48; Isa 58:7; Jas 2:15-16).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":125737,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 2:25","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 2:25","content_ro":"2:25<\/strong> both naked:<\/em> Prior to the Fall (ch 3), nakedness reflected innocence and trust. After the Fall, it denoted vulnerability and shame<\/em> (see 9:22-23; Lev 18:1-23; Isa 47:3). Shame is more than embarrassment; it connotes exploitation and humiliation (see Deut 28:48; Isa 58:7; Jas 2:15-16).<\/p>","content_en":"2:25<\/strong> both naked:<\/em> Prior to the Fall (ch 3), nakedness reflected innocence and trust. After the Fall, it denoted vulnerability and shame<\/em> (see 9:22-23; Lev 18:1-23; Isa 47:3). Shame is more than embarrassment; it connotes exploitation and humiliation (see Deut 28:48; Isa 58:7; Jas 2:15-16).<\/p>","summary_ro":"2:25 both naked: Prior to the Fall (ch 3), nakedness reflected innocence and trust. After the Fall, it denoted vulnerability and shame (see 9:22-23; Lev 18:1-23; Isa 47:3). Shame is more than embarrassment; it connotes exploitation and humiliation (see Deut 28:48; Isa 58:7; Jas 2:15-16).","summary_en":"2:25 both naked: Prior to the Fall (ch 3), nakedness reflected innocence and trust. After the Fall, it denoted vulnerability and shame (see 9:22-23; Lev 18:1-23; Isa 47:3). Shame is more than embarrassment; it connotes exploitation and humiliation (see Deut 28:48; Isa 58:7; Jas 2:15-16).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}]},"labels":{"article":"Articol","map":"Hartă","chart":"Diagramă","textbox":"Notă explicativă","picture":"Imagine","profile":"Profil","study_note":"Notă de studiu","theme_note":"Temă biblică"},"icons":{"article":"📖","map":"🗺️","chart":"📊","textbox":"💡","picture":"🖼️","profile":"👤","study_note":"📝","theme_note":"🎯"},"typeColors":{"article":"#d4af37","map":"#2d7d46","chart":"#3b82f6","textbox":"#8b5cf6","picture":"#ec4899","profile":"#f59e0b","study_note":"#06b6d4","theme_note":"#ef4444"}}

Geneza 2

Citește Biblia

Geneza 2

Niciun rezultat

Bine ai venit! 👋

Redare audio