1
Dina, fata pe care o născuse lui Iacov Lea, a ieşit să vadă pe fetele ţării.
2
Ea a fost zărită de Sihem, fiul Hevitului Hamor, domnitorul ţării. El a pus mâna pe ea, s-a culcat cu ea şi a necinstit-o.
3
S-a lipit cu toată inima de Dina, fata lui Iacov, a iubit fata, şi a căutat s-o liniştească.
4
După aceea Sihem a zis tatălui său Hamor: ,,Ia-mi de nevastă pe fata aceasta!``
5
Iacov a aflat că-i necinstise pe fiică-sa Dina; şi fiindcă fiii săi erau cu vitele la păşune, Iacov a tăcut până la întoarcerea lor.
6
Hamor, tatăl lui Sihem, s-a dus la Iacov ca să-i vorbească.
7
Dar când s-au întors fiii lui Iacov dela păşune, şi au auzit lucrul acesta, s-au supărat şi s-au mâniat foarte tare; pentrucă Sihem săvârşise o mişelie în Israel, culcându-se cu fata lui Iacov: aşa ceva n-ar fi trebuit să se facă niciodată.
8
Hamor le-a vorbit astfel: ,,Fiul meu Sihem s-a lipit cu toată inima de fata voastră; vă rog, daţi-i-o de nevastă,
9
şi încuscriţi-vă cu noi; voi daţi-ne fetele voastre, şi luaţi pentru voi pe ale noastre.
10
Locuiţi cu noi; ţara vă stă înainte, rămâneţi în ea, faceţi negoţ şi cumpăraţi pământuri în ea.``
11
Sihem a zis tatălui şi fraţilor Dinei: ,,Să capăt trecere înaintea voastră, şi vă voi da ce-mi veţi cere.
12
Cereţi-mi o zestre cât de mare şi cât de multe daruri, şi voi da tot ce-mi veţi zice; numai daţi-mi fata de nevastă.``
13
Fiii lui Iacov au răspuns, şi au vorbit cu vicleşug lui Sihem şi tatălui său Hamor, pentrucă Sihem necinstise pe sora lor Dina.
14
Ei i-au zis: ,,Este un lucru pe care nu-l putem face să dăm pe sora noastră unui om netăiat împrejur; căci ar fi o ocară pentru noi.
15
Nu ne vom învoi la aşa ceva decât dacă vă faceţi şi voi ca noi, şi dacă orice parte bărbătească dintre voi se va tăia împrejur.
16
Atunci vă vom da pe fetele noastre, şi vom lua pentru noi pe ale voastre; vom locui cu voi, şi vom face împreună un singur norod.
17
Dar dacă nu voiţi să ne ascultaţi şi să vă tăiaţi împrejur, ne vom lua fata şi vom pleca.``
18
Cuvintele lor au plăcut lui Hamor şi lui Sihem, fiul lui Hamor.
19
Tânărul n-a pregetat să facă lucrul acesta, căci iubea pe fata lui Iacov, şi era cel mai bine văzut în casa tatălui său.
20
Hamor şi fiul lui Sihem s-au dus la poarta cetăţii, şi au vorbit astfel oamenilor din cetatea lor:
21
,,Oamenii aceştia au gânduri de pace faţă de noi; să rămână dar în ţară, şi să facă negoţ; ţara este destul de largă pentru ei. Noi vom lua de neveste pe fetele lor, şi le vom da de neveste pe fetele noastre.
22
Dar oamenii aceştia nu vor voi să locuiască împreună cu noi, ca să alcătuim un singur popor, decât dacă orice parte bărbătească dintre noi se va tăia împrejur, după cum şi ei înşişi sânt tăiaţi împrejur.
23
Turmele lor, averile lor şi toate vitele lor, vor fi atunci ale noastre. Să primim numai ce cer ei, ca să rămână la noi.``
24
Toţi ceice treceau pe poarta cetăţii, au ascultat pe Hamor şi pe fiul său Sihem; şi toţi bărbaţii au fost tăiaţi împrejur, toţi ceice treceau pe poarta cetăţii.
25
A treia zi, pe când sufereau ei încă, cei doi fii ai lui Iacov, Simeon şi Levi, fraţii Dinei, şi-au luat fiecare sabia, s-au năpustit asupra cetăţii, care se credea în linişte, şi au ucis pe toţi bărbaţii.
26
Au trecut de asemenea prin ascuţişul săbiei pe Hamor şi pe fiul său Sihem; au ridicat pe Dina din casa lui Sihem, şi au ieşit afară.
27
Fiii lui Iacov s-au aruncat asupra celor morţi, şi au jăfuit cetatea, pentrucă necinstiseră pe sora lor.
28
Le-au luat oile, boii şi măgarii, tot ce era în cetate şi ce era pe câmp;
29
le-au luat ca pradă de război toate bogăţiile, copiii şi nevestele, şi tot ce se găsea în case.
30
Atunci Iacov a zis lui Simeon şi lui Levi: ,,Voi m-aţi nenorocit, făcându-mă urât locuitorilor ţării, Cananiţilor şi Feresiţilor. N-am supt porunca mea decât un mic număr de oameni; ei se vor strânge împotriva mea, mă vor bate, şi voi fi nimicit, eu şi casa mea.``
31
Ei au răspuns: ,,Se cuvenea oare să se poarte cu sora noastră cum se poartă cu o curvă?``
{"verseMap":{"1":[{"id":40735,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Leah","title_en":"Leah","content_ro":"<h3>Leah<\/h3>\n<p>Leah was Laban’s first daughter, Jacob’s unloved first wife, and Rachel’s older sister.<\/p>\n<p>After Jacob deceived his father Isaac into giving him the blessing intended for Esau (Gen 27:1-40), Jacob went to his uncle Laban in Mesopotamia to escape Esau’s revenge and find a wife (27:41–28:5). He fell in love with his cousin Rachel and arranged with her father to marry her after seven years of work (29:17-20). After the wedding feast, Laban deceived Jacob by giving him Leah instead of Rachel (29:21-25), claiming that custom required the older daughter to marry first (29:26). Leah was less attractive than her sister (29:17), and Jacob did not love her (29:30-35).<\/p>\n<p>Jacob’s love for Rachel induced him to work another seven years to marry her. Because Jacob favored Rachel, the Lord blessed Leah with six sons and a daughter (Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, and Dinah) before Rachel was able to conceive (29:31–30:22). At one point Rachel bargained with Leah for some mandrakes, a plant believed to ensure conception, in exchange for conjugal rights. Leah then conceived and bore her fifth son (30:14-17), increasing her advantage in her rivalry with Rachel.<\/p>\n<p>Leah was the mother of two tribes that played particularly significant roles in Israelite history. The tribe of Levi was the tribe of the priesthood, and the tribe of Judah became the tribe of royalty through which the promised seed (Gen 3:15; 12:2-3; 2 Sam 7:16; Matt 1:1) came in the person of Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 29:14-35; 30:9-21; 31:4-16; 33:1-7; 34:1; 46:8-15; 49:31; Ruth 4:11<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Leah<\/h3>\n<p>Leah was Laban’s first daughter, Jacob’s unloved first wife, and Rachel’s older sister.<\/p>\n<p>After Jacob deceived his father Isaac into giving him the blessing intended for Esau (Gen 27:1-40), Jacob went to his uncle Laban in Mesopotamia to escape Esau’s revenge and find a wife (27:41–28:5). He fell in love with his cousin Rachel and arranged with her father to marry her after seven years of work (29:17-20). After the wedding feast, Laban deceived Jacob by giving him Leah instead of Rachel (29:21-25), claiming that custom required the older daughter to marry first (29:26). Leah was less attractive than her sister (29:17), and Jacob did not love her (29:30-35).<\/p>\n<p>Jacob’s love for Rachel induced him to work another seven years to marry her. Because Jacob favored Rachel, the Lord blessed Leah with six sons and a daughter (Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, and Dinah) before Rachel was able to conceive (29:31–30:22). At one point Rachel bargained with Leah for some mandrakes, a plant believed to ensure conception, in exchange for conjugal rights. Leah then conceived and bore her fifth son (30:14-17), increasing her advantage in her rivalry with Rachel.<\/p>\n<p>Leah was the mother of two tribes that played particularly significant roles in Israelite history. The tribe of Levi was the tribe of the priesthood, and the tribe of Judah became the tribe of royalty through which the promised seed (Gen 3:15; 12:2-3; 2 Sam 7:16; Matt 1:1) came in the person of Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 29:14-35; 30:9-21; 31:4-16; 33:1-7; 34:1; 46:8-15; 49:31; Ruth 4:11<\/p>","summary_ro":"Leah Leah was Laban’s first daughter, Jacob’s unloved first wife, and Rachel’s older sister. After Jacob deceived his father Isaac into giving him the blessing intended for Esau (Gen 27:1-40), Jacob went to his uncle Laban in Mesopotamia to escape Esau’s revenge and find a wife (27:41–28:5). He fell in love with his cousin Rachel and arranged with her father to marry her after seven years of work (29:17-20). After the wedding feast, Laban deceived Jacob by giving him Leah instead of Rachel (2...","summary_en":"Leah Leah was Laban’s first daughter, Jacob’s unloved first wife, and Rachel’s older sister. After Jacob deceived his father Isaac into giving him the blessing intended for Esau (Gen 27:1-40), Jacob went to his uncle Laban in Mesopotamia to escape Esau’s revenge and find a wife (27:41–28:5). He fell in love with his cousin Rachel and arranged with her father to marry her after seven years of work (29:17-20). After the wedding feast, Laban deceived Jacob by giving him Leah instead of Rachel (2...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":68361,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Leah","title_en":"Leah","content_ro":"<h3>Leah<\/h3>\n<p>Leah was Laban’s first daughter, Jacob’s unloved first wife, and Rachel’s older sister.<\/p>\n<p>After Jacob deceived his father Isaac into giving him the blessing intended for Esau (Gen 27:1-40), Jacob went to his uncle Laban in Mesopotamia to escape Esau’s revenge and find a wife (27:41–28:5). He fell in love with his cousin Rachel and arranged with her father to marry her after seven years of work (29:17-20). After the wedding feast, Laban deceived Jacob by giving him Leah instead of Rachel (29:21-25), claiming that custom required the older daughter to marry first (29:26). Leah was less attractive than her sister (29:17), and Jacob did not love her (29:30-35).<\/p>\n<p>Jacob’s love for Rachel induced him to work another seven years to marry her. Because Jacob favored Rachel, the Lord blessed Leah with six sons and a daughter (Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, and Dinah) before Rachel was able to conceive (29:31–30:22). At one point Rachel bargained with Leah for some mandrakes, a plant believed to ensure conception, in exchange for conjugal rights. Leah then conceived and bore her fifth son (30:14-17), increasing her advantage in her rivalry with Rachel.<\/p>\n<p>Leah was the mother of two tribes that played particularly significant roles in Israelite history. The tribe of Levi was the tribe of the priesthood, and the tribe of Judah became the tribe of royalty through which the promised seed (Gen 3:15; 12:2-3; 2 Sam 7:16; Matt 1:1) came in the person of Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 29:14-35; 30:9-21; 31:4-16; 33:1-7; 34:1; 46:8-15; 49:31; Ruth 4:11<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Leah<\/h3>\n<p>Leah was Laban’s first daughter, Jacob’s unloved first wife, and Rachel’s older sister.<\/p>\n<p>After Jacob deceived his father Isaac into giving him the blessing intended for Esau (Gen 27:1-40), Jacob went to his uncle Laban in Mesopotamia to escape Esau’s revenge and find a wife (27:41–28:5). He fell in love with his cousin Rachel and arranged with her father to marry her after seven years of work (29:17-20). After the wedding feast, Laban deceived Jacob by giving him Leah instead of Rachel (29:21-25), claiming that custom required the older daughter to marry first (29:26). Leah was less attractive than her sister (29:17), and Jacob did not love her (29:30-35).<\/p>\n<p>Jacob’s love for Rachel induced him to work another seven years to marry her. Because Jacob favored Rachel, the Lord blessed Leah with six sons and a daughter (Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, and Dinah) before Rachel was able to conceive (29:31–30:22). At one point Rachel bargained with Leah for some mandrakes, a plant believed to ensure conception, in exchange for conjugal rights. Leah then conceived and bore her fifth son (30:14-17), increasing her advantage in her rivalry with Rachel.<\/p>\n<p>Leah was the mother of two tribes that played particularly significant roles in Israelite history. The tribe of Levi was the tribe of the priesthood, and the tribe of Judah became the tribe of royalty through which the promised seed (Gen 3:15; 12:2-3; 2 Sam 7:16; Matt 1:1) came in the person of Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 29:14-35; 30:9-21; 31:4-16; 33:1-7; 34:1; 46:8-15; 49:31; Ruth 4:11<\/p>","summary_ro":"Leah Leah was Laban’s first daughter, Jacob’s unloved first wife, and Rachel’s older sister. After Jacob deceived his father Isaac into giving him the blessing intended for Esau (Gen 27:1-40), Jacob went to his uncle Laban in Mesopotamia to escape Esau’s revenge and find a wife (27:41–28:5). He fell in love with his cousin Rachel and arranged with her father to marry her after seven years of work (29:17-20). After the wedding feast, Laban deceived Jacob by giving him Leah instead of Rachel (2...","summary_en":"Leah Leah was Laban’s first daughter, Jacob’s unloved first wife, and Rachel’s older sister. After Jacob deceived his father Isaac into giving him the blessing intended for Esau (Gen 27:1-40), Jacob went to his uncle Laban in Mesopotamia to escape Esau’s revenge and find a wife (27:41–28:5). He fell in love with his cousin Rachel and arranged with her father to marry her after seven years of work (29:17-20). After the wedding feast, Laban deceived Jacob by giving him Leah instead of Rachel (2...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":95987,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Leah","title_en":"Leah","content_ro":"<h3>Leah<\/h3>\n<p>Leah was Laban’s first daughter, Jacob’s unloved first wife, and Rachel’s older sister.<\/p>\n<p>After Jacob deceived his father Isaac into giving him the blessing intended for Esau (Gen 27:1-40), Jacob went to his uncle Laban in Mesopotamia to escape Esau’s revenge and find a wife (27:41–28:5). He fell in love with his cousin Rachel and arranged with her father to marry her after seven years of work (29:17-20). After the wedding feast, Laban deceived Jacob by giving him Leah instead of Rachel (29:21-25), claiming that custom required the older daughter to marry first (29:26). Leah was less attractive than her sister (29:17), and Jacob did not love her (29:30-35).<\/p>\n<p>Jacob’s love for Rachel induced him to work another seven years to marry her. Because Jacob favored Rachel, the Lord blessed Leah with six sons and a daughter (Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, and Dinah) before Rachel was able to conceive (29:31–30:22). At one point Rachel bargained with Leah for some mandrakes, a plant believed to ensure conception, in exchange for conjugal rights. Leah then conceived and bore her fifth son (30:14-17), increasing her advantage in her rivalry with Rachel.<\/p>\n<p>Leah was the mother of two tribes that played particularly significant roles in Israelite history. The tribe of Levi was the tribe of the priesthood, and the tribe of Judah became the tribe of royalty through which the promised seed (Gen 3:15; 12:2-3; 2 Sam 7:16; Matt 1:1) came in the person of Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 29:14-35; 30:9-21; 31:4-16; 33:1-7; 34:1; 46:8-15; 49:31; Ruth 4:11<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Leah<\/h3>\n<p>Leah was Laban’s first daughter, Jacob’s unloved first wife, and Rachel’s older sister.<\/p>\n<p>After Jacob deceived his father Isaac into giving him the blessing intended for Esau (Gen 27:1-40), Jacob went to his uncle Laban in Mesopotamia to escape Esau’s revenge and find a wife (27:41–28:5). He fell in love with his cousin Rachel and arranged with her father to marry her after seven years of work (29:17-20). After the wedding feast, Laban deceived Jacob by giving him Leah instead of Rachel (29:21-25), claiming that custom required the older daughter to marry first (29:26). Leah was less attractive than her sister (29:17), and Jacob did not love her (29:30-35).<\/p>\n<p>Jacob’s love for Rachel induced him to work another seven years to marry her. Because Jacob favored Rachel, the Lord blessed Leah with six sons and a daughter (Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, and Dinah) before Rachel was able to conceive (29:31–30:22). At one point Rachel bargained with Leah for some mandrakes, a plant believed to ensure conception, in exchange for conjugal rights. Leah then conceived and bore her fifth son (30:14-17), increasing her advantage in her rivalry with Rachel.<\/p>\n<p>Leah was the mother of two tribes that played particularly significant roles in Israelite history. The tribe of Levi was the tribe of the priesthood, and the tribe of Judah became the tribe of royalty through which the promised seed (Gen 3:15; 12:2-3; 2 Sam 7:16; Matt 1:1) came in the person of Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 29:14-35; 30:9-21; 31:4-16; 33:1-7; 34:1; 46:8-15; 49:31; Ruth 4:11<\/p>","summary_ro":"Leah Leah was Laban’s first daughter, Jacob’s unloved first wife, and Rachel’s older sister. After Jacob deceived his father Isaac into giving him the blessing intended for Esau (Gen 27:1-40), Jacob went to his uncle Laban in Mesopotamia to escape Esau’s revenge and find a wife (27:41–28:5). He fell in love with his cousin Rachel and arranged with her father to marry her after seven years of work (29:17-20). After the wedding feast, Laban deceived Jacob by giving him Leah instead of Rachel (2...","summary_en":"Leah Leah was Laban’s first daughter, Jacob’s unloved first wife, and Rachel’s older sister. After Jacob deceived his father Isaac into giving him the blessing intended for Esau (Gen 27:1-40), Jacob went to his uncle Laban in Mesopotamia to escape Esau’s revenge and find a wife (27:41–28:5). He fell in love with his cousin Rachel and arranged with her father to marry her after seven years of work (29:17-20). After the wedding feast, Laban deceived Jacob by giving him Leah instead of Rachel (2...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":123613,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Leah","title_en":"Leah","content_ro":"<h3>Leah<\/h3>\n<p>Leah was Laban’s first daughter, Jacob’s unloved first wife, and Rachel’s older sister.<\/p>\n<p>After Jacob deceived his father Isaac into giving him the blessing intended for Esau (Gen 27:1-40), Jacob went to his uncle Laban in Mesopotamia to escape Esau’s revenge and find a wife (27:41–28:5). He fell in love with his cousin Rachel and arranged with her father to marry her after seven years of work (29:17-20). After the wedding feast, Laban deceived Jacob by giving him Leah instead of Rachel (29:21-25), claiming that custom required the older daughter to marry first (29:26). Leah was less attractive than her sister (29:17), and Jacob did not love her (29:30-35).<\/p>\n<p>Jacob’s love for Rachel induced him to work another seven years to marry her. Because Jacob favored Rachel, the Lord blessed Leah with six sons and a daughter (Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, and Dinah) before Rachel was able to conceive (29:31–30:22). At one point Rachel bargained with Leah for some mandrakes, a plant believed to ensure conception, in exchange for conjugal rights. Leah then conceived and bore her fifth son (30:14-17), increasing her advantage in her rivalry with Rachel.<\/p>\n<p>Leah was the mother of two tribes that played particularly significant roles in Israelite history. The tribe of Levi was the tribe of the priesthood, and the tribe of Judah became the tribe of royalty through which the promised seed (Gen 3:15; 12:2-3; 2 Sam 7:16; Matt 1:1) came in the person of Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 29:14-35; 30:9-21; 31:4-16; 33:1-7; 34:1; 46:8-15; 49:31; Ruth 4:11<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Leah<\/h3>\n<p>Leah was Laban’s first daughter, Jacob’s unloved first wife, and Rachel’s older sister.<\/p>\n<p>After Jacob deceived his father Isaac into giving him the blessing intended for Esau (Gen 27:1-40), Jacob went to his uncle Laban in Mesopotamia to escape Esau’s revenge and find a wife (27:41–28:5). He fell in love with his cousin Rachel and arranged with her father to marry her after seven years of work (29:17-20). After the wedding feast, Laban deceived Jacob by giving him Leah instead of Rachel (29:21-25), claiming that custom required the older daughter to marry first (29:26). Leah was less attractive than her sister (29:17), and Jacob did not love her (29:30-35).<\/p>\n<p>Jacob’s love for Rachel induced him to work another seven years to marry her. Because Jacob favored Rachel, the Lord blessed Leah with six sons and a daughter (Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, and Dinah) before Rachel was able to conceive (29:31–30:22). At one point Rachel bargained with Leah for some mandrakes, a plant believed to ensure conception, in exchange for conjugal rights. Leah then conceived and bore her fifth son (30:14-17), increasing her advantage in her rivalry with Rachel.<\/p>\n<p>Leah was the mother of two tribes that played particularly significant roles in Israelite history. The tribe of Levi was the tribe of the priesthood, and the tribe of Judah became the tribe of royalty through which the promised seed (Gen 3:15; 12:2-3; 2 Sam 7:16; Matt 1:1) came in the person of Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 29:14-35; 30:9-21; 31:4-16; 33:1-7; 34:1; 46:8-15; 49:31; Ruth 4:11<\/p>","summary_ro":"Leah Leah was Laban’s first daughter, Jacob’s unloved first wife, and Rachel’s older sister. After Jacob deceived his father Isaac into giving him the blessing intended for Esau (Gen 27:1-40), Jacob went to his uncle Laban in Mesopotamia to escape Esau’s revenge and find a wife (27:41–28:5). He fell in love with his cousin Rachel and arranged with her father to marry her after seven years of work (29:17-20). After the wedding feast, Laban deceived Jacob by giving him Leah instead of Rachel (2...","summary_en":"Leah Leah was Laban’s first daughter, Jacob’s unloved first wife, and Rachel’s older sister. After Jacob deceived his father Isaac into giving him the blessing intended for Esau (Gen 27:1-40), Jacob went to his uncle Laban in Mesopotamia to escape Esau’s revenge and find a wife (27:41–28:5). He fell in love with his cousin Rachel and arranged with her father to marry her after seven years of work (29:17-20). After the wedding feast, Laban deceived Jacob by giving him Leah instead of Rachel (2...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":6676,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Circumcision","title_en":"Circumcision","content_ro":"<h3>CIRCUMCISION<\/h3>\n<p>Surgical removal of the foreskin of the male reproductive organ. In Bible times circumcision was the seal of God’s covenant with Abraham (Gn 17:1-14). While circumcision originated as an ancient tribal or religious rite, since the early part of this century it has been practiced in Western nations for hygienic purposes. Many physicians believe that circumcision helps prevent genital cancers in both men and their wives, so that this minor operation is performed a few days after birth on nearly all newborn males in North America. Outside of Judaism the procedure no longer carries religious significance.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Circumcision in the Ancient World<\/p>\n<p>• Circumcision in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Circumcision in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CircumcisionintheAncientWorld\">Circumcision in the Ancient World<\/p>\n<p>The rite of circumcision is far older than the Hebrew people. Cave paintings give evidence that it was practiced in prehistoric times. Egyptian temple drawings show that the operation was common in 4000 <span>BC<\/span> and probably earlier. Peoples practicing circumcision lived on almost every continent. The rite was observed among Central and South American Indians, Polynesians, the peoples of New Guinea, many Australian and African tribes, Egyptians, and pre-Islamic Arabs. The rite is not mentioned in the Koran, but because Muhammad was circumcised, tradition dictates that male Muslims follow the ancient custom. Arab ancestry is traced to Abraham through Ishmael (Gn 17:20), so a common age for Muslim circumcisions is 13, because Ishmael was circumcised at that age (v 25).<\/p>\n<p>Among the West Semitic people, the Ammonites, Edomites, Midianites, Moabites, and Phoenicians all practiced circumcision (Jer 9:25-26). The Philistines, however, did not (Jgs 14:3; 15:18; 1 Sm 14:6; 17:26, 36; 18:25, 27; 31:4; 2 Sm 1:20; 3:14; 1 Chr 10:4).<\/p>\n<p>Young men were usually circumcised at puberty, evidently in preparation for marriage and entrance into full tribal responsibilities. The Hebrews were the only ancient practitioners of circumcision to observe the rite in infancy, thus freeing it from association with fertility rituals.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CircumcisionintheOldTestament\">Circumcision in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>In the Bible the practice of circumcision began in Genesis 17 as a sign of the covenant between God and Abraham. God promised Abraham a land and, through a son yet to be conceived, numerous descendants, from whom kings would come. Blessings would come upon Abraham and through him to all nations (Gn 12:1-3). After the covenant was formally inaugurated (ch 15), God sealed it, ordering Abraham to be circumcised along with all the males in his household (17:9-13).<\/p>\n<p>Circumcision was to be an expression of faith that God’s promises would be realized. Because Abraham’s faith had lapsed (Gn 16) even after he had seen the awesome display of God’s majesty (15:9-17), a permanent reminder of God’s covenant promises was placed on his body and the bodies of his male descendants (17:11). This sign was so closely related to God’s covenant promise that the rite itself could be termed the “covenant” (Gn 17:10; Acts 7:8).<\/p>\n<p>Circumcision was to be performed on the eighth day after birth (Gn 17:12; Lv 12:1-3; see Gn 21:4; Lk 1:59; 2:21; Acts 7:8; Phil 3:5), customarily by the boy’s father (Gn 17:23; 21:4; Acts 7:8), at which time a name would be given (Lk 1:59; 2:21). Flint knives were used in the early days (Ex 4:25; Jos 5:2-3). Later, the rite was carried out by a trained practitioner called a <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mohel<\/span><em>.<\/em> Medical research has determined that prothrombin, a substance in the blood that aids in clotting, is present in greater quantity on the eighth day than at any other time in life.<\/p>\n<h5>Theological Meaning<\/h5>\n<p>Circumcision had to do with the fulfillment of God’s promise concerning Abraham’s descendants (Gn 17:9-12). Because it was applied to the reproductive organ, the sign involved the propagation of the race. Its application to the eight-day-old infant demonstrates the gracious character of God’s promise to Abraham’s descendants and indicates that God’s people are in need of cleansing grace from birth (Lv 12:1-3). The promises of the covenant were reaffirmed to each generation before the recipients were able to respond in either faith or unbelief; nothing in the hearts of the chosen people could either bring about or thwart the ultimate fulfillment of the promises given to Abraham and his posterity.<\/p>\n<p>Circumcision also had to do with the fulfillment of God’s promise concerning the land (Gn 17:8). The land was God’s holy possession, and the Israelites had to be holy to possess it. When Joseph and his descendants were in Egypt, they continued to circumcise their sons. But following the great sin at Mt Sinai after the exodus, the unbelieving Israelites failed to place the covenant sign upon their children as they wandered in the wilderness. Because the new generation had not been circumcised, the people were unprepared to enter the Promised Land. Therefore, God ordered Joshua to circumcise the men of Israel. The people’s obedient response was an act of faith, since the armies of the enemy were camped nearby as the Israelite warriors lay incapacitated by the surgery (Jos 5:2-9).<\/p>\n<p>From the beginning, participation in the covenant promises was open to persons outside Abraham’s household (Gn 17:12-13). Exodus 12:43-49 gives non-Israelites the opportunity to participate in the Passover if they are willing to fulfill the same stipulation placed upon the Jews—that of circumcision.<\/p>\n<p>The provision for admission to God’s people by reception of the covenant sign was abused by Jacob’s sons when circumcision was made a precondition for intermarriage with the Shechemites. While the Shechemites were disabled by their wounds, Simeon and Levi killed them, plundering the city to exact retribution for the rape of their sister Dinah (Gn 34).<\/p>\n<p>The sign of the covenant was not to be treated lightly. The penalty of excommunication rested upon the uncircumcised (Gn 17:14). The strange incident recorded in Exodus 4:24-26 seems to have been God’s reminder to Moses of the stipulations of the covenant made with Abraham. Moses had proved an unfaithful servant of the Lord by neglecting to circumcise his son but was rescued from judgment when his wife Zipporah took a flint rock and circumcised the boy, throwing the bloody foreskin at her husband’s feet.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CircumcisionintheNewTestament\">Circumcision in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>John the Baptist was circumcised, as were Jesus and Paul (Lk 1:59; 2:21; Phil 3:5). Jesus recognized the cleansing significance of circumcision (Jn 7:22-23), contrasting the rite with his healing ministry that made a man completely well and therefore ceremonially “clean.” Just before he was stoned, Stephen referred to the covenant of circumcision, charging that his Jewish accusers, like their ancestors, were stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, always resisting the Holy Spirit (Acts 7:8, 51).<\/p>\n<p>For a time the first Christians continued to participate in the Jewish rites and customs, even attending the services of the temple (Acts 3:1; 5:21, 42). As Gentiles came to Christ, controversy arose between those who said that participation in the covenant community required circumcision and those who believed the rite was unnecessary. It was argued that since the covenant promise of the Messiah was given to the Jews, Gentiles must first be circumcised and become Jews before they could receive salvation in Christ.<\/p>\n<p>In the time of Christ, many Jews misunderstood the significance of circumcision, believing that the physical act was necessary for and a guarantee of salvation. Thus for Jews the observance became not only a symbol of religious privilege but also a source of racial pride (Phil 3:4-6). These Jews associated the ceremony with the Mosaic law rather than the promise to Abraham (Jn 7:22; Acts 15:1). Because Greeks and Romans did not practice circumcision, Jews had come to be called “the circumcision” (<span>kjv<\/span> Acts 10:45; 11:2; Rom 15:8; Gal 2:7-9; Eph 2:11; Ti 1:10), and following OT practice (Ez 28:10; 31:18; 32:19-32), Gentiles were termed “the uncircumcision” (<span>kjv<\/span> Gal 2:7; Eph 2:11).<\/p>\n<p>While visiting Caesarea, Jewish believers were amazed to realize that uncircumcised Gentiles received the purifying gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:44-48). Moses had promised that God would circumcise the hearts of his people to love the Lord with heart and soul (Dt 30:6), and Ezekiel had prophesied that the Lord would sprinkle clean water on his people, giving them a new heart and putting his Spirit within them (Ez 36:25-27). As these Jewish believers saw the prophecy that God would pour out his Spirit upon all flesh (Jl 2:28; Acts 2:17) being fulfilled, they realized that the inward reality symbolized by circumcision could be accomplished without the physical sign. Thus, the gentile believers were immediately baptized.<\/p>\n<p>Not all the Jewish believers were immediately willing to accept Gentiles into the church. When Peter returned to Jerusalem after his visit to Caesarea, “the circumcision party” criticized him. But after telling how the Spirit had fallen upon the Gentiles, Peter declared that he could not stand against God. At this the Jewish believers were silenced and glorified God that repentance unto life had been granted to Gentiles (Acts 11:1-3, 15:8).<\/p>\n<p>Certain “Judaizers” of the Pharisaic party taught the Christians in Antioch that circumcision was necessary for salvation (Acts 15:1, 5). After debating these persons, Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem to consult with the other apostles and elders (v 2). Peter argued that God had given the Spirit to Gentiles and “cleansed their hearts by faith,” affirming that “we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will” (vv 8-9, 11, <span>rsv<\/span>). Therefore, James and the other Jerusalem leaders agreed that circumcision should not be imposed on the Gentiles (vv 13-21).<\/p>\n<p>It was decided that Peter, James, and John would be entrusted with the gospel to “the circumcised,” while Paul and Barnabas would preach to “the uncircumcised” (Gal 2:7-9). Because of his evangelistic policy to be “all things to all people” with respect to spiritually indifferent matters of custom (1 Cor 9:19-23), Paul had Timothy circumcised. Timothy was reckoned by Jews as one of their race because his mother was Jewish (Acts 16:1-2). But Paul resisted attempts to have Titus circumcised, since he was a Gentile (Gal 2:3). Paul apparently allowed Jewish believers to circumcise their sons (Acts 21:21).<\/p>\n<p>Yet Paul charged that those who argued that the Galatian Christians must be circumcised and keep the law did not keep it themselves but wanted to boast in the Galatians’ flesh and avoid persecution for the cross of Christ (Gal 6:12-13)—persecution Paul was willing to bear (5:11). Granting for the sake of argument the Pharisaic assumption that salvation could be merited by keeping the law, Paul declared that those who received circumcision must obey every other Jewish law (vv 2-3). Christ would be “of no advantage” to those who “would be justified by the law”; this attempt at works righteousness would evidence that the Galatians were “severed from Christ,” having “fallen from grace” (vv 2-4). These Christians were being tempted to turn to “a different gospel” (1:6-7).<\/p>\n<p>Because of the serious threat the Judaizers posed to the gospel of free grace, Paul wished that those who unsettled the Galatians would “mutilate themselves” (Gal 5:12). He termed the Judaizers “dogs” and “evil workers” (<span>kjv<\/span> “concision”), asserting that Christians are “the true circumcision,” because they worship God in spirit and glory in Christ Jesus, putting no confidence in human works to merit salvation (Phil 3:2-3).<\/p>\n<p>Paul taught that circumcision was indeed of value to Jews, for it was the sign that to them had been committed the “oracles of God,” that is, God’s word concerning the promise of salvation (Rom 3:1-3). He reminded the prideful Ephesians that as Gentiles they had once been “strangers to the covenants of promise,” not bearing the covenant sign in their flesh (Eph 2:11-12; see Col 2:13). Likewise, Jews had no cause for pride, for disobedience could cause outward circumcision to be counted as uncircumcision (Rom 2:25).<\/p>\n<p>Paul and the other apostles followed Moses and the OT prophets in teaching that true circumcision was a matter of the heart. The teaching of the NT goes further to affirm that a faithful believer, though physically uncircumcised, is regarded by God as circumcised, “for he is not a real Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical” (Rom 2:28, <span>rsv<\/span>). Both Jews and Gentiles are saved by grace (Acts 15:11), and circumcised and uncircumcised alike are justified on the ground of their faith, apart from works of the law (Rom 3:28-30).<\/p>\n<p>Abraham served as an example of a person whose faith was reckoned to him as righteousness (Rom 4:3; see Gn 15:6). Paul argued that both Gentiles and Jews are justified by faith, because Abraham was accounted righteous before he was circumcised. Abraham did not receive circumcision to obtain righteousness, but as a sign or seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. Thus, Abraham is the father of all who believe without being circumcised, as well as those who are circumcised but also follow the example of Abraham’s faith (Rom 4:9-12; see Gal 3:6-9).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Baptism; Cleanness and Uncleanness, Regulations Concerning; Uncircumcision.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>CIRCUMCISION<\/h3>\n<p>Surgical removal of the foreskin of the male reproductive organ. In Bible times circumcision was the seal of God’s covenant with Abraham (Gn 17:1-14). While circumcision originated as an ancient tribal or religious rite, since the early part of this century it has been practiced in Western nations for hygienic purposes. Many physicians believe that circumcision helps prevent genital cancers in both men and their wives, so that this minor operation is performed a few days after birth on nearly all newborn males in North America. Outside of Judaism the procedure no longer carries religious significance.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Circumcision in the Ancient World<\/p>\n<p>• Circumcision in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Circumcision in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CircumcisionintheAncientWorld\">Circumcision in the Ancient World<\/p>\n<p>The rite of circumcision is far older than the Hebrew people. Cave paintings give evidence that it was practiced in prehistoric times. Egyptian temple drawings show that the operation was common in 4000 <span>BC<\/span> and probably earlier. Peoples practicing circumcision lived on almost every continent. The rite was observed among Central and South American Indians, Polynesians, the peoples of New Guinea, many Australian and African tribes, Egyptians, and pre-Islamic Arabs. The rite is not mentioned in the Koran, but because Muhammad was circumcised, tradition dictates that male Muslims follow the ancient custom. Arab ancestry is traced to Abraham through Ishmael (Gn 17:20), so a common age for Muslim circumcisions is 13, because Ishmael was circumcised at that age (v 25).<\/p>\n<p>Among the West Semitic people, the Ammonites, Edomites, Midianites, Moabites, and Phoenicians all practiced circumcision (Jer 9:25-26). The Philistines, however, did not (Jgs 14:3; 15:18; 1 Sm 14:6; 17:26, 36; 18:25, 27; 31:4; 2 Sm 1:20; 3:14; 1 Chr 10:4).<\/p>\n<p>Young men were usually circumcised at puberty, evidently in preparation for marriage and entrance into full tribal responsibilities. The Hebrews were the only ancient practitioners of circumcision to observe the rite in infancy, thus freeing it from association with fertility rituals.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CircumcisionintheOldTestament\">Circumcision in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>In the Bible the practice of circumcision began in Genesis 17 as a sign of the covenant between God and Abraham. God promised Abraham a land and, through a son yet to be conceived, numerous descendants, from whom kings would come. Blessings would come upon Abraham and through him to all nations (Gn 12:1-3). After the covenant was formally inaugurated (ch 15), God sealed it, ordering Abraham to be circumcised along with all the males in his household (17:9-13).<\/p>\n<p>Circumcision was to be an expression of faith that God’s promises would be realized. Because Abraham’s faith had lapsed (Gn 16) even after he had seen the awesome display of God’s majesty (15:9-17), a permanent reminder of God’s covenant promises was placed on his body and the bodies of his male descendants (17:11). This sign was so closely related to God’s covenant promise that the rite itself could be termed the “covenant” (Gn 17:10; Acts 7:8).<\/p>\n<p>Circumcision was to be performed on the eighth day after birth (Gn 17:12; Lv 12:1-3; see Gn 21:4; Lk 1:59; 2:21; Acts 7:8; Phil 3:5), customarily by the boy’s father (Gn 17:23; 21:4; Acts 7:8), at which time a name would be given (Lk 1:59; 2:21). Flint knives were used in the early days (Ex 4:25; Jos 5:2-3). Later, the rite was carried out by a trained practitioner called a <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mohel<\/span><em>.<\/em> Medical research has determined that prothrombin, a substance in the blood that aids in clotting, is present in greater quantity on the eighth day than at any other time in life.<\/p>\n<h5>Theological Meaning<\/h5>\n<p>Circumcision had to do with the fulfillment of God’s promise concerning Abraham’s descendants (Gn 17:9-12). Because it was applied to the reproductive organ, the sign involved the propagation of the race. Its application to the eight-day-old infant demonstrates the gracious character of God’s promise to Abraham’s descendants and indicates that God’s people are in need of cleansing grace from birth (Lv 12:1-3). The promises of the covenant were reaffirmed to each generation before the recipients were able to respond in either faith or unbelief; nothing in the hearts of the chosen people could either bring about or thwart the ultimate fulfillment of the promises given to Abraham and his posterity.<\/p>\n<p>Circumcision also had to do with the fulfillment of God’s promise concerning the land (Gn 17:8). The land was God’s holy possession, and the Israelites had to be holy to possess it. When Joseph and his descendants were in Egypt, they continued to circumcise their sons. But following the great sin at Mt Sinai after the exodus, the unbelieving Israelites failed to place the covenant sign upon their children as they wandered in the wilderness. Because the new generation had not been circumcised, the people were unprepared to enter the Promised Land. Therefore, God ordered Joshua to circumcise the men of Israel. The people’s obedient response was an act of faith, since the armies of the enemy were camped nearby as the Israelite warriors lay incapacitated by the surgery (Jos 5:2-9).<\/p>\n<p>From the beginning, participation in the covenant promises was open to persons outside Abraham’s household (Gn 17:12-13). Exodus 12:43-49 gives non-Israelites the opportunity to participate in the Passover if they are willing to fulfill the same stipulation placed upon the Jews—that of circumcision.<\/p>\n<p>The provision for admission to God’s people by reception of the covenant sign was abused by Jacob’s sons when circumcision was made a precondition for intermarriage with the Shechemites. While the Shechemites were disabled by their wounds, Simeon and Levi killed them, plundering the city to exact retribution for the rape of their sister Dinah (Gn 34).<\/p>\n<p>The sign of the covenant was not to be treated lightly. The penalty of excommunication rested upon the uncircumcised (Gn 17:14). The strange incident recorded in Exodus 4:24-26 seems to have been God’s reminder to Moses of the stipulations of the covenant made with Abraham. Moses had proved an unfaithful servant of the Lord by neglecting to circumcise his son but was rescued from judgment when his wife Zipporah took a flint rock and circumcised the boy, throwing the bloody foreskin at her husband’s feet.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CircumcisionintheNewTestament\">Circumcision in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>John the Baptist was circumcised, as were Jesus and Paul (Lk 1:59; 2:21; Phil 3:5). Jesus recognized the cleansing significance of circumcision (Jn 7:22-23), contrasting the rite with his healing ministry that made a man completely well and therefore ceremonially “clean.” Just before he was stoned, Stephen referred to the covenant of circumcision, charging that his Jewish accusers, like their ancestors, were stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, always resisting the Holy Spirit (Acts 7:8, 51).<\/p>\n<p>For a time the first Christians continued to participate in the Jewish rites and customs, even attending the services of the temple (Acts 3:1; 5:21, 42). As Gentiles came to Christ, controversy arose between those who said that participation in the covenant community required circumcision and those who believed the rite was unnecessary. It was argued that since the covenant promise of the Messiah was given to the Jews, Gentiles must first be circumcised and become Jews before they could receive salvation in Christ.<\/p>\n<p>In the time of Christ, many Jews misunderstood the significance of circumcision, believing that the physical act was necessary for and a guarantee of salvation. Thus for Jews the observance became not only a symbol of religious privilege but also a source of racial pride (Phil 3:4-6). These Jews associated the ceremony with the Mosaic law rather than the promise to Abraham (Jn 7:22; Acts 15:1). Because Greeks and Romans did not practice circumcision, Jews had come to be called “the circumcision” (<span>kjv<\/span> Acts 10:45; 11:2; Rom 15:8; Gal 2:7-9; Eph 2:11; Ti 1:10), and following OT practice (Ez 28:10; 31:18; 32:19-32), Gentiles were termed “the uncircumcision” (<span>kjv<\/span> Gal 2:7; Eph 2:11).<\/p>\n<p>While visiting Caesarea, Jewish believers were amazed to realize that uncircumcised Gentiles received the purifying gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:44-48). Moses had promised that God would circumcise the hearts of his people to love the Lord with heart and soul (Dt 30:6), and Ezekiel had prophesied that the Lord would sprinkle clean water on his people, giving them a new heart and putting his Spirit within them (Ez 36:25-27). As these Jewish believers saw the prophecy that God would pour out his Spirit upon all flesh (Jl 2:28; Acts 2:17) being fulfilled, they realized that the inward reality symbolized by circumcision could be accomplished without the physical sign. Thus, the gentile believers were immediately baptized.<\/p>\n<p>Not all the Jewish believers were immediately willing to accept Gentiles into the church. When Peter returned to Jerusalem after his visit to Caesarea, “the circumcision party” criticized him. But after telling how the Spirit had fallen upon the Gentiles, Peter declared that he could not stand against God. At this the Jewish believers were silenced and glorified God that repentance unto life had been granted to Gentiles (Acts 11:1-3, 15:8).<\/p>\n<p>Certain “Judaizers” of the Pharisaic party taught the Christians in Antioch that circumcision was necessary for salvation (Acts 15:1, 5). After debating these persons, Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem to consult with the other apostles and elders (v 2). Peter argued that God had given the Spirit to Gentiles and “cleansed their hearts by faith,” affirming that “we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will” (vv 8-9, 11, <span>rsv<\/span>). Therefore, James and the other Jerusalem leaders agreed that circumcision should not be imposed on the Gentiles (vv 13-21).<\/p>\n<p>It was decided that Peter, James, and John would be entrusted with the gospel to “the circumcised,” while Paul and Barnabas would preach to “the uncircumcised” (Gal 2:7-9). Because of his evangelistic policy to be “all things to all people” with respect to spiritually indifferent matters of custom (1 Cor 9:19-23), Paul had Timothy circumcised. Timothy was reckoned by Jews as one of their race because his mother was Jewish (Acts 16:1-2). But Paul resisted attempts to have Titus circumcised, since he was a Gentile (Gal 2:3). Paul apparently allowed Jewish believers to circumcise their sons (Acts 21:21).<\/p>\n<p>Yet Paul charged that those who argued that the Galatian Christians must be circumcised and keep the law did not keep it themselves but wanted to boast in the Galatians’ flesh and avoid persecution for the cross of Christ (Gal 6:12-13)—persecution Paul was willing to bear (5:11). Granting for the sake of argument the Pharisaic assumption that salvation could be merited by keeping the law, Paul declared that those who received circumcision must obey every other Jewish law (vv 2-3). Christ would be “of no advantage” to those who “would be justified by the law”; this attempt at works righteousness would evidence that the Galatians were “severed from Christ,” having “fallen from grace” (vv 2-4). These Christians were being tempted to turn to “a different gospel” (1:6-7).<\/p>\n<p>Because of the serious threat the Judaizers posed to the gospel of free grace, Paul wished that those who unsettled the Galatians would “mutilate themselves” (Gal 5:12). He termed the Judaizers “dogs” and “evil workers” (<span>kjv<\/span> “concision”), asserting that Christians are “the true circumcision,” because they worship God in spirit and glory in Christ Jesus, putting no confidence in human works to merit salvation (Phil 3:2-3).<\/p>\n<p>Paul taught that circumcision was indeed of value to Jews, for it was the sign that to them had been committed the “oracles of God,” that is, God’s word concerning the promise of salvation (Rom 3:1-3). He reminded the prideful Ephesians that as Gentiles they had once been “strangers to the covenants of promise,” not bearing the covenant sign in their flesh (Eph 2:11-12; see Col 2:13). Likewise, Jews had no cause for pride, for disobedience could cause outward circumcision to be counted as uncircumcision (Rom 2:25).<\/p>\n<p>Paul and the other apostles followed Moses and the OT prophets in teaching that true circumcision was a matter of the heart. The teaching of the NT goes further to affirm that a faithful believer, though physically uncircumcised, is regarded by God as circumcised, “for he is not a real Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical” (Rom 2:28, <span>rsv<\/span>). Both Jews and Gentiles are saved by grace (Acts 15:11), and circumcised and uncircumcised alike are justified on the ground of their faith, apart from works of the law (Rom 3:28-30).<\/p>\n<p>Abraham served as an example of a person whose faith was reckoned to him as righteousness (Rom 4:3; see Gn 15:6). Paul argued that both Gentiles and Jews are justified by faith, because Abraham was accounted righteous before he was circumcised. Abraham did not receive circumcision to obtain righteousness, but as a sign or seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. Thus, Abraham is the father of all who believe without being circumcised, as well as those who are circumcised but also follow the example of Abraham’s faith (Rom 4:9-12; see Gal 3:6-9).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Baptism; Cleanness and Uncleanness, Regulations Concerning; Uncircumcision.<\/p>","summary_ro":"CIRCUMCISION Surgical removal of the foreskin of the male reproductive organ. In Bible times circumcision was the seal of God’s covenant with Abraham (Gn 17:1-14). While circumcision originated as an ancient tribal or religious rite, since the early part of this century it has been practiced in Western nations for hygienic purposes. Many physicians believe that circumcision helps prevent genital cancers in both men and their wives, so that this minor operation is performed a few days after bi...","summary_en":"CIRCUMCISION Surgical removal of the foreskin of the male reproductive organ. In Bible times circumcision was the seal of God’s covenant with Abraham (Gn 17:1-14). While circumcision originated as an ancient tribal or religious rite, since the early part of this century it has been practiced in Western nations for hygienic purposes. Many physicians believe that circumcision helps prevent genital cancers in both men and their wives, so that this minor operation is performed a few days after bi...","source":"Articles\/C.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":9629,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Dinah","title_en":"Dinah","content_ro":"<h3>DINAH<\/h3>\n<p>Daughter born to Jacob and Leah (Gn 30:21), whose name means “judgment.” Living with her family at Shechem, a Canaanite city (33:18), Dinah went in to visit some neighboring pagan women (34:1). Shechem, the Hivite prince of the area, saw her and, while Dinah’s brothers were away in the fields tending their herds, he raped her. Shechem then requested Dinah from Jacob as a wife.<\/p>\n<p>Jacob’s sons, enraged at the dishonor done to their sister, plotted revenge. They agreed to the marriage on the terms that all the Hivite males be circumcised. Hamor, Shechem’s father, consented. While the Canaanite men were still incapacitated from their surgery, Dinah’s brothers Levi and Simeon led a massacre in the city and killed every male. Dinah was retrieved and the city plundered. The brothers excused their action as a just retribution for one of the Canaanites having treated their sister as a harlot (Gn 34:27-31). For their use of weapons of violence (49:5), Simeon and Levi were later cursed by Jacob.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>DINAH<\/h3>\n<p>Daughter born to Jacob and Leah (Gn 30:21), whose name means “judgment.” Living with her family at Shechem, a Canaanite city (33:18), Dinah went in to visit some neighboring pagan women (34:1). Shechem, the Hivite prince of the area, saw her and, while Dinah’s brothers were away in the fields tending their herds, he raped her. Shechem then requested Dinah from Jacob as a wife.<\/p>\n<p>Jacob’s sons, enraged at the dishonor done to their sister, plotted revenge. They agreed to the marriage on the terms that all the Hivite males be circumcised. Hamor, Shechem’s father, consented. While the Canaanite men were still incapacitated from their surgery, Dinah’s brothers Levi and Simeon led a massacre in the city and killed every male. Dinah was retrieved and the city plundered. The brothers excused their action as a just retribution for one of the Canaanites having treated their sister as a harlot (Gn 34:27-31). For their use of weapons of violence (49:5), Simeon and Levi were later cursed by Jacob.<\/p>","summary_ro":"DINAH Daughter born to Jacob and Leah (Gn 30:21), whose name means “judgment.” Living with her family at Shechem, a Canaanite city (33:18), Dinah went in to visit some neighboring pagan women (34:1). Shechem, the Hivite prince of the area, saw her and, while Dinah’s brothers were away in the fields tending their herds, he raped her. Shechem then requested Dinah from Jacob as a wife. Jacob’s sons, enraged at the dishonor done to their sister, plotted revenge. They agreed to the marriage on the...","summary_en":"DINAH Daughter born to Jacob and Leah (Gn 30:21), whose name means “judgment.” Living with her family at Shechem, a Canaanite city (33:18), Dinah went in to visit some neighboring pagan women (34:1). Shechem, the Hivite prince of the area, saw her and, while Dinah’s brothers were away in the fields tending their herds, he raped her. Shechem then requested Dinah from Jacob as a wife. Jacob’s sons, enraged at the dishonor done to their sister, plotted revenge. They agreed to the marriage on the...","source":"Articles\/D.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":12011,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Family Life and Relations","title_en":"Family Life and Relations","content_ro":"<h3>FAMILY LIFE AND RELATIONS<\/h3>\n<p>In Bible times, the family comprised members of a household, including not only parents and children, along with other relatives and concubines, but also servants, travelers, aliens, and anyone else who happened to be within the house and was therefore under the protection of the head of the family. The family of Jacob, for example, comprised three generations (Gn 46:8-26). Biblically, the term “family” is interchangeable with “house,” and “founding a house” can refer to setting up a separate dwelling as well as establishing a family. In the broader sense, “house” may refer to an entire nation (“house of Israel”). The heads of families returning from Babylon in the postexilic period controlled sometimes several hundred family members (Ezr 8:1-14). The family was a smaller part of a clan and tribe. In nomadic times the responsibilities and allegiances centered on the larger family group.<\/p>\n<p>Those who belonged to the clan knew that they had to work for common interests and accept responsibility for the whole group. All members of the family were to be protected and assisted in time of need.<\/p>\n<p>As the life of the Israelites became more settled, families (in the wider sense of the term) lived in villages surrounded by fields of wheat, barley, and flax, with areas of grazing land for sheep and goats. Each group of villages consisted of an intermarried, interdependent family group, such as that of the Danites of Zorah and Eshtaol (Jgs 18:11). The hard life of those days demanded a sharing of work and the loyal cooperation of the entire family for survival.<\/p>\n<p>As crafts and trades developed, along with a more sedentary lifestyle, sons learned their fathers’ skills and continued the family trade. Consequently, the whole village might follow a particular craft (1 Chr 4:14; Neh 11:35). By specializing in such trades, however, the villagers became less self-sufficient, depending more on farmers for food and on other specialized villages for the production of cloth or pottery (1 Chr 4:21-23).<\/p>\n<p>With the growth of cities, related groups lived together in specific areas. Many members of the tribes of Benjamin and Judah were listed in the census of Jerusalem by Nehemiah (Neh 11:4-8), and by the writer of Chronicles (1 Chr 9:3-9). One consequence of life in the cities was the fragmentation of the family group. As the bonds of the wider family were loosened, the unit consisted increasingly of a husband and wife with their children, living in one house. The size of houses that have been excavated precludes the idea of any larger family unit as the norm in OT societies.<\/p>\n<p>During the kingdom period, King David’s sons Amnon and Absalom set up their own separate houses (2 Sm 13:7-8, 20). At that time there were few slaves in Hebrew society, but they also were considered members of the family. As bonds of the wider family loosened, and the master of the household lost a degree of authority, the society became one in which the king was sovereign and all the people were his subjects.<\/p>\n<p>The early kings of Israel promoted such a change in order to establish a central ruling authority for the entire country. The king’s subjects fell broadly into the categories of employers and employees, corresponding to the rich and poor of society. By the eighth century <span>BC<\/span>, members of the wider family no longer worked for the communal good under the authority of the clan’s head; rather, individuals worked primarily for the good of their own immediate family. Hence one’s labor and devotion were focused more narrowly, and the greatest beneficiary was the king, the personal symbol of the nation.<\/p>\n<p>Emphasis on the smaller family unit increased, and old duties that had been willingly accepted by the wider groups in former times came to be neglected. People did not always help relatives in times of need, and they frequently had to be reminded of their obligations, particularly toward widows and orphans (Is 1:17; Jer 7:6). Family feuds also declined because members no longer felt responsible to take vengeance as a way to uphold the honor of the clan (2 Sm 3:27; 16:8; 2 Kgs 9:26). Nevertheless, Nehemiah expected Israelites to fight for their family honor (Neh 4:14). In NT times, the family was such a unit that it could be sold for a debt incurred by one of its members (Mt 18:25).<\/p>\n<p>The Hebrew religion’s emphasis on family participation in certain celebrations strengthened the small unit. The Passover, for example, was always celebrated as a family thanksgiving meal (Ex 12:3-4, 46). The prophet Samuel’s parents made a traditional annual pilgrimage to the shrine at Shiloh (1 Sm 2:19). In modern times, a young Jewish boy’s arrival at the threshold of manhood is celebrated with the Bar Mitzvah ceremony. Being so honored in the midst of a religious family preserves the ancient Hebrew tradition of family participation in religious ceremonies.<\/p>\n<p>In his preaching Jesus used the family as a symbol for the relationship of God to his people (Mt 19:14; 23:9; Lk 8:21). From the cross he handed over responsibility for the care of his mother to his disciple John (Jn 19:27).<\/p>\n<p>In NT times, the communion meals in the Jerusalem church took place by households (Acts 2:46). Early Christian meetings were held in the homes of believers because of opposition by the authorities. The book of Acts contains examples of entire families being converted to Christianity (Acts 10:24, 44-48; 16:15, 31-32). Timothy learned the gospel from his grandmother and mother (2 Tm 1:5).<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Status of Family Members<\/p>\n<p>• Marital Security<\/p>\n<p>• Position of Children<\/p>\n<p>• The Rights of Children<\/p>\n<p>• Daily Life of the Hebrew Family<\/p>\n<p>• In New Testament Times<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"StatusofFamilyMembers\">Status of Family Members<\/p>\n<p>From nomadic times, a father’s authority held the family group together in their encampment, and he became the symbol of their security. In ancient patriarchal societies, the father was an absolute master who had the power of life and death over family members, ruling with unchallenged authority. Although he had extensive responsibilities for those under his care, his power was awesome and his status unquestioned.<\/p>\n<p>A man’s possessions included his wife, servants, slaves, and animals (Ex 20:17; Dt 5:21). In fact, the phrase “to marry a wife” comes from a Hebrew root meaning “to become the master of a wife.” A husband was as much the master of his wife as he was of his home or his fields. Consequently, the wife addressed him in a subservient manner, as a slave would address a master (Gn 18:12; Jgs 19:26). This low status for a woman extended to a daughter’s position in the ancient household. Females were always under the authority of a male relative: first, the father; then a husband. If a woman became a widow, she was subject to her husband’s nearest male relative, who became her “redeemer.” The bride price (Gn 29:18, 27; Ex 22:16-17; 1 Sm 18:25; 2 Sm 3:14) paid by her husband was not exactly a purchase of the woman from her father, but the exchange of money did stigmatize her. The amount of a bride price depended on the father’s status (Gn 34:12). The usual price was probably 20 to 30 shekels of silver. The bride received gifts of jewelry, ornaments, and clothing from her future husband, and she occasionally enjoyed some sort of financial or material return from the bride price for her own use (Jos 15:19; Jgs 1:15). When her father or husband died, the money frequently reverted to her.<\/p>\n<p>An engaged woman was considered her fiancé’s property just as much as if she were already married to him (Dt 22:23-27). The woman left her own family at marriage, to live with and become part of her new husband’s family. Normally, any succeeding marriages would be with members of that family.<\/p>\n<p>Despite the low legal status of the mother of the family, her life was not as bad as one might suppose. She was the legal wife, not an unpaid servant, and she frequently took a strong role as adviser to her husband in family affairs. Her most important function, aside from childbearing, was organization of the household, of which she was generally the respected manager. Even though the wife might have been acquired through capture in war (Dt 21:10-14), she could not be sold as a slave or daughter could (Ex 21:7; Neh 5:5).<\/p>\n<p>Nevertheless, her position was precarious, in that she could be disowned or divorced by her husband as the result of a simple renunciation: “She is no longer my wife, and I am no longer her husband.” Perhaps he had found fault with her culinary skills, or possibly he was casting his eyes on another woman. In any event, a husband knew that if his wife did not obey even a signal or a glance, he was within his rights to obtain a divorce (cf. Ecclus 25:26). The wife, however, obtained a certain degree of protection in the letter of repudiation, by which her freedom was formally restored. Under Jewish tradition, a wife could not divorce her husband.<\/p>\n<p>In matters of domestic protocol, the Hebrew wife was not introduced to her husband’s guests, a tradition that subsequently led to considerable embarrassment for Abraham’s wife, Sarah, and for Rebekah (Gn 20:16). A woman normally remained veiled in public (24:65; 38:14; Is 47:2).<\/p>\n<p>The imagery in Proverbs 19:13 and 27:15 draws a vigorous comparison between a contentious woman and water dripping from a leaky roof. The OT leaves little doubt about the type of behavior expected from a woman. She was expected to be charming, soft-spoken, discreet, and calm (Prv 9:13; 11:16, 22; 21:9). She was also to be responsible, well-organized, intelligent, thoughtful, reverent, and a good manager of both the household and the family purse (31:10-31). A woman should also be pious and beautiful, and in NT tradition, submissive to her husband, as befitted a woman adorned with the priceless jewel of a gentle and quiet spirit (Ti 2:4-5; 1 Pt 3:1-6).<\/p>\n<p>The actions of a few women whose roles in life do not seem to fit the pattern of the meek, passive female pictured above, are recorded in the Bible and the Apocrypha. The books of Judith and Esther recount heroic tales of how national fortunes were saved by women. Deborah and Jael were renowned heroines (Jgs 4–5), and the kingdom of Judah was ruled by a vicious woman, Athaliah, for several years (2 Kgs 11). The women who stepped to the forefront of public life were exceptional and few in number. Judith was a rich widow, an unusual thing in Israel.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MaritalSecurity\">Marital Security<\/p>\n<p>The security of a wife’s position improved considerably when she produced her first child, particularly if it was a son. A woman’s primary duty to her husband and his family was procreation (Gn 1:28; 9:1), and until she gave birth to a son, she feared displacement by a second wife or a concubine. Polygamous marriages were by no means rare, especially in wealthy families. They resulted in two ill-defined family groups, controlled by the mothers but under the overall authority of fathers; there were inevitable jealousies and frictions.<\/p>\n<p>The legal status of a woman was consistently poor in Bible times. With no evidence at all, a husband could accuse his wife of adultery, and she was compelled to face a trial by ordeal. She had to abase herself by taking an oath, eating dust and a cereal offering, and drinking bitter water. A priest, meanwhile, made pronouncements regarding the dire results that would come to her if she were guilty: she would become an outcast with no hope of survival. But if she maintained her serenity, and if her thigh did not rot nor her abdomen swell, she was considered to have “proved” her innocence. In such an event she would go free, and her husband bore no blame whatsoever for his false accusation (Nm 5:12-31).<\/p>\n<p>If a woman took a vow, it was legal only as long as her father or husband approved it. If she became a widow, the vow still remained in force and could be used against her (Nm 30:3-15).<\/p>\n<p>A woman in Israel was always under the protection of a male, be it her father, grandfather, great-grandfather, brother, husband, or some other member of her husband’s family. She had few legal rights and, in contrast to Babylonian traditions, could not inherit at her husband’s death. It is small wonder that widows were classed with orphans and the poor. A childless widow could on occasion return to her father’s family (Gn 38:11; Lv 22:13; Ru 1:8), thus becoming subject again to the authority of her father. A Hebrew widow could also remain with her late husband’s family. She would then come under the protection of her “redeemer,” a male relative of her husband’s family who assumed responsibility for her. If a husband died leaving a woman childless, it was the responsibility of the husband’s brother to marry her. The first son born of such a union was then regarded as the heir of the first husband.<\/p>\n<p>It was normal for a brother to accept the obligation for such a marriage (levirate). It could be refused on various grounds, but such refusal was considered dishonorable, for it was a man’s duty to perpetuate his brother’s name and to safeguard the family fortune.<\/p>\n<p>A redeemer’s responsibilities were considerable. In addition to the marriage, he was perhaps involved in avenging the family reputation, and he had to ensure that family property increased and remained within family control.<\/p>\n<p>If an Israelite fell into debt and was forced to sell himself into slavery, he would normally be “redeemed” by one of his relatives (Lv 25:47-49). If in his penury an Israelite had to sell his land or his house, the redeemer had the right of first refusal over all other prospective purchasers. It was as much his duty as his right to prevent family property from passing into the hands of strangers (v 25). The prophet Jeremiah bought his cousin Hanamel’s field under similar circumstances (Jer 32:6-15).<\/p>\n<p>The most familiar OT story of a childless widow, her “redeemer,” and their levirate marriage is recorded in the book of Ruth. One of Naomi’s two sons married Ruth. When Ruth was widowed, her impoverished mother-in-law, Naomi, left her home in Moab and returned to Bethlehem to sell some of the family property. Although a close relative was prepared to buy the land and keep it in the family, he was not ready to marry Ruth as well (Ru 3:12; 4:4). He knew that a son of that union would be deemed a son of the deceased, bearing the dead husband’s name, and thus ultimately inheriting the land (4:4-6). The next relative in order of kinship was Boaz, who became Ruth’s “redeemer.” He was prepared to accept the double obligation of purchasing the land and marrying Ruth (4:9-10).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PositionofChildren\">Position of Children<\/p>\n<p>Children were generally well loved, but their childhood was short and they were often regarded as laborers for the house or fields. According to the law of primogeniture, the eldest son received a double portion of the estate as his birthright (Dt 21:17). Thus, he was assured of the position of family head. Even during his father’s lifetime, the eldest son took precedence over his brothers and sisters (Gn 43:33). Where twins were born, the first to emerge from the womb was considered the elder, with all the attendant privileges (25:24-26; 38:27-30).<\/p>\n<p>For a serious offense, the eldest son could lose the right of primogeniture (Gn 35:22; 49:3-4; 1 Chr 5:1), or it could be surrendered voluntarily, as Esau did by selling his birthright to his brother Jacob (Gn 25:29-34). There was a law protecting the eldest son from his father’s favoritism for a younger brother (Dt 21:15-17). Nevertheless, King David gave his kingdom to Solomon, his youngest son (1 Kgs 2:15).<\/p>\n<p>In a family with no sons, a daughter could inherit property (Nm 27:8). Frequently, parents consulted neither sons nor daughters when marriage partners were arranged for them. Marriage was often an alliance or contract between two families, and thus the wishes and concerns of individuals were considered unimportant. Love matches were few, although occasionally a son would marry in defiance of his parents, as Esau did (Gn 26:34-35). Although it was rare for young people to express their feelings and preferences about marriage in an open fashion, Saul’s daughter, Michal, made known her love for David (1 Sm 18:20).<\/p>\n<p>There is no record of legal adoption among the Hebrews, but it was practiced from ancient times in Mesopotamia. It was especially useful as a means of ensuring a childless couple that their land would be tilled and that they would be cared for in their old age. All examples of adoption mentioned in the OT took place outside the land of Israel (Ex 2:10; 1 Kgs 11:20; Est 2:7, 15) and are not examples of true adoption as a lifetime member of a family.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheRightsofChildren\">The Rights of Children<\/p>\n<p>The nature of patriarchal society made for unfortunate distinctions between male and female children. The position of a daughter, who could be sold into slavery or sold to be the concubine of a man and then possibly sold again (Ex 21:7-11), was certainly inferior to that of a son. In the patriarchal period, however, both a son and a daughter could be put to death for disobeying the head of the family. One’s children could also be sacrificed in worship rituals (see Gn 22; Jgs 11). It is probable that infant sacrifice was practiced by nations neighboring Israel, including Canaan and Ammon.<\/p>\n<p>The rights of children were improved considerably with the promulgation of the code of Mosaic law. A father was no longer permitted to put his child to death without referring the case to the elders (Dt 21:18-21). Both sons and daughters could be brought before such authorities and accused of being disobedient, gluttonous, or drunkards. A father’s absolute authority even extended to his married son and family if they were living under his roof. The law also prohibited children from being held responsible for the crimes of their parents (Dt 24:16). In King David’s time a person convicted by the community had the right of appeal to the king (2 Sm 14:4-11).<\/p>\n<p>In Hebrew families both parents were held in high respect. Honor had to be given to both mother and father (Ex 20:12), and the law condemned offenses against either parent (21:17; Lv 20:9; Dt 21:18; 27:16). Respect due to the mother is a recurrent theme in the Wisdom Literature (Prv 19:26; 20:20; cf. Ecclus 3:1-16).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DailyLifeoftheHebrewFamily\">Daily Life of the Hebrew Family<\/p>\n<p>In the everyday affairs of a Hebrew household, it was the father’s responsibility to maintain the family fortune and to be the provider. He might work in the fields, most probably with crops of flax, barley, or wheat. Or he would work at a trade, possibly as a weaver, builder, potter, dyer, fuller, or a worker in copper or bronze. If he lived near the shore, he might be a fisherman.<\/p>\n<p>The father was also responsible for the religious well-being of the family. It was his duty to take over his sons’ education from the mother at an early age, teaching them the tenets of Hebrew religion (Ex 10:2; 12:26; Dt 4:9; 6:7). He also explained all the facets of the law and the interwoven history of the nation.<\/p>\n<p>The father was the disciplinarian of the family, with the rod being used to drive home the lessons taught (Prv 13:24; 22:15; 29:15-17). Though children were loved and valued, they were not pampered (Ecclus 30:9-12). In postexilic times education also took place within the precincts of the synagogue, and shortly before the time of Christ, a general elementary education was introduced. It was also imperative that a father teach his sons a trade, normally his own, for a man without a trade either starved or became a thief. Another important paternal responsibility was to provide wives for male offspring in the household.<\/p>\n<p>The mother was responsible for her sons’ and daughters’ early education (Prv 1:8; 6:20), teaching them religious songs and prayers as soon as they could talk. A father took over the education of his sons, but the mother continued with the daughters, training them to spin, weave, cook, clean, trim the lamps, and generally to become competent in all the household duties (31:13-31).<\/p>\n<p>With little furniture, keeping a house clean meant sweeping the floors to keep them free from dust and dirt. Cooking was at once simple and difficult. It was simple in that much of the food was cooked in the form of a soup or stew, or else made into a cake and cooked on a griddle. It was difficult in that the corn had to be ground by hand and bread was baked daily.<\/p>\n<p>A mother was expected to take wool, card it, spin it, and often weave and make clothes for her family. In addition, she would help her husband in the fields at harvesttime. Because many families had one or more olive trees, a few grapevines, and fig trees, the mother would also assist in picking the fruit. She would sometimes work at the press when the olives or grapes were being processed. Frequently the treading of grapes in the family vat would be done together by husband and wife. Drawing water from the well was considered a menial task and was generally the wife’s responsibility, although sometimes it was assigned to the children (Gn 24:15-16).<\/p>\n<p>As in all societies, there was a time when children laughed and played together (Zec 8:5; Mt 11:16), although childhood and adolescence were not recognized as specific stages of development. Children were considered as sucklings if under three, but were regarded as boys or girls when they were able to take care of themselves. A small child sat on his mother’s lap and was played with (Is 66:12). There is no evidence of organized sports for children. Toys, including whistles, rattles, dolls, and miniature cooking utensils, have been excavated at Palestinian sites.<\/p>\n<p>As soon as a boy was old enough, he took his place in the family and accepted his appointed task. Among other things, children were expected to gather fuel (Jer 7:18). Young boys and girls tended the flocks. The sheep had to be protected from marauding wild beasts, guarded against their own folly when they wandered near crevices, steered toward good pasture and water, and carried home when sick or injured (Gn 29:6; Ex 2:16). The care of cattle was also the responsibility of children (1 Sm 16:11). Of necessity, boys were trained in the various arts of war.<\/p>\n<p>Children sometimes joined their fathers in the fields, and their presence was always welcome. From earliest times, boys in particular would watch their fathers until they too picked up a tool or implement to try their skill; girls watched and learned from their mothers. Young children frequently listened to the talk of the elders at the city gates or in the villages. A visit to a sanctuary at festival time was a family affair, furnishing an ideal learning experience. As a child, Jesus accompanied his parents, Mary and Joseph, to the temple in Jerusalem (Lk 2:42-47).<\/p>\n<p>Young girls were surprisingly free to go about their appointed tasks. They were not secluded or veiled and could visit uninhibited with friends and neighbors (Gn 34:1). They were also able to converse with men without embarrassment (24:15-25; 29:11-12; 1 Sm 9:11-13).<\/p>\n<p>Mealtimes were strictly family times. It is doubtful whether a meal comparable to a breakfast was eaten, and a farmer would probably have a light lunch in the fields. The main meal of the day was prepared by the mother, and it would be eaten in the early evening. Although the variety of food available was limited, its preparation was time-consuming.<\/p>\n<p>Feast times were periods of great religious significance and were also the days when family members participated in the symbolic rituals of their faith. Among the Israelites several kinds of food were fundamental to their religious ritual. Family unity and the national religion were molded together by special meals in the home.<\/p>\n<p>Daylight played an important part in the daily habits of the people in antiquity. Although oil lamps were readily available in later periods, it was customary to rise with the sun and go to bed relatively soon after dark. The wife would probably be up before sunrise and might continue her labor after dark.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"InNewTestamentTimes\">In New Testament Times<\/p>\n<p>By NT times, for those who followed the Greek and Roman style, life became more elegant. Despite that, the status of many family members did not change substantially. Wealthier families had more slaves, and the children were more likely to have formal education, sometimes spending less effort on family chores. Even in Roman times, however, the father still had a legal right to accept or reject his child.<\/p>\n<p>The status of the woman had definitely improved by the NT period. A Roman matron was highly respected and exerted a strong influence over her husband. She was not sequestered in a particular section of the house, as a Greek woman was, but managed and supervised tasks in any part of her home. She helped her husband in business, had her own place in theaters, games, and religious festivals, and sometimes managed her own property. Palestinian women began to enjoy a new status and dignity as the result of Jesus’ attitude toward women and its influence on the early Christian church.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Education; Marriage, Marriage Customs; Sex, Sexuality; Widow; Woman.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>FAMILY LIFE AND RELATIONS<\/h3>\n<p>In Bible times, the family comprised members of a household, including not only parents and children, along with other relatives and concubines, but also servants, travelers, aliens, and anyone else who happened to be within the house and was therefore under the protection of the head of the family. The family of Jacob, for example, comprised three generations (Gn 46:8-26). Biblically, the term “family” is interchangeable with “house,” and “founding a house” can refer to setting up a separate dwelling as well as establishing a family. In the broader sense, “house” may refer to an entire nation (“house of Israel”). The heads of families returning from Babylon in the postexilic period controlled sometimes several hundred family members (Ezr 8:1-14). The family was a smaller part of a clan and tribe. In nomadic times the responsibilities and allegiances centered on the larger family group.<\/p>\n<p>Those who belonged to the clan knew that they had to work for common interests and accept responsibility for the whole group. All members of the family were to be protected and assisted in time of need.<\/p>\n<p>As the life of the Israelites became more settled, families (in the wider sense of the term) lived in villages surrounded by fields of wheat, barley, and flax, with areas of grazing land for sheep and goats. Each group of villages consisted of an intermarried, interdependent family group, such as that of the Danites of Zorah and Eshtaol (Jgs 18:11). The hard life of those days demanded a sharing of work and the loyal cooperation of the entire family for survival.<\/p>\n<p>As crafts and trades developed, along with a more sedentary lifestyle, sons learned their fathers’ skills and continued the family trade. Consequently, the whole village might follow a particular craft (1 Chr 4:14; Neh 11:35). By specializing in such trades, however, the villagers became less self-sufficient, depending more on farmers for food and on other specialized villages for the production of cloth or pottery (1 Chr 4:21-23).<\/p>\n<p>With the growth of cities, related groups lived together in specific areas. Many members of the tribes of Benjamin and Judah were listed in the census of Jerusalem by Nehemiah (Neh 11:4-8), and by the writer of Chronicles (1 Chr 9:3-9). One consequence of life in the cities was the fragmentation of the family group. As the bonds of the wider family were loosened, the unit consisted increasingly of a husband and wife with their children, living in one house. The size of houses that have been excavated precludes the idea of any larger family unit as the norm in OT societies.<\/p>\n<p>During the kingdom period, King David’s sons Amnon and Absalom set up their own separate houses (2 Sm 13:7-8, 20). At that time there were few slaves in Hebrew society, but they also were considered members of the family. As bonds of the wider family loosened, and the master of the household lost a degree of authority, the society became one in which the king was sovereign and all the people were his subjects.<\/p>\n<p>The early kings of Israel promoted such a change in order to establish a central ruling authority for the entire country. The king’s subjects fell broadly into the categories of employers and employees, corresponding to the rich and poor of society. By the eighth century <span>BC<\/span>, members of the wider family no longer worked for the communal good under the authority of the clan’s head; rather, individuals worked primarily for the good of their own immediate family. Hence one’s labor and devotion were focused more narrowly, and the greatest beneficiary was the king, the personal symbol of the nation.<\/p>\n<p>Emphasis on the smaller family unit increased, and old duties that had been willingly accepted by the wider groups in former times came to be neglected. People did not always help relatives in times of need, and they frequently had to be reminded of their obligations, particularly toward widows and orphans (Is 1:17; Jer 7:6). Family feuds also declined because members no longer felt responsible to take vengeance as a way to uphold the honor of the clan (2 Sm 3:27; 16:8; 2 Kgs 9:26). Nevertheless, Nehemiah expected Israelites to fight for their family honor (Neh 4:14). In NT times, the family was such a unit that it could be sold for a debt incurred by one of its members (Mt 18:25).<\/p>\n<p>The Hebrew religion’s emphasis on family participation in certain celebrations strengthened the small unit. The Passover, for example, was always celebrated as a family thanksgiving meal (Ex 12:3-4, 46). The prophet Samuel’s parents made a traditional annual pilgrimage to the shrine at Shiloh (1 Sm 2:19). In modern times, a young Jewish boy’s arrival at the threshold of manhood is celebrated with the Bar Mitzvah ceremony. Being so honored in the midst of a religious family preserves the ancient Hebrew tradition of family participation in religious ceremonies.<\/p>\n<p>In his preaching Jesus used the family as a symbol for the relationship of God to his people (Mt 19:14; 23:9; Lk 8:21). From the cross he handed over responsibility for the care of his mother to his disciple John (Jn 19:27).<\/p>\n<p>In NT times, the communion meals in the Jerusalem church took place by households (Acts 2:46). Early Christian meetings were held in the homes of believers because of opposition by the authorities. The book of Acts contains examples of entire families being converted to Christianity (Acts 10:24, 44-48; 16:15, 31-32). Timothy learned the gospel from his grandmother and mother (2 Tm 1:5).<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Status of Family Members<\/p>\n<p>• Marital Security<\/p>\n<p>• Position of Children<\/p>\n<p>• The Rights of Children<\/p>\n<p>• Daily Life of the Hebrew Family<\/p>\n<p>• In New Testament Times<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"StatusofFamilyMembers\">Status of Family Members<\/p>\n<p>From nomadic times, a father’s authority held the family group together in their encampment, and he became the symbol of their security. In ancient patriarchal societies, the father was an absolute master who had the power of life and death over family members, ruling with unchallenged authority. Although he had extensive responsibilities for those under his care, his power was awesome and his status unquestioned.<\/p>\n<p>A man’s possessions included his wife, servants, slaves, and animals (Ex 20:17; Dt 5:21). In fact, the phrase “to marry a wife” comes from a Hebrew root meaning “to become the master of a wife.” A husband was as much the master of his wife as he was of his home or his fields. Consequently, the wife addressed him in a subservient manner, as a slave would address a master (Gn 18:12; Jgs 19:26). This low status for a woman extended to a daughter’s position in the ancient household. Females were always under the authority of a male relative: first, the father; then a husband. If a woman became a widow, she was subject to her husband’s nearest male relative, who became her “redeemer.” The bride price (Gn 29:18, 27; Ex 22:16-17; 1 Sm 18:25; 2 Sm 3:14) paid by her husband was not exactly a purchase of the woman from her father, but the exchange of money did stigmatize her. The amount of a bride price depended on the father’s status (Gn 34:12). The usual price was probably 20 to 30 shekels of silver. The bride received gifts of jewelry, ornaments, and clothing from her future husband, and she occasionally enjoyed some sort of financial or material return from the bride price for her own use (Jos 15:19; Jgs 1:15). When her father or husband died, the money frequently reverted to her.<\/p>\n<p>An engaged woman was considered her fiancé’s property just as much as if she were already married to him (Dt 22:23-27). The woman left her own family at marriage, to live with and become part of her new husband’s family. Normally, any succeeding marriages would be with members of that family.<\/p>\n<p>Despite the low legal status of the mother of the family, her life was not as bad as one might suppose. She was the legal wife, not an unpaid servant, and she frequently took a strong role as adviser to her husband in family affairs. Her most important function, aside from childbearing, was organization of the household, of which she was generally the respected manager. Even though the wife might have been acquired through capture in war (Dt 21:10-14), she could not be sold as a slave or daughter could (Ex 21:7; Neh 5:5).<\/p>\n<p>Nevertheless, her position was precarious, in that she could be disowned or divorced by her husband as the result of a simple renunciation: “She is no longer my wife, and I am no longer her husband.” Perhaps he had found fault with her culinary skills, or possibly he was casting his eyes on another woman. In any event, a husband knew that if his wife did not obey even a signal or a glance, he was within his rights to obtain a divorce (cf. Ecclus 25:26). The wife, however, obtained a certain degree of protection in the letter of repudiation, by which her freedom was formally restored. Under Jewish tradition, a wife could not divorce her husband.<\/p>\n<p>In matters of domestic protocol, the Hebrew wife was not introduced to her husband’s guests, a tradition that subsequently led to considerable embarrassment for Abraham’s wife, Sarah, and for Rebekah (Gn 20:16). A woman normally remained veiled in public (24:65; 38:14; Is 47:2).<\/p>\n<p>The imagery in Proverbs 19:13 and 27:15 draws a vigorous comparison between a contentious woman and water dripping from a leaky roof. The OT leaves little doubt about the type of behavior expected from a woman. She was expected to be charming, soft-spoken, discreet, and calm (Prv 9:13; 11:16, 22; 21:9). She was also to be responsible, well-organized, intelligent, thoughtful, reverent, and a good manager of both the household and the family purse (31:10-31). A woman should also be pious and beautiful, and in NT tradition, submissive to her husband, as befitted a woman adorned with the priceless jewel of a gentle and quiet spirit (Ti 2:4-5; 1 Pt 3:1-6).<\/p>\n<p>The actions of a few women whose roles in life do not seem to fit the pattern of the meek, passive female pictured above, are recorded in the Bible and the Apocrypha. The books of Judith and Esther recount heroic tales of how national fortunes were saved by women. Deborah and Jael were renowned heroines (Jgs 4–5), and the kingdom of Judah was ruled by a vicious woman, Athaliah, for several years (2 Kgs 11). The women who stepped to the forefront of public life were exceptional and few in number. Judith was a rich widow, an unusual thing in Israel.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MaritalSecurity\">Marital Security<\/p>\n<p>The security of a wife’s position improved considerably when she produced her first child, particularly if it was a son. A woman’s primary duty to her husband and his family was procreation (Gn 1:28; 9:1), and until she gave birth to a son, she feared displacement by a second wife or a concubine. Polygamous marriages were by no means rare, especially in wealthy families. They resulted in two ill-defined family groups, controlled by the mothers but under the overall authority of fathers; there were inevitable jealousies and frictions.<\/p>\n<p>The legal status of a woman was consistently poor in Bible times. With no evidence at all, a husband could accuse his wife of adultery, and she was compelled to face a trial by ordeal. She had to abase herself by taking an oath, eating dust and a cereal offering, and drinking bitter water. A priest, meanwhile, made pronouncements regarding the dire results that would come to her if she were guilty: she would become an outcast with no hope of survival. But if she maintained her serenity, and if her thigh did not rot nor her abdomen swell, she was considered to have “proved” her innocence. In such an event she would go free, and her husband bore no blame whatsoever for his false accusation (Nm 5:12-31).<\/p>\n<p>If a woman took a vow, it was legal only as long as her father or husband approved it. If she became a widow, the vow still remained in force and could be used against her (Nm 30:3-15).<\/p>\n<p>A woman in Israel was always under the protection of a male, be it her father, grandfather, great-grandfather, brother, husband, or some other member of her husband’s family. She had few legal rights and, in contrast to Babylonian traditions, could not inherit at her husband’s death. It is small wonder that widows were classed with orphans and the poor. A childless widow could on occasion return to her father’s family (Gn 38:11; Lv 22:13; Ru 1:8), thus becoming subject again to the authority of her father. A Hebrew widow could also remain with her late husband’s family. She would then come under the protection of her “redeemer,” a male relative of her husband’s family who assumed responsibility for her. If a husband died leaving a woman childless, it was the responsibility of the husband’s brother to marry her. The first son born of such a union was then regarded as the heir of the first husband.<\/p>\n<p>It was normal for a brother to accept the obligation for such a marriage (levirate). It could be refused on various grounds, but such refusal was considered dishonorable, for it was a man’s duty to perpetuate his brother’s name and to safeguard the family fortune.<\/p>\n<p>A redeemer’s responsibilities were considerable. In addition to the marriage, he was perhaps involved in avenging the family reputation, and he had to ensure that family property increased and remained within family control.<\/p>\n<p>If an Israelite fell into debt and was forced to sell himself into slavery, he would normally be “redeemed” by one of his relatives (Lv 25:47-49). If in his penury an Israelite had to sell his land or his house, the redeemer had the right of first refusal over all other prospective purchasers. It was as much his duty as his right to prevent family property from passing into the hands of strangers (v 25). The prophet Jeremiah bought his cousin Hanamel’s field under similar circumstances (Jer 32:6-15).<\/p>\n<p>The most familiar OT story of a childless widow, her “redeemer,” and their levirate marriage is recorded in the book of Ruth. One of Naomi’s two sons married Ruth. When Ruth was widowed, her impoverished mother-in-law, Naomi, left her home in Moab and returned to Bethlehem to sell some of the family property. Although a close relative was prepared to buy the land and keep it in the family, he was not ready to marry Ruth as well (Ru 3:12; 4:4). He knew that a son of that union would be deemed a son of the deceased, bearing the dead husband’s name, and thus ultimately inheriting the land (4:4-6). The next relative in order of kinship was Boaz, who became Ruth’s “redeemer.” He was prepared to accept the double obligation of purchasing the land and marrying Ruth (4:9-10).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PositionofChildren\">Position of Children<\/p>\n<p>Children were generally well loved, but their childhood was short and they were often regarded as laborers for the house or fields. According to the law of primogeniture, the eldest son received a double portion of the estate as his birthright (Dt 21:17). Thus, he was assured of the position of family head. Even during his father’s lifetime, the eldest son took precedence over his brothers and sisters (Gn 43:33). Where twins were born, the first to emerge from the womb was considered the elder, with all the attendant privileges (25:24-26; 38:27-30).<\/p>\n<p>For a serious offense, the eldest son could lose the right of primogeniture (Gn 35:22; 49:3-4; 1 Chr 5:1), or it could be surrendered voluntarily, as Esau did by selling his birthright to his brother Jacob (Gn 25:29-34). There was a law protecting the eldest son from his father’s favoritism for a younger brother (Dt 21:15-17). Nevertheless, King David gave his kingdom to Solomon, his youngest son (1 Kgs 2:15).<\/p>\n<p>In a family with no sons, a daughter could inherit property (Nm 27:8). Frequently, parents consulted neither sons nor daughters when marriage partners were arranged for them. Marriage was often an alliance or contract between two families, and thus the wishes and concerns of individuals were considered unimportant. Love matches were few, although occasionally a son would marry in defiance of his parents, as Esau did (Gn 26:34-35). Although it was rare for young people to express their feelings and preferences about marriage in an open fashion, Saul’s daughter, Michal, made known her love for David (1 Sm 18:20).<\/p>\n<p>There is no record of legal adoption among the Hebrews, but it was practiced from ancient times in Mesopotamia. It was especially useful as a means of ensuring a childless couple that their land would be tilled and that they would be cared for in their old age. All examples of adoption mentioned in the OT took place outside the land of Israel (Ex 2:10; 1 Kgs 11:20; Est 2:7, 15) and are not examples of true adoption as a lifetime member of a family.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheRightsofChildren\">The Rights of Children<\/p>\n<p>The nature of patriarchal society made for unfortunate distinctions between male and female children. The position of a daughter, who could be sold into slavery or sold to be the concubine of a man and then possibly sold again (Ex 21:7-11), was certainly inferior to that of a son. In the patriarchal period, however, both a son and a daughter could be put to death for disobeying the head of the family. One’s children could also be sacrificed in worship rituals (see Gn 22; Jgs 11). It is probable that infant sacrifice was practiced by nations neighboring Israel, including Canaan and Ammon.<\/p>\n<p>The rights of children were improved considerably with the promulgation of the code of Mosaic law. A father was no longer permitted to put his child to death without referring the case to the elders (Dt 21:18-21). Both sons and daughters could be brought before such authorities and accused of being disobedient, gluttonous, or drunkards. A father’s absolute authority even extended to his married son and family if they were living under his roof. The law also prohibited children from being held responsible for the crimes of their parents (Dt 24:16). In King David’s time a person convicted by the community had the right of appeal to the king (2 Sm 14:4-11).<\/p>\n<p>In Hebrew families both parents were held in high respect. Honor had to be given to both mother and father (Ex 20:12), and the law condemned offenses against either parent (21:17; Lv 20:9; Dt 21:18; 27:16). Respect due to the mother is a recurrent theme in the Wisdom Literature (Prv 19:26; 20:20; cf. Ecclus 3:1-16).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DailyLifeoftheHebrewFamily\">Daily Life of the Hebrew Family<\/p>\n<p>In the everyday affairs of a Hebrew household, it was the father’s responsibility to maintain the family fortune and to be the provider. He might work in the fields, most probably with crops of flax, barley, or wheat. Or he would work at a trade, possibly as a weaver, builder, potter, dyer, fuller, or a worker in copper or bronze. If he lived near the shore, he might be a fisherman.<\/p>\n<p>The father was also responsible for the religious well-being of the family. It was his duty to take over his sons’ education from the mother at an early age, teaching them the tenets of Hebrew religion (Ex 10:2; 12:26; Dt 4:9; 6:7). He also explained all the facets of the law and the interwoven history of the nation.<\/p>\n<p>The father was the disciplinarian of the family, with the rod being used to drive home the lessons taught (Prv 13:24; 22:15; 29:15-17). Though children were loved and valued, they were not pampered (Ecclus 30:9-12). In postexilic times education also took place within the precincts of the synagogue, and shortly before the time of Christ, a general elementary education was introduced. It was also imperative that a father teach his sons a trade, normally his own, for a man without a trade either starved or became a thief. Another important paternal responsibility was to provide wives for male offspring in the household.<\/p>\n<p>The mother was responsible for her sons’ and daughters’ early education (Prv 1:8; 6:20), teaching them religious songs and prayers as soon as they could talk. A father took over the education of his sons, but the mother continued with the daughters, training them to spin, weave, cook, clean, trim the lamps, and generally to become competent in all the household duties (31:13-31).<\/p>\n<p>With little furniture, keeping a house clean meant sweeping the floors to keep them free from dust and dirt. Cooking was at once simple and difficult. It was simple in that much of the food was cooked in the form of a soup or stew, or else made into a cake and cooked on a griddle. It was difficult in that the corn had to be ground by hand and bread was baked daily.<\/p>\n<p>A mother was expected to take wool, card it, spin it, and often weave and make clothes for her family. In addition, she would help her husband in the fields at harvesttime. Because many families had one or more olive trees, a few grapevines, and fig trees, the mother would also assist in picking the fruit. She would sometimes work at the press when the olives or grapes were being processed. Frequently the treading of grapes in the family vat would be done together by husband and wife. Drawing water from the well was considered a menial task and was generally the wife’s responsibility, although sometimes it was assigned to the children (Gn 24:15-16).<\/p>\n<p>As in all societies, there was a time when children laughed and played together (Zec 8:5; Mt 11:16), although childhood and adolescence were not recognized as specific stages of development. Children were considered as sucklings if under three, but were regarded as boys or girls when they were able to take care of themselves. A small child sat on his mother’s lap and was played with (Is 66:12). There is no evidence of organized sports for children. Toys, including whistles, rattles, dolls, and miniature cooking utensils, have been excavated at Palestinian sites.<\/p>\n<p>As soon as a boy was old enough, he took his place in the family and accepted his appointed task. Among other things, children were expected to gather fuel (Jer 7:18). Young boys and girls tended the flocks. The sheep had to be protected from marauding wild beasts, guarded against their own folly when they wandered near crevices, steered toward good pasture and water, and carried home when sick or injured (Gn 29:6; Ex 2:16). The care of cattle was also the responsibility of children (1 Sm 16:11). Of necessity, boys were trained in the various arts of war.<\/p>\n<p>Children sometimes joined their fathers in the fields, and their presence was always welcome. From earliest times, boys in particular would watch their fathers until they too picked up a tool or implement to try their skill; girls watched and learned from their mothers. Young children frequently listened to the talk of the elders at the city gates or in the villages. A visit to a sanctuary at festival time was a family affair, furnishing an ideal learning experience. As a child, Jesus accompanied his parents, Mary and Joseph, to the temple in Jerusalem (Lk 2:42-47).<\/p>\n<p>Young girls were surprisingly free to go about their appointed tasks. They were not secluded or veiled and could visit uninhibited with friends and neighbors (Gn 34:1). They were also able to converse with men without embarrassment (24:15-25; 29:11-12; 1 Sm 9:11-13).<\/p>\n<p>Mealtimes were strictly family times. It is doubtful whether a meal comparable to a breakfast was eaten, and a farmer would probably have a light lunch in the fields. The main meal of the day was prepared by the mother, and it would be eaten in the early evening. Although the variety of food available was limited, its preparation was time-consuming.<\/p>\n<p>Feast times were periods of great religious significance and were also the days when family members participated in the symbolic rituals of their faith. Among the Israelites several kinds of food were fundamental to their religious ritual. Family unity and the national religion were molded together by special meals in the home.<\/p>\n<p>Daylight played an important part in the daily habits of the people in antiquity. Although oil lamps were readily available in later periods, it was customary to rise with the sun and go to bed relatively soon after dark. The wife would probably be up before sunrise and might continue her labor after dark.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"InNewTestamentTimes\">In New Testament Times<\/p>\n<p>By NT times, for those who followed the Greek and Roman style, life became more elegant. Despite that, the status of many family members did not change substantially. Wealthier families had more slaves, and the children were more likely to have formal education, sometimes spending less effort on family chores. Even in Roman times, however, the father still had a legal right to accept or reject his child.<\/p>\n<p>The status of the woman had definitely improved by the NT period. A Roman matron was highly respected and exerted a strong influence over her husband. She was not sequestered in a particular section of the house, as a Greek woman was, but managed and supervised tasks in any part of her home. She helped her husband in business, had her own place in theaters, games, and religious festivals, and sometimes managed her own property. Palestinian women began to enjoy a new status and dignity as the result of Jesus’ attitude toward women and its influence on the early Christian church.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Education; Marriage, Marriage Customs; Sex, Sexuality; Widow; Woman.<\/p>","summary_ro":"FAMILY LIFE AND RELATIONS In Bible times, the family comprised members of a household, including not only parents and children, along with other relatives and concubines, but also servants, travelers, aliens, and anyone else who happened to be within the house and was therefore under the protection of the head of the family. The family of Jacob, for example, comprised three generations (Gn 46:8-26). Biblically, the term “family” is interchangeable with “house,” and “founding a house” can refe...","summary_en":"FAMILY LIFE AND RELATIONS In Bible times, the family comprised members of a household, including not only parents and children, along with other relatives and concubines, but also servants, travelers, aliens, and anyone else who happened to be within the house and was therefore under the protection of the head of the family. The family of Jacob, for example, comprised three generations (Gn 46:8-26). Biblically, the term “family” is interchangeable with “house,” and “founding a house” can refe...","source":"Articles\/F.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":13581,"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>\n<p>First book of the Bible.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Name<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Date<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose<\/p>\n<p>• Structure<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Name\">Name<\/p>\n<p>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, <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">bere’shith<\/span><em>,<\/em> “in the beginning.”<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>The 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 <span>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>\n<p>The 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 <span>Lord<\/span> . . . given through Moses” (2 Chr 34:14, <span>nlt<\/span>). Day by day Ezra read from “the Book of the Law of God” (Neh 8:18, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>In 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>\n<p>Of 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>\n<p>The 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 <span>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 <span>BC<\/span>; and (4) P is the priestly element, which deals with matters of the priesthood and ritual, dating to the fifth century <span>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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Date\">Date<\/p>\n<p>The 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 <span>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 <span>BC<\/span>, with the final editing coming around the fifth century or perhaps even later.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Purpose\">Purpose<\/p>\n<p>Genesis 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>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Structure\">Structure<\/p>\n<p>The 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\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>The Creation (1:1–2:25)<\/h5>\n<p>These 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>\n<p>The 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 <em>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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>To 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>\n<p>As 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>\n<p>Critical 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>\n<p>Chapter 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>With 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>This 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, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h6>The Flood<\/h6>\n<p>With 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 <span>Lord<\/span>,” for he was a righteous and blameless man who walked with God (6:8-9).<\/p>\n<p>The 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, <span>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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>Both 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>\n<p>Noah 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<p>“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, <span>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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>Abram 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>Famine 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>\n<p>Abram 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>God 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>In 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>\n<p>When 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>\n<p>A disagreement arose between Abraham and Abimelech concerning a well, but they made a covenant of peace at Beersheba (21:25-34).<\/p>\n<p>God 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>\n<p>Sarah 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>\n<p>Chapter 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>\n<p>Rebekah 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>\n<p>When 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>\n<p>In 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>\n<p>Jacob 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>\n<p>Fearing 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>Genesis 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>\n<p>Joseph 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>\n<p>Chapter 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>When 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>\n<p>At 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>\n<p>In 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, <span>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>\n<p><em>See 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>\n<p>First book of the Bible.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Name<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Date<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose<\/p>\n<p>• Structure<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Name\">Name<\/p>\n<p>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, <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">bere’shith<\/span><em>,<\/em> “in the beginning.”<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>The 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 <span>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>\n<p>The 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 <span>Lord<\/span> . . . given through Moses” (2 Chr 34:14, <span>nlt<\/span>). Day by day Ezra read from “the Book of the Law of God” (Neh 8:18, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>In 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>\n<p>Of 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>\n<p>The 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 <span>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 <span>BC<\/span>; and (4) P is the priestly element, which deals with matters of the priesthood and ritual, dating to the fifth century <span>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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Date\">Date<\/p>\n<p>The 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 <span>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 <span>BC<\/span>, with the final editing coming around the fifth century or perhaps even later.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Purpose\">Purpose<\/p>\n<p>Genesis 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>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Structure\">Structure<\/p>\n<p>The 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\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>The Creation (1:1–2:25)<\/h5>\n<p>These 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>\n<p>The 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 <em>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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>To 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>\n<p>As 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>\n<p>Critical 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>\n<p>Chapter 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>With 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>This 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, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h6>The Flood<\/h6>\n<p>With 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 <span>Lord<\/span>,” for he was a righteous and blameless man who walked with God (6:8-9).<\/p>\n<p>The 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, <span>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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>Both 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>\n<p>Noah 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<p>“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, <span>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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>Abram 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>Famine 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>\n<p>Abram 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>God 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>In 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>\n<p>When 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>\n<p>A disagreement arose between Abraham and Abimelech concerning a well, but they made a covenant of peace at Beersheba (21:25-34).<\/p>\n<p>God 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>\n<p>Sarah 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>\n<p>Chapter 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>\n<p>Rebekah 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>\n<p>When 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>\n<p>In 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>\n<p>Jacob 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>\n<p>Fearing 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>Genesis 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>\n<p>Joseph 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>\n<p>Chapter 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>When 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>\n<p>At 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>\n<p>In 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, <span>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>\n<p><em>See 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":34753,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Shechem (Person)","title_en":"Shechem (Person)","content_ro":"<h3>SHECHEM (P<span>erson<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<li>1. Son of Hamor the Hivite. He raped Dinah, the daughter of Jacob, and was later killed along with his father and all the males of his town by Simeon and Levi (Gn 34; Jos 24:32).<\/li>\n<li>2. One of Gilead’s six sons, a descendant of Joseph through Manasseh’s line, and the founder of the Shechemite family (Nm 26:31; Jos 17:2).<\/li>\n<li>3. One of Shemida’s four sons from Manasseh’s tribe (1 Chr 7:19).<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>SHECHEM (P<span>erson<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<li>1. Son of Hamor the Hivite. He raped Dinah, the daughter of Jacob, and was later killed along with his father and all the males of his town by Simeon and Levi (Gn 34; Jos 24:32).<\/li>\n<li>2. One of Gilead’s six sons, a descendant of Joseph through Manasseh’s line, and the founder of the Shechemite family (Nm 26:31; Jos 17:2).<\/li>\n<li>3. One of Shemida’s four sons from Manasseh’s tribe (1 Chr 7:19).<\/li>","summary_ro":"SHECHEM (Person) 1. Son of Hamor the Hivite. He raped Dinah, the daughter of Jacob, and was later killed along with his father and all the males of his town by Simeon and Levi (Gn 34; Jos 24:32). 2. One of Gilead’s six sons, a descendant of Joseph through Manasseh’s line, and the founder of the Shechemite family (Nm 26:31; Jos 17:2). 3. One of Shemida’s four sons from Manasseh’s tribe (1 Chr 7:19).","summary_en":"SHECHEM (Person) 1. Son of Hamor the Hivite. He raped Dinah, the daughter of Jacob, and was later killed along with his father and all the males of his town by Simeon and Levi (Gn 34; Jos 24:32). 2. One of Gilead’s six sons, a descendant of Joseph through Manasseh’s line, and the founder of the Shechemite family (Nm 26:31; Jos 17:2). 3. One of Shemida’s four sons from Manasseh’s tribe (1 Chr 7:19).","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":43360,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 34:1","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 34:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>34:1-31<\/strong> Once Jacob and his family settled in the land, the Canaanite presence became a threat. This account is a stern warning to the Israelites about the possibility of their being defiled by the Canaanites. The nation of Israel was later commanded not to intermarry or make treaties with them, for they were a corrupt and corrupting people. This chapter implicitly warns against becoming familiar with the way they lived (34:1-2). It also taught Israel that in dealing with the Canaanites, they were to keep their integrity and not use the holy things of the covenant for deception and slaughter (34:13); Israel’s reputation was at stake in the land (34:30). For their ruthless violence, Simeon and Levi were passed over in the birthright blessing (49:5-7).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>34:1-31<\/strong> Once Jacob and his family settled in the land, the Canaanite presence became a threat. This account is a stern warning to the Israelites about the possibility of their being defiled by the Canaanites. The nation of Israel was later commanded not to intermarry or make treaties with them, for they were a corrupt and corrupting people. This chapter implicitly warns against becoming familiar with the way they lived (34:1-2). It also taught Israel that in dealing with the Canaanites, they were to keep their integrity and not use the holy things of the covenant for deception and slaughter (34:13); Israel’s reputation was at stake in the land (34:30). For their ruthless violence, Simeon and Levi were passed over in the birthright blessing (49:5-7).<\/p>","summary_ro":"34:1-31 Once Jacob and his family settled in the land, the Canaanite presence became a threat. This account is a stern warning to the Israelites about the possibility of their being defiled by the Canaanites. The nation of Israel was later commanded not to intermarry or make treaties with them, for they were a corrupt and corrupting people. This chapter implicitly warns against becoming familiar with the way they lived (34:1-2). It also taught Israel that in dealing with the Canaanites, they ...","summary_en":"34:1-31 Once Jacob and his family settled in the land, the Canaanite presence became a threat. This account is a stern warning to the Israelites about the possibility of their being defiled by the Canaanites. The nation of Israel was later commanded not to intermarry or make treaties with them, for they were a corrupt and corrupting people. This chapter implicitly warns against becoming familiar with the way they lived (34:1-2). It also taught Israel that in dealing with the Canaanites, they ...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":43361,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 34:1","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 34:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>34:1-2<\/strong> As far as we know, <em>Dinah<\/em> was Jacob’s only daughter (30:21). • <em>Shechem . . . seized her and raped her:<\/em> Shechem violated and debased Dinah, so she had no chance for a proper marriage.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>34:1-2<\/strong> As far as we know, <em>Dinah<\/em> was Jacob’s only daughter (30:21). • <em>Shechem . . . seized her and raped her:<\/em> Shechem violated and debased Dinah, so she had no chance for a proper marriage.<\/p>","summary_ro":"34:1-2 As far as we know, Dinah was Jacob’s only daughter (30:21). • Shechem . . . seized her and raped her: Shechem violated and debased Dinah, so she had no chance for a proper marriage.","summary_en":"34:1-2 As far as we know, Dinah was Jacob’s only daughter (30:21). • Shechem . . . seized her and raped her: Shechem violated and debased Dinah, so she had no chance for a proper marriage.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":70986,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 34:1","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 34:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>34:1-31<\/strong> Once Jacob and his family settled in the land, the Canaanite presence became a threat. This account is a stern warning to the Israelites about the possibility of their being defiled by the Canaanites. The nation of Israel was later commanded not to intermarry or make treaties with them, for they were a corrupt and corrupting people. This chapter implicitly warns against becoming familiar with the way they lived (34:1-2). It also taught Israel that in dealing with the Canaanites, they were to keep their integrity and not use the holy things of the covenant for deception and slaughter (34:13); Israel’s reputation was at stake in the land (34:30). For their ruthless violence, Simeon and Levi were passed over in the birthright blessing (49:5-7).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>34:1-31<\/strong> Once Jacob and his family settled in the land, the Canaanite presence became a threat. This account is a stern warning to the Israelites about the possibility of their being defiled by the Canaanites. The nation of Israel was later commanded not to intermarry or make treaties with them, for they were a corrupt and corrupting people. This chapter implicitly warns against becoming familiar with the way they lived (34:1-2). It also taught Israel that in dealing with the Canaanites, they were to keep their integrity and not use the holy things of the covenant for deception and slaughter (34:13); Israel’s reputation was at stake in the land (34:30). For their ruthless violence, Simeon and Levi were passed over in the birthright blessing (49:5-7).<\/p>","summary_ro":"34:1-31 Once Jacob and his family settled in the land, the Canaanite presence became a threat. This account is a stern warning to the Israelites about the possibility of their being defiled by the Canaanites. The nation of Israel was later commanded not to intermarry or make treaties with them, for they were a corrupt and corrupting people. This chapter implicitly warns against becoming familiar with the way they lived (34:1-2). It also taught Israel that in dealing with the Canaanites, they ...","summary_en":"34:1-31 Once Jacob and his family settled in the land, the Canaanite presence became a threat. This account is a stern warning to the Israelites about the possibility of their being defiled by the Canaanites. The nation of Israel was later commanded not to intermarry or make treaties with them, for they were a corrupt and corrupting people. This chapter implicitly warns against becoming familiar with the way they lived (34:1-2). It also taught Israel that in dealing with the Canaanites, they ...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":70987,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 34:1","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 34:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>34:1-2<\/strong> As far as we know, <em>Dinah<\/em> was Jacob’s only daughter (30:21). • <em>Shechem . . . seized her and raped her:<\/em> Shechem violated and debased Dinah, so she had no chance for a proper marriage.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>34:1-2<\/strong> As far as we know, <em>Dinah<\/em> was Jacob’s only daughter (30:21). • <em>Shechem . . . seized her and raped her:<\/em> Shechem violated and debased Dinah, so she had no chance for a proper marriage.<\/p>","summary_ro":"34:1-2 As far as we know, Dinah was Jacob’s only daughter (30:21). • Shechem . . . seized her and raped her: Shechem violated and debased Dinah, so she had no chance for a proper marriage.","summary_en":"34:1-2 As far as we know, Dinah was Jacob’s only daughter (30:21). • Shechem . . . seized her and raped her: Shechem violated and debased Dinah, so she had no chance for a proper marriage.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":98612,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 34:1","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 34:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>34:1-31<\/strong> Once Jacob and his family settled in the land, the Canaanite presence became a threat. This account is a stern warning to the Israelites about the possibility of their being defiled by the Canaanites. The nation of Israel was later commanded not to intermarry or make treaties with them, for they were a corrupt and corrupting people. This chapter implicitly warns against becoming familiar with the way they lived (34:1-2). It also taught Israel that in dealing with the Canaanites, they were to keep their integrity and not use the holy things of the covenant for deception and slaughter (34:13); Israel’s reputation was at stake in the land (34:30). For their ruthless violence, Simeon and Levi were passed over in the birthright blessing (49:5-7).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>34:1-31<\/strong> Once Jacob and his family settled in the land, the Canaanite presence became a threat. This account is a stern warning to the Israelites about the possibility of their being defiled by the Canaanites. The nation of Israel was later commanded not to intermarry or make treaties with them, for they were a corrupt and corrupting people. This chapter implicitly warns against becoming familiar with the way they lived (34:1-2). It also taught Israel that in dealing with the Canaanites, they were to keep their integrity and not use the holy things of the covenant for deception and slaughter (34:13); Israel’s reputation was at stake in the land (34:30). For their ruthless violence, Simeon and Levi were passed over in the birthright blessing (49:5-7).<\/p>","summary_ro":"34:1-31 Once Jacob and his family settled in the land, the Canaanite presence became a threat. This account is a stern warning to the Israelites about the possibility of their being defiled by the Canaanites. The nation of Israel was later commanded not to intermarry or make treaties with them, for they were a corrupt and corrupting people. This chapter implicitly warns against becoming familiar with the way they lived (34:1-2). It also taught Israel that in dealing with the Canaanites, they ...","summary_en":"34:1-31 Once Jacob and his family settled in the land, the Canaanite presence became a threat. This account is a stern warning to the Israelites about the possibility of their being defiled by the Canaanites. The nation of Israel was later commanded not to intermarry or make treaties with them, for they were a corrupt and corrupting people. This chapter implicitly warns against becoming familiar with the way they lived (34:1-2). It also taught Israel that in dealing with the Canaanites, they ...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":98613,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 34:1","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 34:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>34:1-2<\/strong> As far as we know, <em>Dinah<\/em> was Jacob’s only daughter (30:21). • <em>Shechem . . . seized her and raped her:<\/em> Shechem violated and debased Dinah, so she had no chance for a proper marriage.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>34:1-2<\/strong> As far as we know, <em>Dinah<\/em> was Jacob’s only daughter (30:21). • <em>Shechem . . . seized her and raped her:<\/em> Shechem violated and debased Dinah, so she had no chance for a proper marriage.<\/p>","summary_ro":"34:1-2 As far as we know, Dinah was Jacob’s only daughter (30:21). • Shechem . . . seized her and raped her: Shechem violated and debased Dinah, so she had no chance for a proper marriage.","summary_en":"34:1-2 As far as we know, Dinah was Jacob’s only daughter (30:21). • Shechem . . . seized her and raped her: Shechem violated and debased Dinah, so she had no chance for a proper marriage.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":126238,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 34:1","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 34:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>34:1-31<\/strong> Once Jacob and his family settled in the land, the Canaanite presence became a threat. This account is a stern warning to the Israelites about the possibility of their being defiled by the Canaanites. The nation of Israel was later commanded not to intermarry or make treaties with them, for they were a corrupt and corrupting people. This chapter implicitly warns against becoming familiar with the way they lived (34:1-2). It also taught Israel that in dealing with the Canaanites, they were to keep their integrity and not use the holy things of the covenant for deception and slaughter (34:13); Israel’s reputation was at stake in the land (34:30). For their ruthless violence, Simeon and Levi were passed over in the birthright blessing (49:5-7).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>34:1-31<\/strong> Once Jacob and his family settled in the land, the Canaanite presence became a threat. This account is a stern warning to the Israelites about the possibility of their being defiled by the Canaanites. The nation of Israel was later commanded not to intermarry or make treaties with them, for they were a corrupt and corrupting people. This chapter implicitly warns against becoming familiar with the way they lived (34:1-2). It also taught Israel that in dealing with the Canaanites, they were to keep their integrity and not use the holy things of the covenant for deception and slaughter (34:13); Israel’s reputation was at stake in the land (34:30). For their ruthless violence, Simeon and Levi were passed over in the birthright blessing (49:5-7).<\/p>","summary_ro":"34:1-31 Once Jacob and his family settled in the land, the Canaanite presence became a threat. This account is a stern warning to the Israelites about the possibility of their being defiled by the Canaanites. The nation of Israel was later commanded not to intermarry or make treaties with them, for they were a corrupt and corrupting people. This chapter implicitly warns against becoming familiar with the way they lived (34:1-2). It also taught Israel that in dealing with the Canaanites, they ...","summary_en":"34:1-31 Once Jacob and his family settled in the land, the Canaanite presence became a threat. This account is a stern warning to the Israelites about the possibility of their being defiled by the Canaanites. The nation of Israel was later commanded not to intermarry or make treaties with them, for they were a corrupt and corrupting people. This chapter implicitly warns against becoming familiar with the way they lived (34:1-2). It also taught Israel that in dealing with the Canaanites, they ...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":126239,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 34:1","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 34:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>34:1-2<\/strong> As far as we know, <em>Dinah<\/em> was Jacob’s only daughter (30:21). • <em>Shechem . . . seized her and raped her:<\/em> Shechem violated and debased Dinah, so she had no chance for a proper marriage.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>34:1-2<\/strong> As far as we know, <em>Dinah<\/em> was Jacob’s only daughter (30:21). • <em>Shechem . . . seized her and raped her:<\/em> Shechem violated and debased Dinah, so she had no chance for a proper marriage.<\/p>","summary_ro":"34:1-2 As far as we know, Dinah was Jacob’s only daughter (30:21). • Shechem . . . seized her and raped her: Shechem violated and debased Dinah, so she had no chance for a proper marriage.","summary_en":"34:1-2 As far as we know, Dinah was Jacob’s only daughter (30:21). • Shechem . . . seized her and raped her: Shechem violated and debased Dinah, so she had no chance for a proper marriage.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":59935,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Circumcision","title_en":"Circumcision","content_ro":"<h3>Circumcision<\/h3>\n<p>Circumcision, the removal of the male foreskin, was practiced by a number of cultures in the ancient world (see Jer 9:25-26).<\/p>\n<p>God chose circumcision as the sign of a covenant that focuses on descendants. God had promised to make Abraham and his descendants into a great nation (Gen 12:2; 17:3-6) and to use them to redeem the Gentile nations (12:3; see Gal 3:8-9). Circumcision was God’s signature in flesh; it would identify Abraham and his descendants as God’s own people (Gen 17:9-14) and remind them to live in faithfulness to the covenant.<\/p>\n<p>Although circumcision was applied to adult males when they joined the covenant community (Gen 17:23-27; Exod 12:48; Josh 5:3-7), it was usually performed on infants (Gen 21:4; Lev 12:3), who received God’s promises and membership in the covenant community through their parents. Faith was required in order to receive God’s blessings, however, as can be seen in the differentiation between Ishmael and Isaac, Esau and Jacob, and Joseph and his brothers. Non-Israelites could also obligate themselves to Israel’s covenant (Exod 12:48; cp. Gen 34:15-24), and circumcision marked their inclusion into the worshiping community (e.g., Exod 12:44).<\/p>\n<p>Circumcision would help Israel recognize and remember that they must lay aside natural impurity. God’s people had to be loyal to the covenant, to the family, and to their own marriages. Intermarriage with uncircumcised people who were not of the covenant was a violation of the covenant. Any man who refused to be circumcised (physically <em>cut<\/em> in this symbolic way) would be <em>cut<\/em> off from the covenant people because of his disobedience to God’s command (Gen 17:14).<\/p>\n<p>Circumcision is a symbol of separation from the world, of purity, and of loyalty to the covenant. It provides the powerful metaphor of “circumcision of the heart,” which designates a heart that is committed to God and is inwardly set apart to God, rather than being stubbornly resistant (Lev 26:41; Deut 30:6; Jer 4:4; 9:26; Eph 2:11). Circumcision of the heart evidences salvation and fellowship with God (see Ezek 18:31-32; 36:25-27; Rom 2:28-29; 4:11).<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus Christ established God’s new covenant, he fulfilled the requirements of the old covenant. It is not necessary for Gentile believers to be circumcised, since they are incorporated into the people of God through faith in Christ (Acts 15:1-29; Rom 2:25-29; Gal 2:1-10; 6:15; Col 2:11-12). One must turn in confidence to God and his promises, lay aside sinful behavior and the customs of the world, and live a new life by faith (see Jer 31:33-34; Rom 8:1-17; Gal 5:16–6:10).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 17:9-14, 23-27; 21:4; 34:1-26; Exod 4:24-26; 12:48; Lev 12:3; Josh 5:2-8; Jer 9:25-26; Ezek 44:7-9; Luke 1:59; 2:21; Acts 15:1-31; 16:1-5; Rom 2:25-29; 1 Cor 7:17-19; Gal 5:1-6, 11-12; 6:12-16; Eph 2:11-18; Phil 3:2-7; Col 2:11; 3:11<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Circumcision<\/h3>\n<p>Circumcision, the removal of the male foreskin, was practiced by a number of cultures in the ancient world (see Jer 9:25-26).<\/p>\n<p>God chose circumcision as the sign of a covenant that focuses on descendants. God had promised to make Abraham and his descendants into a great nation (Gen 12:2; 17:3-6) and to use them to redeem the Gentile nations (12:3; see Gal 3:8-9). Circumcision was God’s signature in flesh; it would identify Abraham and his descendants as God’s own people (Gen 17:9-14) and remind them to live in faithfulness to the covenant.<\/p>\n<p>Although circumcision was applied to adult males when they joined the covenant community (Gen 17:23-27; Exod 12:48; Josh 5:3-7), it was usually performed on infants (Gen 21:4; Lev 12:3), who received God’s promises and membership in the covenant community through their parents. Faith was required in order to receive God’s blessings, however, as can be seen in the differentiation between Ishmael and Isaac, Esau and Jacob, and Joseph and his brothers. Non-Israelites could also obligate themselves to Israel’s covenant (Exod 12:48; cp. Gen 34:15-24), and circumcision marked their inclusion into the worshiping community (e.g., Exod 12:44).<\/p>\n<p>Circumcision would help Israel recognize and remember that they must lay aside natural impurity. God’s people had to be loyal to the covenant, to the family, and to their own marriages. Intermarriage with uncircumcised people who were not of the covenant was a violation of the covenant. Any man who refused to be circumcised (physically <em>cut<\/em> in this symbolic way) would be <em>cut<\/em> off from the covenant people because of his disobedience to God’s command (Gen 17:14).<\/p>\n<p>Circumcision is a symbol of separation from the world, of purity, and of loyalty to the covenant. It provides the powerful metaphor of “circumcision of the heart,” which designates a heart that is committed to God and is inwardly set apart to God, rather than being stubbornly resistant (Lev 26:41; Deut 30:6; Jer 4:4; 9:26; Eph 2:11). Circumcision of the heart evidences salvation and fellowship with God (see Ezek 18:31-32; 36:25-27; Rom 2:28-29; 4:11).<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus Christ established God’s new covenant, he fulfilled the requirements of the old covenant. It is not necessary for Gentile believers to be circumcised, since they are incorporated into the people of God through faith in Christ (Acts 15:1-29; Rom 2:25-29; Gal 2:1-10; 6:15; Col 2:11-12). One must turn in confidence to God and his promises, lay aside sinful behavior and the customs of the world, and live a new life by faith (see Jer 31:33-34; Rom 8:1-17; Gal 5:16–6:10).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 17:9-14, 23-27; 21:4; 34:1-26; Exod 4:24-26; 12:48; Lev 12:3; Josh 5:2-8; Jer 9:25-26; Ezek 44:7-9; Luke 1:59; 2:21; Acts 15:1-31; 16:1-5; Rom 2:25-29; 1 Cor 7:17-19; Gal 5:1-6, 11-12; 6:12-16; Eph 2:11-18; Phil 3:2-7; Col 2:11; 3:11<\/p>","summary_ro":"Circumcision Circumcision, the removal of the male foreskin, was practiced by a number of cultures in the ancient world (see Jer 9:25-26). God chose circumcision as the sign of a covenant that focuses on descendants. God had promised to make Abraham and his descendants into a great nation (Gen 12:2; 17:3-6) and to use them to redeem the Gentile nations (12:3; see Gal 3:8-9). Circumcision was God’s signature in flesh; it would identify Abraham and his descendants as God’s own people (Gen 17:9-...","summary_en":"Circumcision Circumcision, the removal of the male foreskin, was practiced by a number of cultures in the ancient world (see Jer 9:25-26). God chose circumcision as the sign of a covenant that focuses on descendants. God had promised to make Abraham and his descendants into a great nation (Gen 12:2; 17:3-6) and to use them to redeem the Gentile nations (12:3; see Gal 3:8-9). Circumcision was God’s signature in flesh; it would identify Abraham and his descendants as God’s own people (Gen 17:9-...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":60894,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Holy War","title_en":"Holy War","content_ro":"<h3>Holy War<\/h3>\n<p>The Israelites’ complete annihilation of their enemies poses a major ethical problem. What justification could Israel have had for invading, conquering, and destroying the land of Canaan and its peoples? From a human perspective, it appears that Israel’s aggressive campaigns to settle Canaan were illegal and immoral. Scripture, however, offers a couple of insights that, while not fully eliminating the difficulty in understanding this issue, provide some help.<\/p>\n<p>First, the war against the Canaanites was commanded and led by God himself, not by mere human decision. The holy God was present with Israel in a unique way (Exod 19:5-6; 40:34-38). After Israel crossed the Jordan, it became clear that God himself was fighting against the Canaanites (e.g., Josh 6); and when he wasn’t, Israel was defeated (Josh 7). God himself defines what is and is not moral based on his own character. For ancient Israel, that included the notion that in order for the holy God to remain present with his people, the prospect of evil and corruptibility had to be dealt with in a decisive way (see Deut 7:1-6; Deut 20:16-18; see also Num 25; Judg 2:1-15).<\/p>\n<p>Second, the people of Canaan had rebelled against God and had become thoroughly wicked (see, e.g., Gen 34:1-2). At the time of Abraham, God declared that the sins of the Canaanites did not yet warrant their destruction (Gen 15:16). Now, several hundred years later, they did—they were committing horrible crimes against God and their fellow human beings, including idolatry, child sacrifice, adultery, incest, murder, and oppression (see Lev 18). These sins thoroughly defiled the land and its people (Lev 18:24-25). The holy God was exercising his justice against excessive wickedness.<\/p>\n<p>It is important to recognize that the war that Israel was authorized to wage was thus limited historically and theologically to that specific time and place and people. Medieval campaigns, such as the Crusades by European “Christians” against Middle Eastern “infidels,” or the more recent <em>jihads<\/em> of Islamic terrorism cannot be justified based on it. Jesus made it very clear that “God blesses those who work for peace” (Matt 5:9) and that “those who use the sword will die by the sword” (Matt 26:52). Jesus himself, as the Messiah, was expected to lead Israel in military victory over the Romans; instead, he gave up his life sacrificially to defeat the ultimate enemies of sin, death, and Satan. God has reserved for himself the right of judgment (Rom 12:19), and in the final judgment, he will pour out his holy wrath on human wickedness (see Rev 19:11-21; 20:7-10). Therefore, no one can now rightly claim that God has commanded that a particular group of people should be killed. No justification for genocide exists in the modern world.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 12:1; 13:14-17; 15:16, 18-21; Deut 1:30; Deut 7:1-6, 16-26; 20:1-4, 10-18; 32:8-9; Judg 3:27-30; 1 Sam 7:7-11; 2 Chr 13:12-19; 20:20-24; Isa 13:1-5; Joel 3:1-16; Matt 5:9; 26:50-54; Rev 19:11-21; 20:7-15<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Holy War<\/h3>\n<p>The Israelites’ complete annihilation of their enemies poses a major ethical problem. What justification could Israel have had for invading, conquering, and destroying the land of Canaan and its peoples? From a human perspective, it appears that Israel’s aggressive campaigns to settle Canaan were illegal and immoral. Scripture, however, offers a couple of insights that, while not fully eliminating the difficulty in understanding this issue, provide some help.<\/p>\n<p>First, the war against the Canaanites was commanded and led by God himself, not by mere human decision. The holy God was present with Israel in a unique way (Exod 19:5-6; 40:34-38). After Israel crossed the Jordan, it became clear that God himself was fighting against the Canaanites (e.g., Josh 6); and when he wasn’t, Israel was defeated (Josh 7). God himself defines what is and is not moral based on his own character. For ancient Israel, that included the notion that in order for the holy God to remain present with his people, the prospect of evil and corruptibility had to be dealt with in a decisive way (see Deut 7:1-6; Deut 20:16-18; see also Num 25; Judg 2:1-15).<\/p>\n<p>Second, the people of Canaan had rebelled against God and had become thoroughly wicked (see, e.g., Gen 34:1-2). At the time of Abraham, God declared that the sins of the Canaanites did not yet warrant their destruction (Gen 15:16). Now, several hundred years later, they did—they were committing horrible crimes against God and their fellow human beings, including idolatry, child sacrifice, adultery, incest, murder, and oppression (see Lev 18). These sins thoroughly defiled the land and its people (Lev 18:24-25). The holy God was exercising his justice against excessive wickedness.<\/p>\n<p>It is important to recognize that the war that Israel was authorized to wage was thus limited historically and theologically to that specific time and place and people. Medieval campaigns, such as the Crusades by European “Christians” against Middle Eastern “infidels,” or the more recent <em>jihads<\/em> of Islamic terrorism cannot be justified based on it. Jesus made it very clear that “God blesses those who work for peace” (Matt 5:9) and that “those who use the sword will die by the sword” (Matt 26:52). Jesus himself, as the Messiah, was expected to lead Israel in military victory over the Romans; instead, he gave up his life sacrificially to defeat the ultimate enemies of sin, death, and Satan. God has reserved for himself the right of judgment (Rom 12:19), and in the final judgment, he will pour out his holy wrath on human wickedness (see Rev 19:11-21; 20:7-10). Therefore, no one can now rightly claim that God has commanded that a particular group of people should be killed. No justification for genocide exists in the modern world.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 12:1; 13:14-17; 15:16, 18-21; Deut 1:30; Deut 7:1-6, 16-26; 20:1-4, 10-18; 32:8-9; Judg 3:27-30; 1 Sam 7:7-11; 2 Chr 13:12-19; 20:20-24; Isa 13:1-5; Joel 3:1-16; Matt 5:9; 26:50-54; Rev 19:11-21; 20:7-15<\/p>","summary_ro":"Holy War The Israelites’ complete annihilation of their enemies poses a major ethical problem. What justification could Israel have had for invading, conquering, and destroying the land of Canaan and its peoples? From a human perspective, it appears that Israel’s aggressive campaigns to settle Canaan were illegal and immoral. Scripture, however, offers a couple of insights that, while not fully eliminating the difficulty in understanding this issue, provide some help. First, the war against t...","summary_en":"Holy War The Israelites’ complete annihilation of their enemies poses a major ethical problem. What justification could Israel have had for invading, conquering, and destroying the land of Canaan and its peoples? From a human perspective, it appears that Israel’s aggressive campaigns to settle Canaan were illegal and immoral. Scripture, however, offers a couple of insights that, while not fully eliminating the difficulty in understanding this issue, provide some help. First, the war against t...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":60954,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Shechem","title_en":"Shechem","content_ro":"<h3>Shechem<\/h3>\n<p>Shechem was strategically located at the entrance to the pass between Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim, where it could control several key roads through the central hill country. Jacob bought land near Shechem (Gen 33:18-19). While there, Jacob’s daughter, Dinah, was raped by the prince of the area (whose name was Shechem); in response, two of Dinah’s brothers, Simeon and Levi, killed all the men of the land (Gen 34). Later, the town of Shechem became part of Joseph’s inheritance (Josh 24:32) and one of the cities of refuge (see Deut 19:1-13; Josh 20:7).<\/p>\n<p>During the period of the judges, Gideon’s son Abimelech ruled from Shechem (Judg 9). Solomon later fortified Shechem as a provincial capital, but it was sacked soon after, probably by Shishak of Egypt when he invaded Israel in 926 <span>BC<\/span> (see 1 Kgs 14:25). Jeroboam I then refortified the city and made it the capital of the kingdom of Israel (1 Kgs 12:25). Shechem was again destroyed, this time by the Assyrian king Shalmaneser V, in 724 <span>BC<\/span>, shortly before the destruction of Samaria, and the ruins were virtually uninhabited for about four hundred years.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 33:18-19; Josh 8:30-35; 20:7; 24:1-32; Judg 9:1-56; 1 Kgs 12:1, 25; John 4:5<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Shechem<\/h3>\n<p>Shechem was strategically located at the entrance to the pass between Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim, where it could control several key roads through the central hill country. Jacob bought land near Shechem (Gen 33:18-19). While there, Jacob’s daughter, Dinah, was raped by the prince of the area (whose name was Shechem); in response, two of Dinah’s brothers, Simeon and Levi, killed all the men of the land (Gen 34). Later, the town of Shechem became part of Joseph’s inheritance (Josh 24:32) and one of the cities of refuge (see Deut 19:1-13; Josh 20:7).<\/p>\n<p>During the period of the judges, Gideon’s son Abimelech ruled from Shechem (Judg 9). Solomon later fortified Shechem as a provincial capital, but it was sacked soon after, probably by Shishak of Egypt when he invaded Israel in 926 <span>BC<\/span> (see 1 Kgs 14:25). Jeroboam I then refortified the city and made it the capital of the kingdom of Israel (1 Kgs 12:25). Shechem was again destroyed, this time by the Assyrian king Shalmaneser V, in 724 <span>BC<\/span>, shortly before the destruction of Samaria, and the ruins were virtually uninhabited for about four hundred years.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 33:18-19; Josh 8:30-35; 20:7; 24:1-32; Judg 9:1-56; 1 Kgs 12:1, 25; John 4:5<\/p>","summary_ro":"Shechem Shechem was strategically located at the entrance to the pass between Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim, where it could control several key roads through the central hill country. Jacob bought land near Shechem (Gen 33:18-19). While there, Jacob’s daughter, Dinah, was raped by the prince of the area (whose name was Shechem); in response, two of Dinah’s brothers, Simeon and Levi, killed all the men of the land (Gen 34). Later, the town of Shechem became part of Joseph’s inheritance (Josh 24...","summary_en":"Shechem Shechem was strategically located at the entrance to the pass between Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim, where it could control several key roads through the central hill country. Jacob bought land near Shechem (Gen 33:18-19). While there, Jacob’s daughter, Dinah, was raped by the prince of the area (whose name was Shechem); in response, two of Dinah’s brothers, Simeon and Levi, killed all the men of the land (Gen 34). Later, the town of Shechem became part of Joseph’s inheritance (Josh 24...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":87561,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Circumcision","title_en":"Circumcision","content_ro":"<h3>Circumcision<\/h3>\n<p>Circumcision, the removal of the male foreskin, was practiced by a number of cultures in the ancient world (see Jer 9:25-26).<\/p>\n<p>God chose circumcision as the sign of a covenant that focuses on descendants. God had promised to make Abraham and his descendants into a great nation (Gen 12:2; 17:3-6) and to use them to redeem the Gentile nations (12:3; see Gal 3:8-9). Circumcision was God’s signature in flesh; it would identify Abraham and his descendants as God’s own people (Gen 17:9-14) and remind them to live in faithfulness to the covenant.<\/p>\n<p>Although circumcision was applied to adult males when they joined the covenant community (Gen 17:23-27; Exod 12:48; Josh 5:3-7), it was usually performed on infants (Gen 21:4; Lev 12:3), who received God’s promises and membership in the covenant community through their parents. Faith was required in order to receive God’s blessings, however, as can be seen in the differentiation between Ishmael and Isaac, Esau and Jacob, and Joseph and his brothers. Non-Israelites could also obligate themselves to Israel’s covenant (Exod 12:48; cp. Gen 34:15-24), and circumcision marked their inclusion into the worshiping community (e.g., Exod 12:44).<\/p>\n<p>Circumcision would help Israel recognize and remember that they must lay aside natural impurity. God’s people had to be loyal to the covenant, to the family, and to their own marriages. Intermarriage with uncircumcised people who were not of the covenant was a violation of the covenant. Any man who refused to be circumcised (physically <em>cut<\/em> in this symbolic way) would be <em>cut<\/em> off from the covenant people because of his disobedience to God’s command (Gen 17:14).<\/p>\n<p>Circumcision is a symbol of separation from the world, of purity, and of loyalty to the covenant. It provides the powerful metaphor of “circumcision of the heart,” which designates a heart that is committed to God and is inwardly set apart to God, rather than being stubbornly resistant (Lev 26:41; Deut 30:6; Jer 4:4; 9:26; Eph 2:11). Circumcision of the heart evidences salvation and fellowship with God (see Ezek 18:31-32; 36:25-27; Rom 2:28-29; 4:11).<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus Christ established God’s new covenant, he fulfilled the requirements of the old covenant. It is not necessary for Gentile believers to be circumcised, since they are incorporated into the people of God through faith in Christ (Acts 15:1-29; Rom 2:25-29; Gal 2:1-10; 6:15; Col 2:11-12). One must turn in confidence to God and his promises, lay aside sinful behavior and the customs of the world, and live a new life by faith (see Jer 31:33-34; Rom 8:1-17; Gal 5:16–6:10).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 17:9-14, 23-27; 21:4; 34:1-26; Exod 4:24-26; 12:48; Lev 12:3; Josh 5:2-8; Jer 9:25-26; Ezek 44:7-9; Luke 1:59; 2:21; Acts 15:1-31; 16:1-5; Rom 2:25-29; 1 Cor 7:17-19; Gal 5:1-6, 11-12; 6:12-16; Eph 2:11-18; Phil 3:2-7; Col 2:11; 3:11<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Circumcision<\/h3>\n<p>Circumcision, the removal of the male foreskin, was practiced by a number of cultures in the ancient world (see Jer 9:25-26).<\/p>\n<p>God chose circumcision as the sign of a covenant that focuses on descendants. God had promised to make Abraham and his descendants into a great nation (Gen 12:2; 17:3-6) and to use them to redeem the Gentile nations (12:3; see Gal 3:8-9). Circumcision was God’s signature in flesh; it would identify Abraham and his descendants as God’s own people (Gen 17:9-14) and remind them to live in faithfulness to the covenant.<\/p>\n<p>Although circumcision was applied to adult males when they joined the covenant community (Gen 17:23-27; Exod 12:48; Josh 5:3-7), it was usually performed on infants (Gen 21:4; Lev 12:3), who received God’s promises and membership in the covenant community through their parents. Faith was required in order to receive God’s blessings, however, as can be seen in the differentiation between Ishmael and Isaac, Esau and Jacob, and Joseph and his brothers. Non-Israelites could also obligate themselves to Israel’s covenant (Exod 12:48; cp. Gen 34:15-24), and circumcision marked their inclusion into the worshiping community (e.g., Exod 12:44).<\/p>\n<p>Circumcision would help Israel recognize and remember that they must lay aside natural impurity. God’s people had to be loyal to the covenant, to the family, and to their own marriages. Intermarriage with uncircumcised people who were not of the covenant was a violation of the covenant. Any man who refused to be circumcised (physically <em>cut<\/em> in this symbolic way) would be <em>cut<\/em> off from the covenant people because of his disobedience to God’s command (Gen 17:14).<\/p>\n<p>Circumcision is a symbol of separation from the world, of purity, and of loyalty to the covenant. It provides the powerful metaphor of “circumcision of the heart,” which designates a heart that is committed to God and is inwardly set apart to God, rather than being stubbornly resistant (Lev 26:41; Deut 30:6; Jer 4:4; 9:26; Eph 2:11). Circumcision of the heart evidences salvation and fellowship with God (see Ezek 18:31-32; 36:25-27; Rom 2:28-29; 4:11).<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus Christ established God’s new covenant, he fulfilled the requirements of the old covenant. It is not necessary for Gentile believers to be circumcised, since they are incorporated into the people of God through faith in Christ (Acts 15:1-29; Rom 2:25-29; Gal 2:1-10; 6:15; Col 2:11-12). One must turn in confidence to God and his promises, lay aside sinful behavior and the customs of the world, and live a new life by faith (see Jer 31:33-34; Rom 8:1-17; Gal 5:16–6:10).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 17:9-14, 23-27; 21:4; 34:1-26; Exod 4:24-26; 12:48; Lev 12:3; Josh 5:2-8; Jer 9:25-26; Ezek 44:7-9; Luke 1:59; 2:21; Acts 15:1-31; 16:1-5; Rom 2:25-29; 1 Cor 7:17-19; Gal 5:1-6, 11-12; 6:12-16; Eph 2:11-18; Phil 3:2-7; Col 2:11; 3:11<\/p>","summary_ro":"Circumcision Circumcision, the removal of the male foreskin, was practiced by a number of cultures in the ancient world (see Jer 9:25-26). God chose circumcision as the sign of a covenant that focuses on descendants. God had promised to make Abraham and his descendants into a great nation (Gen 12:2; 17:3-6) and to use them to redeem the Gentile nations (12:3; see Gal 3:8-9). Circumcision was God’s signature in flesh; it would identify Abraham and his descendants as God’s own people (Gen 17:9-...","summary_en":"Circumcision Circumcision, the removal of the male foreskin, was practiced by a number of cultures in the ancient world (see Jer 9:25-26). God chose circumcision as the sign of a covenant that focuses on descendants. God had promised to make Abraham and his descendants into a great nation (Gen 12:2; 17:3-6) and to use them to redeem the Gentile nations (12:3; see Gal 3:8-9). Circumcision was God’s signature in flesh; it would identify Abraham and his descendants as God’s own people (Gen 17:9-...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":88520,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Holy War","title_en":"Holy War","content_ro":"<h3>Holy War<\/h3>\n<p>The Israelites’ complete annihilation of their enemies poses a major ethical problem. What justification could Israel have had for invading, conquering, and destroying the land of Canaan and its peoples? From a human perspective, it appears that Israel’s aggressive campaigns to settle Canaan were illegal and immoral. Scripture, however, offers a couple of insights that, while not fully eliminating the difficulty in understanding this issue, provide some help.<\/p>\n<p>First, the war against the Canaanites was commanded and led by God himself, not by mere human decision. The holy God was present with Israel in a unique way (Exod 19:5-6; 40:34-38). After Israel crossed the Jordan, it became clear that God himself was fighting against the Canaanites (e.g., Josh 6); and when he wasn’t, Israel was defeated (Josh 7). God himself defines what is and is not moral based on his own character. For ancient Israel, that included the notion that in order for the holy God to remain present with his people, the prospect of evil and corruptibility had to be dealt with in a decisive way (see Deut 7:1-6; Deut 20:16-18; see also Num 25; Judg 2:1-15).<\/p>\n<p>Second, the people of Canaan had rebelled against God and had become thoroughly wicked (see, e.g., Gen 34:1-2). At the time of Abraham, God declared that the sins of the Canaanites did not yet warrant their destruction (Gen 15:16). Now, several hundred years later, they did—they were committing horrible crimes against God and their fellow human beings, including idolatry, child sacrifice, adultery, incest, murder, and oppression (see Lev 18). These sins thoroughly defiled the land and its people (Lev 18:24-25). The holy God was exercising his justice against excessive wickedness.<\/p>\n<p>It is important to recognize that the war that Israel was authorized to wage was thus limited historically and theologically to that specific time and place and people. Medieval campaigns, such as the Crusades by European “Christians” against Middle Eastern “infidels,” or the more recent <em>jihads<\/em> of Islamic terrorism cannot be justified based on it. Jesus made it very clear that “God blesses those who work for peace” (Matt 5:9) and that “those who use the sword will die by the sword” (Matt 26:52). Jesus himself, as the Messiah, was expected to lead Israel in military victory over the Romans; instead, he gave up his life sacrificially to defeat the ultimate enemies of sin, death, and Satan. God has reserved for himself the right of judgment (Rom 12:19), and in the final judgment, he will pour out his holy wrath on human wickedness (see Rev 19:11-21; 20:7-10). Therefore, no one can now rightly claim that God has commanded that a particular group of people should be killed. No justification for genocide exists in the modern world.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 12:1; 13:14-17; 15:16, 18-21; Deut 1:30; Deut 7:1-6, 16-26; 20:1-4, 10-18; 32:8-9; Judg 3:27-30; 1 Sam 7:7-11; 2 Chr 13:12-19; 20:20-24; Isa 13:1-5; Joel 3:1-16; Matt 5:9; 26:50-54; Rev 19:11-21; 20:7-15<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Holy War<\/h3>\n<p>The Israelites’ complete annihilation of their enemies poses a major ethical problem. What justification could Israel have had for invading, conquering, and destroying the land of Canaan and its peoples? From a human perspective, it appears that Israel’s aggressive campaigns to settle Canaan were illegal and immoral. Scripture, however, offers a couple of insights that, while not fully eliminating the difficulty in understanding this issue, provide some help.<\/p>\n<p>First, the war against the Canaanites was commanded and led by God himself, not by mere human decision. The holy God was present with Israel in a unique way (Exod 19:5-6; 40:34-38). After Israel crossed the Jordan, it became clear that God himself was fighting against the Canaanites (e.g., Josh 6); and when he wasn’t, Israel was defeated (Josh 7). God himself defines what is and is not moral based on his own character. For ancient Israel, that included the notion that in order for the holy God to remain present with his people, the prospect of evil and corruptibility had to be dealt with in a decisive way (see Deut 7:1-6; Deut 20:16-18; see also Num 25; Judg 2:1-15).<\/p>\n<p>Second, the people of Canaan had rebelled against God and had become thoroughly wicked (see, e.g., Gen 34:1-2). At the time of Abraham, God declared that the sins of the Canaanites did not yet warrant their destruction (Gen 15:16). Now, several hundred years later, they did—they were committing horrible crimes against God and their fellow human beings, including idolatry, child sacrifice, adultery, incest, murder, and oppression (see Lev 18). These sins thoroughly defiled the land and its people (Lev 18:24-25). The holy God was exercising his justice against excessive wickedness.<\/p>\n<p>It is important to recognize that the war that Israel was authorized to wage was thus limited historically and theologically to that specific time and place and people. Medieval campaigns, such as the Crusades by European “Christians” against Middle Eastern “infidels,” or the more recent <em>jihads<\/em> of Islamic terrorism cannot be justified based on it. Jesus made it very clear that “God blesses those who work for peace” (Matt 5:9) and that “those who use the sword will die by the sword” (Matt 26:52). Jesus himself, as the Messiah, was expected to lead Israel in military victory over the Romans; instead, he gave up his life sacrificially to defeat the ultimate enemies of sin, death, and Satan. God has reserved for himself the right of judgment (Rom 12:19), and in the final judgment, he will pour out his holy wrath on human wickedness (see Rev 19:11-21; 20:7-10). Therefore, no one can now rightly claim that God has commanded that a particular group of people should be killed. No justification for genocide exists in the modern world.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 12:1; 13:14-17; 15:16, 18-21; Deut 1:30; Deut 7:1-6, 16-26; 20:1-4, 10-18; 32:8-9; Judg 3:27-30; 1 Sam 7:7-11; 2 Chr 13:12-19; 20:20-24; Isa 13:1-5; Joel 3:1-16; Matt 5:9; 26:50-54; Rev 19:11-21; 20:7-15<\/p>","summary_ro":"Holy War The Israelites’ complete annihilation of their enemies poses a major ethical problem. What justification could Israel have had for invading, conquering, and destroying the land of Canaan and its peoples? From a human perspective, it appears that Israel’s aggressive campaigns to settle Canaan were illegal and immoral. Scripture, however, offers a couple of insights that, while not fully eliminating the difficulty in understanding this issue, provide some help. First, the war against t...","summary_en":"Holy War The Israelites’ complete annihilation of their enemies poses a major ethical problem. What justification could Israel have had for invading, conquering, and destroying the land of Canaan and its peoples? From a human perspective, it appears that Israel’s aggressive campaigns to settle Canaan were illegal and immoral. Scripture, however, offers a couple of insights that, while not fully eliminating the difficulty in understanding this issue, provide some help. First, the war against t...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":88580,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Shechem","title_en":"Shechem","content_ro":"<h3>Shechem<\/h3>\n<p>Shechem was strategically located at the entrance to the pass between Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim, where it could control several key roads through the central hill country. Jacob bought land near Shechem (Gen 33:18-19). While there, Jacob’s daughter, Dinah, was raped by the prince of the area (whose name was Shechem); in response, two of Dinah’s brothers, Simeon and Levi, killed all the men of the land (Gen 34). Later, the town of Shechem became part of Joseph’s inheritance (Josh 24:32) and one of the cities of refuge (see Deut 19:1-13; Josh 20:7).<\/p>\n<p>During the period of the judges, Gideon’s son Abimelech ruled from Shechem (Judg 9). Solomon later fortified Shechem as a provincial capital, but it was sacked soon after, probably by Shishak of Egypt when he invaded Israel in 926 <span>BC<\/span> (see 1 Kgs 14:25). Jeroboam I then refortified the city and made it the capital of the kingdom of Israel (1 Kgs 12:25). Shechem was again destroyed, this time by the Assyrian king Shalmaneser V, in 724 <span>BC<\/span>, shortly before the destruction of Samaria, and the ruins were virtually uninhabited for about four hundred years.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 33:18-19; Josh 8:30-35; 20:7; 24:1-32; Judg 9:1-56; 1 Kgs 12:1, 25; John 4:5<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Shechem<\/h3>\n<p>Shechem was strategically located at the entrance to the pass between Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim, where it could control several key roads through the central hill country. Jacob bought land near Shechem (Gen 33:18-19). While there, Jacob’s daughter, Dinah, was raped by the prince of the area (whose name was Shechem); in response, two of Dinah’s brothers, Simeon and Levi, killed all the men of the land (Gen 34). Later, the town of Shechem became part of Joseph’s inheritance (Josh 24:32) and one of the cities of refuge (see Deut 19:1-13; Josh 20:7).<\/p>\n<p>During the period of the judges, Gideon’s son Abimelech ruled from Shechem (Judg 9). Solomon later fortified Shechem as a provincial capital, but it was sacked soon after, probably by Shishak of Egypt when he invaded Israel in 926 <span>BC<\/span> (see 1 Kgs 14:25). Jeroboam I then refortified the city and made it the capital of the kingdom of Israel (1 Kgs 12:25). Shechem was again destroyed, this time by the Assyrian king Shalmaneser V, in 724 <span>BC<\/span>, shortly before the destruction of Samaria, and the ruins were virtually uninhabited for about four hundred years.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 33:18-19; Josh 8:30-35; 20:7; 24:1-32; Judg 9:1-56; 1 Kgs 12:1, 25; John 4:5<\/p>","summary_ro":"Shechem Shechem was strategically located at the entrance to the pass between Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim, where it could control several key roads through the central hill country. Jacob bought land near Shechem (Gen 33:18-19). While there, Jacob’s daughter, Dinah, was raped by the prince of the area (whose name was Shechem); in response, two of Dinah’s brothers, Simeon and Levi, killed all the men of the land (Gen 34). Later, the town of Shechem became part of Joseph’s inheritance (Josh 24...","summary_en":"Shechem Shechem was strategically located at the entrance to the pass between Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim, where it could control several key roads through the central hill country. Jacob bought land near Shechem (Gen 33:18-19). While there, Jacob’s daughter, Dinah, was raped by the prince of the area (whose name was Shechem); in response, two of Dinah’s brothers, Simeon and Levi, killed all the men of the land (Gen 34). Later, the town of Shechem became part of Joseph’s inheritance (Josh 24...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":115187,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Circumcision","title_en":"Circumcision","content_ro":"<h3>Circumcision<\/h3>\n<p>Circumcision, the removal of the male foreskin, was practiced by a number of cultures in the ancient world (see Jer 9:25-26).<\/p>\n<p>God chose circumcision as the sign of a covenant that focuses on descendants. God had promised to make Abraham and his descendants into a great nation (Gen 12:2; 17:3-6) and to use them to redeem the Gentile nations (12:3; see Gal 3:8-9). Circumcision was God’s signature in flesh; it would identify Abraham and his descendants as God’s own people (Gen 17:9-14) and remind them to live in faithfulness to the covenant.<\/p>\n<p>Although circumcision was applied to adult males when they joined the covenant community (Gen 17:23-27; Exod 12:48; Josh 5:3-7), it was usually performed on infants (Gen 21:4; Lev 12:3), who received God’s promises and membership in the covenant community through their parents. Faith was required in order to receive God’s blessings, however, as can be seen in the differentiation between Ishmael and Isaac, Esau and Jacob, and Joseph and his brothers. Non-Israelites could also obligate themselves to Israel’s covenant (Exod 12:48; cp. Gen 34:15-24), and circumcision marked their inclusion into the worshiping community (e.g., Exod 12:44).<\/p>\n<p>Circumcision would help Israel recognize and remember that they must lay aside natural impurity. God’s people had to be loyal to the covenant, to the family, and to their own marriages. Intermarriage with uncircumcised people who were not of the covenant was a violation of the covenant. Any man who refused to be circumcised (physically <em>cut<\/em> in this symbolic way) would be <em>cut<\/em> off from the covenant people because of his disobedience to God’s command (Gen 17:14).<\/p>\n<p>Circumcision is a symbol of separation from the world, of purity, and of loyalty to the covenant. It provides the powerful metaphor of “circumcision of the heart,” which designates a heart that is committed to God and is inwardly set apart to God, rather than being stubbornly resistant (Lev 26:41; Deut 30:6; Jer 4:4; 9:26; Eph 2:11). Circumcision of the heart evidences salvation and fellowship with God (see Ezek 18:31-32; 36:25-27; Rom 2:28-29; 4:11).<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus Christ established God’s new covenant, he fulfilled the requirements of the old covenant. It is not necessary for Gentile believers to be circumcised, since they are incorporated into the people of God through faith in Christ (Acts 15:1-29; Rom 2:25-29; Gal 2:1-10; 6:15; Col 2:11-12). One must turn in confidence to God and his promises, lay aside sinful behavior and the customs of the world, and live a new life by faith (see Jer 31:33-34; Rom 8:1-17; Gal 5:16–6:10).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 17:9-14, 23-27; 21:4; 34:1-26; Exod 4:24-26; 12:48; Lev 12:3; Josh 5:2-8; Jer 9:25-26; Ezek 44:7-9; Luke 1:59; 2:21; Acts 15:1-31; 16:1-5; Rom 2:25-29; 1 Cor 7:17-19; Gal 5:1-6, 11-12; 6:12-16; Eph 2:11-18; Phil 3:2-7; Col 2:11; 3:11<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Circumcision<\/h3>\n<p>Circumcision, the removal of the male foreskin, was practiced by a number of cultures in the ancient world (see Jer 9:25-26).<\/p>\n<p>God chose circumcision as the sign of a covenant that focuses on descendants. God had promised to make Abraham and his descendants into a great nation (Gen 12:2; 17:3-6) and to use them to redeem the Gentile nations (12:3; see Gal 3:8-9). Circumcision was God’s signature in flesh; it would identify Abraham and his descendants as God’s own people (Gen 17:9-14) and remind them to live in faithfulness to the covenant.<\/p>\n<p>Although circumcision was applied to adult males when they joined the covenant community (Gen 17:23-27; Exod 12:48; Josh 5:3-7), it was usually performed on infants (Gen 21:4; Lev 12:3), who received God’s promises and membership in the covenant community through their parents. Faith was required in order to receive God’s blessings, however, as can be seen in the differentiation between Ishmael and Isaac, Esau and Jacob, and Joseph and his brothers. Non-Israelites could also obligate themselves to Israel’s covenant (Exod 12:48; cp. Gen 34:15-24), and circumcision marked their inclusion into the worshiping community (e.g., Exod 12:44).<\/p>\n<p>Circumcision would help Israel recognize and remember that they must lay aside natural impurity. God’s people had to be loyal to the covenant, to the family, and to their own marriages. Intermarriage with uncircumcised people who were not of the covenant was a violation of the covenant. Any man who refused to be circumcised (physically <em>cut<\/em> in this symbolic way) would be <em>cut<\/em> off from the covenant people because of his disobedience to God’s command (Gen 17:14).<\/p>\n<p>Circumcision is a symbol of separation from the world, of purity, and of loyalty to the covenant. It provides the powerful metaphor of “circumcision of the heart,” which designates a heart that is committed to God and is inwardly set apart to God, rather than being stubbornly resistant (Lev 26:41; Deut 30:6; Jer 4:4; 9:26; Eph 2:11). Circumcision of the heart evidences salvation and fellowship with God (see Ezek 18:31-32; 36:25-27; Rom 2:28-29; 4:11).<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus Christ established God’s new covenant, he fulfilled the requirements of the old covenant. It is not necessary for Gentile believers to be circumcised, since they are incorporated into the people of God through faith in Christ (Acts 15:1-29; Rom 2:25-29; Gal 2:1-10; 6:15; Col 2:11-12). One must turn in confidence to God and his promises, lay aside sinful behavior and the customs of the world, and live a new life by faith (see Jer 31:33-34; Rom 8:1-17; Gal 5:16–6:10).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 17:9-14, 23-27; 21:4; 34:1-26; Exod 4:24-26; 12:48; Lev 12:3; Josh 5:2-8; Jer 9:25-26; Ezek 44:7-9; Luke 1:59; 2:21; Acts 15:1-31; 16:1-5; Rom 2:25-29; 1 Cor 7:17-19; Gal 5:1-6, 11-12; 6:12-16; Eph 2:11-18; Phil 3:2-7; Col 2:11; 3:11<\/p>","summary_ro":"Circumcision Circumcision, the removal of the male foreskin, was practiced by a number of cultures in the ancient world (see Jer 9:25-26). God chose circumcision as the sign of a covenant that focuses on descendants. God had promised to make Abraham and his descendants into a great nation (Gen 12:2; 17:3-6) and to use them to redeem the Gentile nations (12:3; see Gal 3:8-9). Circumcision was God’s signature in flesh; it would identify Abraham and his descendants as God’s own people (Gen 17:9-...","summary_en":"Circumcision Circumcision, the removal of the male foreskin, was practiced by a number of cultures in the ancient world (see Jer 9:25-26). God chose circumcision as the sign of a covenant that focuses on descendants. God had promised to make Abraham and his descendants into a great nation (Gen 12:2; 17:3-6) and to use them to redeem the Gentile nations (12:3; see Gal 3:8-9). Circumcision was God’s signature in flesh; it would identify Abraham and his descendants as God’s own people (Gen 17:9-...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":116146,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Holy War","title_en":"Holy War","content_ro":"<h3>Holy War<\/h3>\n<p>The Israelites’ complete annihilation of their enemies poses a major ethical problem. What justification could Israel have had for invading, conquering, and destroying the land of Canaan and its peoples? From a human perspective, it appears that Israel’s aggressive campaigns to settle Canaan were illegal and immoral. Scripture, however, offers a couple of insights that, while not fully eliminating the difficulty in understanding this issue, provide some help.<\/p>\n<p>First, the war against the Canaanites was commanded and led by God himself, not by mere human decision. The holy God was present with Israel in a unique way (Exod 19:5-6; 40:34-38). After Israel crossed the Jordan, it became clear that God himself was fighting against the Canaanites (e.g., Josh 6); and when he wasn’t, Israel was defeated (Josh 7). God himself defines what is and is not moral based on his own character. For ancient Israel, that included the notion that in order for the holy God to remain present with his people, the prospect of evil and corruptibility had to be dealt with in a decisive way (see Deut 7:1-6; Deut 20:16-18; see also Num 25; Judg 2:1-15).<\/p>\n<p>Second, the people of Canaan had rebelled against God and had become thoroughly wicked (see, e.g., Gen 34:1-2). At the time of Abraham, God declared that the sins of the Canaanites did not yet warrant their destruction (Gen 15:16). Now, several hundred years later, they did—they were committing horrible crimes against God and their fellow human beings, including idolatry, child sacrifice, adultery, incest, murder, and oppression (see Lev 18). These sins thoroughly defiled the land and its people (Lev 18:24-25). The holy God was exercising his justice against excessive wickedness.<\/p>\n<p>It is important to recognize that the war that Israel was authorized to wage was thus limited historically and theologically to that specific time and place and people. Medieval campaigns, such as the Crusades by European “Christians” against Middle Eastern “infidels,” or the more recent <em>jihads<\/em> of Islamic terrorism cannot be justified based on it. Jesus made it very clear that “God blesses those who work for peace” (Matt 5:9) and that “those who use the sword will die by the sword” (Matt 26:52). Jesus himself, as the Messiah, was expected to lead Israel in military victory over the Romans; instead, he gave up his life sacrificially to defeat the ultimate enemies of sin, death, and Satan. God has reserved for himself the right of judgment (Rom 12:19), and in the final judgment, he will pour out his holy wrath on human wickedness (see Rev 19:11-21; 20:7-10). Therefore, no one can now rightly claim that God has commanded that a particular group of people should be killed. No justification for genocide exists in the modern world.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 12:1; 13:14-17; 15:16, 18-21; Deut 1:30; Deut 7:1-6, 16-26; 20:1-4, 10-18; 32:8-9; Judg 3:27-30; 1 Sam 7:7-11; 2 Chr 13:12-19; 20:20-24; Isa 13:1-5; Joel 3:1-16; Matt 5:9; 26:50-54; Rev 19:11-21; 20:7-15<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Holy War<\/h3>\n<p>The Israelites’ complete annihilation of their enemies poses a major ethical problem. What justification could Israel have had for invading, conquering, and destroying the land of Canaan and its peoples? From a human perspective, it appears that Israel’s aggressive campaigns to settle Canaan were illegal and immoral. Scripture, however, offers a couple of insights that, while not fully eliminating the difficulty in understanding this issue, provide some help.<\/p>\n<p>First, the war against the Canaanites was commanded and led by God himself, not by mere human decision. The holy God was present with Israel in a unique way (Exod 19:5-6; 40:34-38). After Israel crossed the Jordan, it became clear that God himself was fighting against the Canaanites (e.g., Josh 6); and when he wasn’t, Israel was defeated (Josh 7). God himself defines what is and is not moral based on his own character. For ancient Israel, that included the notion that in order for the holy God to remain present with his people, the prospect of evil and corruptibility had to be dealt with in a decisive way (see Deut 7:1-6; Deut 20:16-18; see also Num 25; Judg 2:1-15).<\/p>\n<p>Second, the people of Canaan had rebelled against God and had become thoroughly wicked (see, e.g., Gen 34:1-2). At the time of Abraham, God declared that the sins of the Canaanites did not yet warrant their destruction (Gen 15:16). Now, several hundred years later, they did—they were committing horrible crimes against God and their fellow human beings, including idolatry, child sacrifice, adultery, incest, murder, and oppression (see Lev 18). These sins thoroughly defiled the land and its people (Lev 18:24-25). The holy God was exercising his justice against excessive wickedness.<\/p>\n<p>It is important to recognize that the war that Israel was authorized to wage was thus limited historically and theologically to that specific time and place and people. Medieval campaigns, such as the Crusades by European “Christians” against Middle Eastern “infidels,” or the more recent <em>jihads<\/em> of Islamic terrorism cannot be justified based on it. Jesus made it very clear that “God blesses those who work for peace” (Matt 5:9) and that “those who use the sword will die by the sword” (Matt 26:52). Jesus himself, as the Messiah, was expected to lead Israel in military victory over the Romans; instead, he gave up his life sacrificially to defeat the ultimate enemies of sin, death, and Satan. God has reserved for himself the right of judgment (Rom 12:19), and in the final judgment, he will pour out his holy wrath on human wickedness (see Rev 19:11-21; 20:7-10). Therefore, no one can now rightly claim that God has commanded that a particular group of people should be killed. No justification for genocide exists in the modern world.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 12:1; 13:14-17; 15:16, 18-21; Deut 1:30; Deut 7:1-6, 16-26; 20:1-4, 10-18; 32:8-9; Judg 3:27-30; 1 Sam 7:7-11; 2 Chr 13:12-19; 20:20-24; Isa 13:1-5; Joel 3:1-16; Matt 5:9; 26:50-54; Rev 19:11-21; 20:7-15<\/p>","summary_ro":"Holy War The Israelites’ complete annihilation of their enemies poses a major ethical problem. What justification could Israel have had for invading, conquering, and destroying the land of Canaan and its peoples? From a human perspective, it appears that Israel’s aggressive campaigns to settle Canaan were illegal and immoral. Scripture, however, offers a couple of insights that, while not fully eliminating the difficulty in understanding this issue, provide some help. First, the war against t...","summary_en":"Holy War The Israelites’ complete annihilation of their enemies poses a major ethical problem. What justification could Israel have had for invading, conquering, and destroying the land of Canaan and its peoples? From a human perspective, it appears that Israel’s aggressive campaigns to settle Canaan were illegal and immoral. Scripture, however, offers a couple of insights that, while not fully eliminating the difficulty in understanding this issue, provide some help. First, the war against t...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":116206,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Shechem","title_en":"Shechem","content_ro":"<h3>Shechem<\/h3>\n<p>Shechem was strategically located at the entrance to the pass between Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim, where it could control several key roads through the central hill country. Jacob bought land near Shechem (Gen 33:18-19). While there, Jacob’s daughter, Dinah, was raped by the prince of the area (whose name was Shechem); in response, two of Dinah’s brothers, Simeon and Levi, killed all the men of the land (Gen 34). Later, the town of Shechem became part of Joseph’s inheritance (Josh 24:32) and one of the cities of refuge (see Deut 19:1-13; Josh 20:7).<\/p>\n<p>During the period of the judges, Gideon’s son Abimelech ruled from Shechem (Judg 9). Solomon later fortified Shechem as a provincial capital, but it was sacked soon after, probably by Shishak of Egypt when he invaded Israel in 926 <span>BC<\/span> (see 1 Kgs 14:25). Jeroboam I then refortified the city and made it the capital of the kingdom of Israel (1 Kgs 12:25). Shechem was again destroyed, this time by the Assyrian king Shalmaneser V, in 724 <span>BC<\/span>, shortly before the destruction of Samaria, and the ruins were virtually uninhabited for about four hundred years.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 33:18-19; Josh 8:30-35; 20:7; 24:1-32; Judg 9:1-56; 1 Kgs 12:1, 25; John 4:5<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Shechem<\/h3>\n<p>Shechem was strategically located at the entrance to the pass between Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim, where it could control several key roads through the central hill country. Jacob bought land near Shechem (Gen 33:18-19). While there, Jacob’s daughter, Dinah, was raped by the prince of the area (whose name was Shechem); in response, two of Dinah’s brothers, Simeon and Levi, killed all the men of the land (Gen 34). Later, the town of Shechem became part of Joseph’s inheritance (Josh 24:32) and one of the cities of refuge (see Deut 19:1-13; Josh 20:7).<\/p>\n<p>During the period of the judges, Gideon’s son Abimelech ruled from Shechem (Judg 9). Solomon later fortified Shechem as a provincial capital, but it was sacked soon after, probably by Shishak of Egypt when he invaded Israel in 926 <span>BC<\/span> (see 1 Kgs 14:25). Jeroboam I then refortified the city and made it the capital of the kingdom of Israel (1 Kgs 12:25). Shechem was again destroyed, this time by the Assyrian king Shalmaneser V, in 724 <span>BC<\/span>, shortly before the destruction of Samaria, and the ruins were virtually uninhabited for about four hundred years.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 33:18-19; Josh 8:30-35; 20:7; 24:1-32; Judg 9:1-56; 1 Kgs 12:1, 25; John 4:5<\/p>","summary_ro":"Shechem Shechem was strategically located at the entrance to the pass between Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim, where it could control several key roads through the central hill country. Jacob bought land near Shechem (Gen 33:18-19). While there, Jacob’s daughter, Dinah, was raped by the prince of the area (whose name was Shechem); in response, two of Dinah’s brothers, Simeon and Levi, killed all the men of the land (Gen 34). Later, the town of Shechem became part of Joseph’s inheritance (Josh 24...","summary_en":"Shechem Shechem was strategically located at the entrance to the pass between Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim, where it could control several key roads through the central hill country. Jacob bought land near Shechem (Gen 33:18-19). While there, Jacob’s daughter, Dinah, was raped by the prince of the area (whose name was Shechem); in response, two of Dinah’s brothers, Simeon and Levi, killed all the men of the land (Gen 34). Later, the town of Shechem became part of Joseph’s inheritance (Josh 24...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":142813,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Circumcision","title_en":"Circumcision","content_ro":"<h3>Circumcision<\/h3>\n<p>Circumcision, the removal of the male foreskin, was practiced by a number of cultures in the ancient world (see Jer 9:25-26).<\/p>\n<p>God chose circumcision as the sign of a covenant that focuses on descendants. God had promised to make Abraham and his descendants into a great nation (Gen 12:2; 17:3-6) and to use them to redeem the Gentile nations (12:3; see Gal 3:8-9). Circumcision was God’s signature in flesh; it would identify Abraham and his descendants as God’s own people (Gen 17:9-14) and remind them to live in faithfulness to the covenant.<\/p>\n<p>Although circumcision was applied to adult males when they joined the covenant community (Gen 17:23-27; Exod 12:48; Josh 5:3-7), it was usually performed on infants (Gen 21:4; Lev 12:3), who received God’s promises and membership in the covenant community through their parents. Faith was required in order to receive God’s blessings, however, as can be seen in the differentiation between Ishmael and Isaac, Esau and Jacob, and Joseph and his brothers. Non-Israelites could also obligate themselves to Israel’s covenant (Exod 12:48; cp. Gen 34:15-24), and circumcision marked their inclusion into the worshiping community (e.g., Exod 12:44).<\/p>\n<p>Circumcision would help Israel recognize and remember that they must lay aside natural impurity. God’s people had to be loyal to the covenant, to the family, and to their own marriages. Intermarriage with uncircumcised people who were not of the covenant was a violation of the covenant. Any man who refused to be circumcised (physically <em>cut<\/em> in this symbolic way) would be <em>cut<\/em> off from the covenant people because of his disobedience to God’s command (Gen 17:14).<\/p>\n<p>Circumcision is a symbol of separation from the world, of purity, and of loyalty to the covenant. It provides the powerful metaphor of “circumcision of the heart,” which designates a heart that is committed to God and is inwardly set apart to God, rather than being stubbornly resistant (Lev 26:41; Deut 30:6; Jer 4:4; 9:26; Eph 2:11). Circumcision of the heart evidences salvation and fellowship with God (see Ezek 18:31-32; 36:25-27; Rom 2:28-29; 4:11).<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus Christ established God’s new covenant, he fulfilled the requirements of the old covenant. It is not necessary for Gentile believers to be circumcised, since they are incorporated into the people of God through faith in Christ (Acts 15:1-29; Rom 2:25-29; Gal 2:1-10; 6:15; Col 2:11-12). One must turn in confidence to God and his promises, lay aside sinful behavior and the customs of the world, and live a new life by faith (see Jer 31:33-34; Rom 8:1-17; Gal 5:16–6:10).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 17:9-14, 23-27; 21:4; 34:1-26; Exod 4:24-26; 12:48; Lev 12:3; Josh 5:2-8; Jer 9:25-26; Ezek 44:7-9; Luke 1:59; 2:21; Acts 15:1-31; 16:1-5; Rom 2:25-29; 1 Cor 7:17-19; Gal 5:1-6, 11-12; 6:12-16; Eph 2:11-18; Phil 3:2-7; Col 2:11; 3:11<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Circumcision<\/h3>\n<p>Circumcision, the removal of the male foreskin, was practiced by a number of cultures in the ancient world (see Jer 9:25-26).<\/p>\n<p>God chose circumcision as the sign of a covenant that focuses on descendants. God had promised to make Abraham and his descendants into a great nation (Gen 12:2; 17:3-6) and to use them to redeem the Gentile nations (12:3; see Gal 3:8-9). Circumcision was God’s signature in flesh; it would identify Abraham and his descendants as God’s own people (Gen 17:9-14) and remind them to live in faithfulness to the covenant.<\/p>\n<p>Although circumcision was applied to adult males when they joined the covenant community (Gen 17:23-27; Exod 12:48; Josh 5:3-7), it was usually performed on infants (Gen 21:4; Lev 12:3), who received God’s promises and membership in the covenant community through their parents. Faith was required in order to receive God’s blessings, however, as can be seen in the differentiation between Ishmael and Isaac, Esau and Jacob, and Joseph and his brothers. Non-Israelites could also obligate themselves to Israel’s covenant (Exod 12:48; cp. Gen 34:15-24), and circumcision marked their inclusion into the worshiping community (e.g., Exod 12:44).<\/p>\n<p>Circumcision would help Israel recognize and remember that they must lay aside natural impurity. God’s people had to be loyal to the covenant, to the family, and to their own marriages. Intermarriage with uncircumcised people who were not of the covenant was a violation of the covenant. Any man who refused to be circumcised (physically <em>cut<\/em> in this symbolic way) would be <em>cut<\/em> off from the covenant people because of his disobedience to God’s command (Gen 17:14).<\/p>\n<p>Circumcision is a symbol of separation from the world, of purity, and of loyalty to the covenant. It provides the powerful metaphor of “circumcision of the heart,” which designates a heart that is committed to God and is inwardly set apart to God, rather than being stubbornly resistant (Lev 26:41; Deut 30:6; Jer 4:4; 9:26; Eph 2:11). Circumcision of the heart evidences salvation and fellowship with God (see Ezek 18:31-32; 36:25-27; Rom 2:28-29; 4:11).<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus Christ established God’s new covenant, he fulfilled the requirements of the old covenant. It is not necessary for Gentile believers to be circumcised, since they are incorporated into the people of God through faith in Christ (Acts 15:1-29; Rom 2:25-29; Gal 2:1-10; 6:15; Col 2:11-12). One must turn in confidence to God and his promises, lay aside sinful behavior and the customs of the world, and live a new life by faith (see Jer 31:33-34; Rom 8:1-17; Gal 5:16–6:10).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 17:9-14, 23-27; 21:4; 34:1-26; Exod 4:24-26; 12:48; Lev 12:3; Josh 5:2-8; Jer 9:25-26; Ezek 44:7-9; Luke 1:59; 2:21; Acts 15:1-31; 16:1-5; Rom 2:25-29; 1 Cor 7:17-19; Gal 5:1-6, 11-12; 6:12-16; Eph 2:11-18; Phil 3:2-7; Col 2:11; 3:11<\/p>","summary_ro":"Circumcision Circumcision, the removal of the male foreskin, was practiced by a number of cultures in the ancient world (see Jer 9:25-26). God chose circumcision as the sign of a covenant that focuses on descendants. God had promised to make Abraham and his descendants into a great nation (Gen 12:2; 17:3-6) and to use them to redeem the Gentile nations (12:3; see Gal 3:8-9). Circumcision was God’s signature in flesh; it would identify Abraham and his descendants as God’s own people (Gen 17:9-...","summary_en":"Circumcision Circumcision, the removal of the male foreskin, was practiced by a number of cultures in the ancient world (see Jer 9:25-26). God chose circumcision as the sign of a covenant that focuses on descendants. God had promised to make Abraham and his descendants into a great nation (Gen 12:2; 17:3-6) and to use them to redeem the Gentile nations (12:3; see Gal 3:8-9). Circumcision was God’s signature in flesh; it would identify Abraham and his descendants as God’s own people (Gen 17:9-...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":143772,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Holy War","title_en":"Holy War","content_ro":"<h3>Holy War<\/h3>\n<p>The Israelites’ complete annihilation of their enemies poses a major ethical problem. What justification could Israel have had for invading, conquering, and destroying the land of Canaan and its peoples? From a human perspective, it appears that Israel’s aggressive campaigns to settle Canaan were illegal and immoral. Scripture, however, offers a couple of insights that, while not fully eliminating the difficulty in understanding this issue, provide some help.<\/p>\n<p>First, the war against the Canaanites was commanded and led by God himself, not by mere human decision. The holy God was present with Israel in a unique way (Exod 19:5-6; 40:34-38). After Israel crossed the Jordan, it became clear that God himself was fighting against the Canaanites (e.g., Josh 6); and when he wasn’t, Israel was defeated (Josh 7). God himself defines what is and is not moral based on his own character. For ancient Israel, that included the notion that in order for the holy God to remain present with his people, the prospect of evil and corruptibility had to be dealt with in a decisive way (see Deut 7:1-6; Deut 20:16-18; see also Num 25; Judg 2:1-15).<\/p>\n<p>Second, the people of Canaan had rebelled against God and had become thoroughly wicked (see, e.g., Gen 34:1-2). At the time of Abraham, God declared that the sins of the Canaanites did not yet warrant their destruction (Gen 15:16). Now, several hundred years later, they did—they were committing horrible crimes against God and their fellow human beings, including idolatry, child sacrifice, adultery, incest, murder, and oppression (see Lev 18). These sins thoroughly defiled the land and its people (Lev 18:24-25). The holy God was exercising his justice against excessive wickedness.<\/p>\n<p>It is important to recognize that the war that Israel was authorized to wage was thus limited historically and theologically to that specific time and place and people. Medieval campaigns, such as the Crusades by European “Christians” against Middle Eastern “infidels,” or the more recent <em>jihads<\/em> of Islamic terrorism cannot be justified based on it. Jesus made it very clear that “God blesses those who work for peace” (Matt 5:9) and that “those who use the sword will die by the sword” (Matt 26:52). Jesus himself, as the Messiah, was expected to lead Israel in military victory over the Romans; instead, he gave up his life sacrificially to defeat the ultimate enemies of sin, death, and Satan. God has reserved for himself the right of judgment (Rom 12:19), and in the final judgment, he will pour out his holy wrath on human wickedness (see Rev 19:11-21; 20:7-10). Therefore, no one can now rightly claim that God has commanded that a particular group of people should be killed. No justification for genocide exists in the modern world.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 12:1; 13:14-17; 15:16, 18-21; Deut 1:30; Deut 7:1-6, 16-26; 20:1-4, 10-18; 32:8-9; Judg 3:27-30; 1 Sam 7:7-11; 2 Chr 13:12-19; 20:20-24; Isa 13:1-5; Joel 3:1-16; Matt 5:9; 26:50-54; Rev 19:11-21; 20:7-15<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Holy War<\/h3>\n<p>The Israelites’ complete annihilation of their enemies poses a major ethical problem. What justification could Israel have had for invading, conquering, and destroying the land of Canaan and its peoples? From a human perspective, it appears that Israel’s aggressive campaigns to settle Canaan were illegal and immoral. Scripture, however, offers a couple of insights that, while not fully eliminating the difficulty in understanding this issue, provide some help.<\/p>\n<p>First, the war against the Canaanites was commanded and led by God himself, not by mere human decision. The holy God was present with Israel in a unique way (Exod 19:5-6; 40:34-38). After Israel crossed the Jordan, it became clear that God himself was fighting against the Canaanites (e.g., Josh 6); and when he wasn’t, Israel was defeated (Josh 7). God himself defines what is and is not moral based on his own character. For ancient Israel, that included the notion that in order for the holy God to remain present with his people, the prospect of evil and corruptibility had to be dealt with in a decisive way (see Deut 7:1-6; Deut 20:16-18; see also Num 25; Judg 2:1-15).<\/p>\n<p>Second, the people of Canaan had rebelled against God and had become thoroughly wicked (see, e.g., Gen 34:1-2). At the time of Abraham, God declared that the sins of the Canaanites did not yet warrant their destruction (Gen 15:16). Now, several hundred years later, they did—they were committing horrible crimes against God and their fellow human beings, including idolatry, child sacrifice, adultery, incest, murder, and oppression (see Lev 18). These sins thoroughly defiled the land and its people (Lev 18:24-25). The holy God was exercising his justice against excessive wickedness.<\/p>\n<p>It is important to recognize that the war that Israel was authorized to wage was thus limited historically and theologically to that specific time and place and people. Medieval campaigns, such as the Crusades by European “Christians” against Middle Eastern “infidels,” or the more recent <em>jihads<\/em> of Islamic terrorism cannot be justified based on it. Jesus made it very clear that “God blesses those who work for peace” (Matt 5:9) and that “those who use the sword will die by the sword” (Matt 26:52). Jesus himself, as the Messiah, was expected to lead Israel in military victory over the Romans; instead, he gave up his life sacrificially to defeat the ultimate enemies of sin, death, and Satan. God has reserved for himself the right of judgment (Rom 12:19), and in the final judgment, he will pour out his holy wrath on human wickedness (see Rev 19:11-21; 20:7-10). Therefore, no one can now rightly claim that God has commanded that a particular group of people should be killed. No justification for genocide exists in the modern world.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 12:1; 13:14-17; 15:16, 18-21; Deut 1:30; Deut 7:1-6, 16-26; 20:1-4, 10-18; 32:8-9; Judg 3:27-30; 1 Sam 7:7-11; 2 Chr 13:12-19; 20:20-24; Isa 13:1-5; Joel 3:1-16; Matt 5:9; 26:50-54; Rev 19:11-21; 20:7-15<\/p>","summary_ro":"Holy War The Israelites’ complete annihilation of their enemies poses a major ethical problem. What justification could Israel have had for invading, conquering, and destroying the land of Canaan and its peoples? From a human perspective, it appears that Israel’s aggressive campaigns to settle Canaan were illegal and immoral. Scripture, however, offers a couple of insights that, while not fully eliminating the difficulty in understanding this issue, provide some help. First, the war against t...","summary_en":"Holy War The Israelites’ complete annihilation of their enemies poses a major ethical problem. What justification could Israel have had for invading, conquering, and destroying the land of Canaan and its peoples? From a human perspective, it appears that Israel’s aggressive campaigns to settle Canaan were illegal and immoral. Scripture, however, offers a couple of insights that, while not fully eliminating the difficulty in understanding this issue, provide some help. First, the war against t...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":143832,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Shechem","title_en":"Shechem","content_ro":"<h3>Shechem<\/h3>\n<p>Shechem was strategically located at the entrance to the pass between Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim, where it could control several key roads through the central hill country. Jacob bought land near Shechem (Gen 33:18-19). While there, Jacob’s daughter, Dinah, was raped by the prince of the area (whose name was Shechem); in response, two of Dinah’s brothers, Simeon and Levi, killed all the men of the land (Gen 34). Later, the town of Shechem became part of Joseph’s inheritance (Josh 24:32) and one of the cities of refuge (see Deut 19:1-13; Josh 20:7).<\/p>\n<p>During the period of the judges, Gideon’s son Abimelech ruled from Shechem (Judg 9). Solomon later fortified Shechem as a provincial capital, but it was sacked soon after, probably by Shishak of Egypt when he invaded Israel in 926 <span>BC<\/span> (see 1 Kgs 14:25). Jeroboam I then refortified the city and made it the capital of the kingdom of Israel (1 Kgs 12:25). Shechem was again destroyed, this time by the Assyrian king Shalmaneser V, in 724 <span>BC<\/span>, shortly before the destruction of Samaria, and the ruins were virtually uninhabited for about four hundred years.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 33:18-19; Josh 8:30-35; 20:7; 24:1-32; Judg 9:1-56; 1 Kgs 12:1, 25; John 4:5<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Shechem<\/h3>\n<p>Shechem was strategically located at the entrance to the pass between Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim, where it could control several key roads through the central hill country. Jacob bought land near Shechem (Gen 33:18-19). While there, Jacob’s daughter, Dinah, was raped by the prince of the area (whose name was Shechem); in response, two of Dinah’s brothers, Simeon and Levi, killed all the men of the land (Gen 34). Later, the town of Shechem became part of Joseph’s inheritance (Josh 24:32) and one of the cities of refuge (see Deut 19:1-13; Josh 20:7).<\/p>\n<p>During the period of the judges, Gideon’s son Abimelech ruled from Shechem (Judg 9). Solomon later fortified Shechem as a provincial capital, but it was sacked soon after, probably by Shishak of Egypt when he invaded Israel in 926 <span>BC<\/span> (see 1 Kgs 14:25). Jeroboam I then refortified the city and made it the capital of the kingdom of Israel (1 Kgs 12:25). Shechem was again destroyed, this time by the Assyrian king Shalmaneser V, in 724 <span>BC<\/span>, shortly before the destruction of Samaria, and the ruins were virtually uninhabited for about four hundred years.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 33:18-19; Josh 8:30-35; 20:7; 24:1-32; Judg 9:1-56; 1 Kgs 12:1, 25; John 4:5<\/p>","summary_ro":"Shechem Shechem was strategically located at the entrance to the pass between Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim, where it could control several key roads through the central hill country. Jacob bought land near Shechem (Gen 33:18-19). While there, Jacob’s daughter, Dinah, was raped by the prince of the area (whose name was Shechem); in response, two of Dinah’s brothers, Simeon and Levi, killed all the men of the land (Gen 34). Later, the town of Shechem became part of Joseph’s inheritance (Josh 24...","summary_en":"Shechem Shechem was strategically located at the entrance to the pass between Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim, where it could control several key roads through the central hill country. Jacob bought land near Shechem (Gen 33:18-19). While there, Jacob’s daughter, Dinah, was raped by the prince of the area (whose name was Shechem); in response, two of Dinah’s brothers, Simeon and Levi, killed all the men of the land (Gen 34). Later, the town of Shechem became part of Joseph’s inheritance (Josh 24...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"2":[{"id":15175,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Hamor","title_en":"Hamor","content_ro":"<h3>HAMOR<\/h3>\n<p>Hivite or Horite prince of the country about Shechem (Gn 34:2), from whom Jacob bought land when returning with his family from Paddan-aram. At this time Hamor’s son Shechem committed fornication with Dinah, the daughter of Jacob. At his son’s request Hamor asked Jacob for a marriage alliance between Shechem and Dinah, offering a dowry. Simeon and Levi, in pretended friendship, persuaded the males of the city to be circumcised, but then attacked and killed them before they were healed, taking revenge for their sister’s humiliation.<\/p>\n<p>“Hamor” is the Hebrew word that Jacob uses to denote Issachar in blessing his sons (Gn 49:14) and is the usual word for “ass” in the OT (e.g., Gn 42:26; Ex 20:17; Jgs 15:15; Is 1:3; Zec 9:9).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>HAMOR<\/h3>\n<p>Hivite or Horite prince of the country about Shechem (Gn 34:2), from whom Jacob bought land when returning with his family from Paddan-aram. At this time Hamor’s son Shechem committed fornication with Dinah, the daughter of Jacob. At his son’s request Hamor asked Jacob for a marriage alliance between Shechem and Dinah, offering a dowry. Simeon and Levi, in pretended friendship, persuaded the males of the city to be circumcised, but then attacked and killed them before they were healed, taking revenge for their sister’s humiliation.<\/p>\n<p>“Hamor” is the Hebrew word that Jacob uses to denote Issachar in blessing his sons (Gn 49:14) and is the usual word for “ass” in the OT (e.g., Gn 42:26; Ex 20:17; Jgs 15:15; Is 1:3; Zec 9:9).<\/p>","summary_ro":"HAMOR Hivite or Horite prince of the country about Shechem (Gn 34:2), from whom Jacob bought land when returning with his family from Paddan-aram. At this time Hamor’s son Shechem committed fornication with Dinah, the daughter of Jacob. At his son’s request Hamor asked Jacob for a marriage alliance between Shechem and Dinah, offering a dowry. Simeon and Levi, in pretended friendship, persuaded the males of the city to be circumcised, but then attacked and killed them before they were healed, ...","summary_en":"HAMOR Hivite or Horite prince of the country about Shechem (Gn 34:2), from whom Jacob bought land when returning with his family from Paddan-aram. At this time Hamor’s son Shechem committed fornication with Dinah, the daughter of Jacob. At his son’s request Hamor asked Jacob for a marriage alliance between Shechem and Dinah, offering a dowry. Simeon and Levi, in pretended friendship, persuaded the males of the city to be circumcised, but then attacked and killed them before they were healed, ...","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":16477,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Hivites","title_en":"Hivites","content_ro":"<h3>HIVITES<\/h3>\n<p>Name of a pre-Israelite group living in Canaan. Though not yet discovered\/rated archaeologically or from secular history as a people, they were regarded as emerging from a son of Canaan (Gn 10:17) and as inhabiting areas of the Lebanon Mountains (Jgs 3:3) and Mt Hermon (Jos 11:3). They are referred to frequently as a group dispossessed by Israel (Jos 12:8; 24:11; 1 Kgs 9:20) but who managed to survive into the kingdom period (2 Sm 24:7) and lived at that time near Tyre as well as in other possible areas. Some scholars think that an error in copying, involving the changing of the letters <em>r<\/em> (resh) to <em>w<\/em> (waw) was responsible for the origin of the name Hivite from Horite.<\/p>\n<p>Others have suggested a scribal confusion of names, since Zibeon is called a Hivite in Genesis 36:2 and a Horite in verses 20 and 29. In several cases the Septuagint gives “Horite” in place of the Masoretic Text “Hivite” (Gn 34:2; Jos 9:7). Other passages in the Septuagint read “Hittite” rather than “Hivite” (Jos 11:3; Jgs 3:3).<\/p>\n<p>The overlapping or equivalence of Hivite and Horite in Genesis 36 probably indicates some relationship between the two peoples (cf. Ishmaelites and Midianites in Gn 37:27-28, 36). Perhaps both Horites and Hivites are related to the Hurrians, who are well attested archaeologically.<\/p>\n<p>The fact that there are some 25 occurrences of the name “Hivite(s)” in the OT, nearly one-third of which come in Joshua, makes it probable that they were a distinct people. Aside from Hivites in Palestine, they also appeared in Edomite territory (Gn 36:2). OT references to Hivites include Hamor (Gn 34:2), the men of Gibeon (Jos 9:7), the northern Hivites (Jgs 3:3-8), and those who lived near Tyre (2 Sm 24:7). During the reign of Solomon, the Hivites and other foreign inhabitants of the land were made slaves; that is, they were put under forced labor (1 Kgs 9:20-21; 2 Chr 8:7).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>HIVITES<\/h3>\n<p>Name of a pre-Israelite group living in Canaan. Though not yet discovered\/rated archaeologically or from secular history as a people, they were regarded as emerging from a son of Canaan (Gn 10:17) and as inhabiting areas of the Lebanon Mountains (Jgs 3:3) and Mt Hermon (Jos 11:3). They are referred to frequently as a group dispossessed by Israel (Jos 12:8; 24:11; 1 Kgs 9:20) but who managed to survive into the kingdom period (2 Sm 24:7) and lived at that time near Tyre as well as in other possible areas. Some scholars think that an error in copying, involving the changing of the letters <em>r<\/em> (resh) to <em>w<\/em> (waw) was responsible for the origin of the name Hivite from Horite.<\/p>\n<p>Others have suggested a scribal confusion of names, since Zibeon is called a Hivite in Genesis 36:2 and a Horite in verses 20 and 29. In several cases the Septuagint gives “Horite” in place of the Masoretic Text “Hivite” (Gn 34:2; Jos 9:7). Other passages in the Septuagint read “Hittite” rather than “Hivite” (Jos 11:3; Jgs 3:3).<\/p>\n<p>The overlapping or equivalence of Hivite and Horite in Genesis 36 probably indicates some relationship between the two peoples (cf. Ishmaelites and Midianites in Gn 37:27-28, 36). Perhaps both Horites and Hivites are related to the Hurrians, who are well attested archaeologically.<\/p>\n<p>The fact that there are some 25 occurrences of the name “Hivite(s)” in the OT, nearly one-third of which come in Joshua, makes it probable that they were a distinct people. Aside from Hivites in Palestine, they also appeared in Edomite territory (Gn 36:2). OT references to Hivites include Hamor (Gn 34:2), the men of Gibeon (Jos 9:7), the northern Hivites (Jgs 3:3-8), and those who lived near Tyre (2 Sm 24:7). During the reign of Solomon, the Hivites and other foreign inhabitants of the land were made slaves; that is, they were put under forced labor (1 Kgs 9:20-21; 2 Chr 8:7).<\/p>","summary_ro":"HIVITES Name of a pre-Israelite group living in Canaan. Though not yet discovered\/rated archaeologically or from secular history as a people, they were regarded as emerging from a son of Canaan (Gn 10:17) and as inhabiting areas of the Lebanon Mountains (Jgs 3:3) and Mt Hermon (Jos 11:3). They are referred to frequently as a group dispossessed by Israel (Jos 12:8; 24:11; 1 Kgs 9:20) but who managed to survive into the kingdom period (2 Sm 24:7) and lived at that time near Tyre as well as in o...","summary_en":"HIVITES Name of a pre-Israelite group living in Canaan. Though not yet discovered\/rated archaeologically or from secular history as a people, they were regarded as emerging from a son of Canaan (Gn 10:17) and as inhabiting areas of the Lebanon Mountains (Jgs 3:3) and Mt Hermon (Jos 11:3). They are referred to frequently as a group dispossessed by Israel (Jos 12:8; 24:11; 1 Kgs 9:20) but who managed to survive into the kingdom period (2 Sm 24:7) and lived at that time near Tyre as well as in o...","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":16669,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Horites","title_en":"Horites","content_ro":"<h3>HORITES<\/h3>\n<p>Cave dwellers of Mt Seir, according to tradition. These pre-Edomites were called the children of Seir (Gn 36:20). In the Bible they were defeated by Kedorlaomer and his allies (14:6). They were governed by chieftains (36:29-30), and eventually destroyed by the descendants of Esau (Dt 2:12, 22).<\/p>\n<p>The popular and biblical etymology of “Horite” has been disputed since the discovery of the Hurrians (Khurians) as ethnic predecessors of many Near Eastern tribes. The Hurrians were a non-Semite people from the mountains. About the second millennium <span>BC<\/span>, they migrated into north and northeast Mesopotamia, and later moved into the regions of Syria and Palestine. Since the Hurrian language was prevalent in the western Jordan area, and since phonetically “Horite” is the OT Hebrew equivalent of the extrabiblical “Hurrian,” several scholars and translators have substituted “Hurrian” for “Horite.” Many have equated the Hivites, who were part of the Hurrian language and cultural group, with the Horites. These critics assumed an early textual corruption of the <em>r(esh)<\/em> in Ho<em>r<\/em>ite to <em>w(aw)<\/em> in Hi<em>v<\/em>ite. A certain Zibeon is called a Horite in Genesis 36:20-30, whereas in verse 2 the man is called a Hivite. The Septuagint of Joshua 9:7 and Genesis 34:2 reads “Horite” instead of “Hivite” as in the Masoretic Text. Some manuscripts of the Septuagint read “Hittite” for the Masoretic Text’s “Hivite” (Jos 11:3, Jgs 3:3). In Genesis 36:2, the extant Hebrew manuscripts erroneously read “Hivite” for “Horite.” It appears that the OT references do not fit the Hurrians, nor do the personal names of the Horites correspond to Hurrian examples (Gn 36:20-30). They seem instead to be Semitic. The Horites were from Transjordan and were the predecessors of the Edomites (14:6). Later references to Horites may be to western Horites, who were perhaps Hurrians (Is 17:9) and non-Semitic, but quite distinct from the predecessors of the Edomites, the eastern Horites. The Hebrew of Genesis 34:2 and Joshua 9:7 may be from a different family of manuscripts than those used by the Septuagint translators, preserving its own ethnic traditions. It seems best to think of both Hivites and Horites as ethnic groups connected with the Hurrians by language and culture.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Hurrians; Hivites.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>HORITES<\/h3>\n<p>Cave dwellers of Mt Seir, according to tradition. These pre-Edomites were called the children of Seir (Gn 36:20). In the Bible they were defeated by Kedorlaomer and his allies (14:6). They were governed by chieftains (36:29-30), and eventually destroyed by the descendants of Esau (Dt 2:12, 22).<\/p>\n<p>The popular and biblical etymology of “Horite” has been disputed since the discovery of the Hurrians (Khurians) as ethnic predecessors of many Near Eastern tribes. The Hurrians were a non-Semite people from the mountains. About the second millennium <span>BC<\/span>, they migrated into north and northeast Mesopotamia, and later moved into the regions of Syria and Palestine. Since the Hurrian language was prevalent in the western Jordan area, and since phonetically “Horite” is the OT Hebrew equivalent of the extrabiblical “Hurrian,” several scholars and translators have substituted “Hurrian” for “Horite.” Many have equated the Hivites, who were part of the Hurrian language and cultural group, with the Horites. These critics assumed an early textual corruption of the <em>r(esh)<\/em> in Ho<em>r<\/em>ite to <em>w(aw)<\/em> in Hi<em>v<\/em>ite. A certain Zibeon is called a Horite in Genesis 36:20-30, whereas in verse 2 the man is called a Hivite. The Septuagint of Joshua 9:7 and Genesis 34:2 reads “Horite” instead of “Hivite” as in the Masoretic Text. Some manuscripts of the Septuagint read “Hittite” for the Masoretic Text’s “Hivite” (Jos 11:3, Jgs 3:3). In Genesis 36:2, the extant Hebrew manuscripts erroneously read “Hivite” for “Horite.” It appears that the OT references do not fit the Hurrians, nor do the personal names of the Horites correspond to Hurrian examples (Gn 36:20-30). They seem instead to be Semitic. The Horites were from Transjordan and were the predecessors of the Edomites (14:6). Later references to Horites may be to western Horites, who were perhaps Hurrians (Is 17:9) and non-Semitic, but quite distinct from the predecessors of the Edomites, the eastern Horites. The Hebrew of Genesis 34:2 and Joshua 9:7 may be from a different family of manuscripts than those used by the Septuagint translators, preserving its own ethnic traditions. It seems best to think of both Hivites and Horites as ethnic groups connected with the Hurrians by language and culture.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Hurrians; Hivites.<\/p>","summary_ro":"HORITES Cave dwellers of Mt Seir, according to tradition. These pre-Edomites were called the children of Seir (Gn 36:20). In the Bible they were defeated by Kedorlaomer and his allies (14:6). They were governed by chieftains (36:29-30), and eventually destroyed by the descendants of Esau (Dt 2:12, 22). The popular and biblical etymology of “Horite” has been disputed since the discovery of the Hurrians (Khurians) as ethnic predecessors of many Near Eastern tribes. The Hurrians were a non-Semit...","summary_en":"HORITES Cave dwellers of Mt Seir, according to tradition. These pre-Edomites were called the children of Seir (Gn 36:20). In the Bible they were defeated by Kedorlaomer and his allies (14:6). They were governed by chieftains (36:29-30), and eventually destroyed by the descendants of Esau (Dt 2:12, 22). The popular and biblical etymology of “Horite” has been disputed since the discovery of the Hurrians (Khurians) as ethnic predecessors of many Near Eastern tribes. The Hurrians were a non-Semit...","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":32461,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Rape","title_en":"Rape","content_ro":"<h3>RAPE<\/h3>\n<p>The act of a man forcing a woman to have sexual intercourse against her will. Two instances are recorded in the OT: Shechem the son of Hamor, a Hivite, raped Dinah (see Gn 34:2-7), and Amnon raped his sister Tamar (2 Sm 13:14). In both instances, their brothers got vengeance for the rape of their sister.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Dinah; Tamar (Person) #2.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>RAPE<\/h3>\n<p>The act of a man forcing a woman to have sexual intercourse against her will. Two instances are recorded in the OT: Shechem the son of Hamor, a Hivite, raped Dinah (see Gn 34:2-7), and Amnon raped his sister Tamar (2 Sm 13:14). In both instances, their brothers got vengeance for the rape of their sister.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Dinah; Tamar (Person) #2.<\/p>","summary_ro":"RAPE The act of a man forcing a woman to have sexual intercourse against her will. Two instances are recorded in the OT: Shechem the son of Hamor, a Hivite, raped Dinah (see Gn 34:2-7), and Amnon raped his sister Tamar (2 Sm 13:14). In both instances, their brothers got vengeance for the rape of their sister. See also Dinah; Tamar (Person) #2.","summary_en":"RAPE The act of a man forcing a woman to have sexual intercourse against her will. Two instances are recorded in the OT: Shechem the son of Hamor, a Hivite, raped Dinah (see Gn 34:2-7), and Amnon raped his sister Tamar (2 Sm 13:14). In both instances, their brothers got vengeance for the rape of their sister. See also Dinah; Tamar (Person) #2.","source":"Articles\/R.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"3":[{"id":43362,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 34:3","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 34:3","content_ro":"<p><strong>34:3-4<\/strong> While Shechem’s intense feelings for Dinah made him willing to undergo significant hardship (34:11-12, 17-18, 24), the way he showed his “love” for her was selfish, impetuous, and in violation of customary decency (cp. Judg 14:2; see 1 Cor 13:4-7; 1 Jn 4:10). His character illustrated why Israel needed to remain separate from the Canaanites.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>34:3-4<\/strong> While Shechem’s intense feelings for Dinah made him willing to undergo significant hardship (34:11-12, 17-18, 24), the way he showed his “love” for her was selfish, impetuous, and in violation of customary decency (cp. Judg 14:2; see 1 Cor 13:4-7; 1 Jn 4:10). His character illustrated why Israel needed to remain separate from the Canaanites.<\/p>","summary_ro":"34:3-4 While Shechem’s intense feelings for Dinah made him willing to undergo significant hardship (34:11-12, 17-18, 24), the way he showed his “love” for her was selfish, impetuous, and in violation of customary decency (cp. Judg 14:2; see 1 Cor 13:4-7; 1 Jn 4:10). His character illustrated why Israel needed to remain separate from the Canaanites.","summary_en":"34:3-4 While Shechem’s intense feelings for Dinah made him willing to undergo significant hardship (34:11-12, 17-18, 24), the way he showed his “love” for her was selfish, impetuous, and in violation of customary decency (cp. Judg 14:2; see 1 Cor 13:4-7; 1 Jn 4:10). His character illustrated why Israel needed to remain separate from the Canaanites.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":70988,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 34:3","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 34:3","content_ro":"<p><strong>34:3-4<\/strong> While Shechem’s intense feelings for Dinah made him willing to undergo significant hardship (34:11-12, 17-18, 24), the way he showed his “love” for her was selfish, impetuous, and in violation of customary decency (cp. Judg 14:2; see 1 Cor 13:4-7; 1 Jn 4:10). His character illustrated why Israel needed to remain separate from the Canaanites.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>34:3-4<\/strong> While Shechem’s intense feelings for Dinah made him willing to undergo significant hardship (34:11-12, 17-18, 24), the way he showed his “love” for her was selfish, impetuous, and in violation of customary decency (cp. Judg 14:2; see 1 Cor 13:4-7; 1 Jn 4:10). His character illustrated why Israel needed to remain separate from the Canaanites.<\/p>","summary_ro":"34:3-4 While Shechem’s intense feelings for Dinah made him willing to undergo significant hardship (34:11-12, 17-18, 24), the way he showed his “love” for her was selfish, impetuous, and in violation of customary decency (cp. Judg 14:2; see 1 Cor 13:4-7; 1 Jn 4:10). His character illustrated why Israel needed to remain separate from the Canaanites.","summary_en":"34:3-4 While Shechem’s intense feelings for Dinah made him willing to undergo significant hardship (34:11-12, 17-18, 24), the way he showed his “love” for her was selfish, impetuous, and in violation of customary decency (cp. Judg 14:2; see 1 Cor 13:4-7; 1 Jn 4:10). His character illustrated why Israel needed to remain separate from the Canaanites.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":98614,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 34:3","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 34:3","content_ro":"<p><strong>34:3-4<\/strong> While Shechem’s intense feelings for Dinah made him willing to undergo significant hardship (34:11-12, 17-18, 24), the way he showed his “love” for her was selfish, impetuous, and in violation of customary decency (cp. Judg 14:2; see 1 Cor 13:4-7; 1 Jn 4:10). His character illustrated why Israel needed to remain separate from the Canaanites.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>34:3-4<\/strong> While Shechem’s intense feelings for Dinah made him willing to undergo significant hardship (34:11-12, 17-18, 24), the way he showed his “love” for her was selfish, impetuous, and in violation of customary decency (cp. Judg 14:2; see 1 Cor 13:4-7; 1 Jn 4:10). His character illustrated why Israel needed to remain separate from the Canaanites.<\/p>","summary_ro":"34:3-4 While Shechem’s intense feelings for Dinah made him willing to undergo significant hardship (34:11-12, 17-18, 24), the way he showed his “love” for her was selfish, impetuous, and in violation of customary decency (cp. Judg 14:2; see 1 Cor 13:4-7; 1 Jn 4:10). His character illustrated why Israel needed to remain separate from the Canaanites.","summary_en":"34:3-4 While Shechem’s intense feelings for Dinah made him willing to undergo significant hardship (34:11-12, 17-18, 24), the way he showed his “love” for her was selfish, impetuous, and in violation of customary decency (cp. Judg 14:2; see 1 Cor 13:4-7; 1 Jn 4:10). His character illustrated why Israel needed to remain separate from the Canaanites.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":126240,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 34:3","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 34:3","content_ro":"<p><strong>34:3-4<\/strong> While Shechem’s intense feelings for Dinah made him willing to undergo significant hardship (34:11-12, 17-18, 24), the way he showed his “love” for her was selfish, impetuous, and in violation of customary decency (cp. Judg 14:2; see 1 Cor 13:4-7; 1 Jn 4:10). His character illustrated why Israel needed to remain separate from the Canaanites.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>34:3-4<\/strong> While Shechem’s intense feelings for Dinah made him willing to undergo significant hardship (34:11-12, 17-18, 24), the way he showed his “love” for her was selfish, impetuous, and in violation of customary decency (cp. Judg 14:2; see 1 Cor 13:4-7; 1 Jn 4:10). His character illustrated why Israel needed to remain separate from the Canaanites.<\/p>","summary_ro":"34:3-4 While Shechem’s intense feelings for Dinah made him willing to undergo significant hardship (34:11-12, 17-18, 24), the way he showed his “love” for her was selfish, impetuous, and in violation of customary decency (cp. Judg 14:2; see 1 Cor 13:4-7; 1 Jn 4:10). His character illustrated why Israel needed to remain separate from the Canaanites.","summary_en":"34:3-4 While Shechem’s intense feelings for Dinah made him willing to undergo significant hardship (34:11-12, 17-18, 24), the way he showed his “love” for her was selfish, impetuous, and in violation of customary decency (cp. Judg 14:2; see 1 Cor 13:4-7; 1 Jn 4:10). His character illustrated why Israel needed to remain separate from the Canaanites.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"5":[{"id":43363,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 34:5","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 34:5","content_ro":"<p><strong>34:5-7<\/strong> Jacob’s response to this crime is surprising. When he <em>heard<\/em> that Dinah had been <em>defiled,<\/em> he said nothing about it until <em>his sons<\/em> came home. Because Jacob did not act, his sons did, though without the wisdom and integrity necessary for justice. Dinah’s full brothers <em>were shocked and furious<\/em> that Shechem had done such a <em>disgraceful thing<\/em> to <em>Jacob’s family<\/em> (literally <em>in Israel;<\/em> this is the first use of the name <em>Israel<\/em> to describe the family). This sexual crime was an outrage against the community of God’s people and deserved punishment, but the leader of the clan did nothing.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>34:5-7<\/strong> Jacob’s response to this crime is surprising. When he <em>heard<\/em> that Dinah had been <em>defiled,<\/em> he said nothing about it until <em>his sons<\/em> came home. Because Jacob did not act, his sons did, though without the wisdom and integrity necessary for justice. Dinah’s full brothers <em>were shocked and furious<\/em> that Shechem had done such a <em>disgraceful thing<\/em> to <em>Jacob’s family<\/em> (literally <em>in Israel;<\/em> this is the first use of the name <em>Israel<\/em> to describe the family). This sexual crime was an outrage against the community of God’s people and deserved punishment, but the leader of the clan did nothing.<\/p>","summary_ro":"34:5-7 Jacob’s response to this crime is surprising. When he heard that Dinah had been defiled, he said nothing about it until his sons came home. Because Jacob did not act, his sons did, though without the wisdom and integrity necessary for justice. Dinah’s full brothers were shocked and furious that Shechem had done such a disgraceful thing to Jacob’s family (literally in Israel; this is the first use of the name Israel to describe the family). This sexual crime was an outrage against the c...","summary_en":"34:5-7 Jacob’s response to this crime is surprising. When he heard that Dinah had been defiled, he said nothing about it until his sons came home. Because Jacob did not act, his sons did, though without the wisdom and integrity necessary for justice. Dinah’s full brothers were shocked and furious that Shechem had done such a disgraceful thing to Jacob’s family (literally in Israel; this is the first use of the name Israel to describe the family). This sexual crime was an outrage against the c...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":70989,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 34:5","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 34:5","content_ro":"<p><strong>34:5-7<\/strong> Jacob’s response to this crime is surprising. When he <em>heard<\/em> that Dinah had been <em>defiled,<\/em> he said nothing about it until <em>his sons<\/em> came home. Because Jacob did not act, his sons did, though without the wisdom and integrity necessary for justice. Dinah’s full brothers <em>were shocked and furious<\/em> that Shechem had done such a <em>disgraceful thing<\/em> to <em>Jacob’s family<\/em> (literally <em>in Israel;<\/em> this is the first use of the name <em>Israel<\/em> to describe the family). This sexual crime was an outrage against the community of God’s people and deserved punishment, but the leader of the clan did nothing.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>34:5-7<\/strong> Jacob’s response to this crime is surprising. When he <em>heard<\/em> that Dinah had been <em>defiled,<\/em> he said nothing about it until <em>his sons<\/em> came home. Because Jacob did not act, his sons did, though without the wisdom and integrity necessary for justice. Dinah’s full brothers <em>were shocked and furious<\/em> that Shechem had done such a <em>disgraceful thing<\/em> to <em>Jacob’s family<\/em> (literally <em>in Israel;<\/em> this is the first use of the name <em>Israel<\/em> to describe the family). This sexual crime was an outrage against the community of God’s people and deserved punishment, but the leader of the clan did nothing.<\/p>","summary_ro":"34:5-7 Jacob’s response to this crime is surprising. When he heard that Dinah had been defiled, he said nothing about it until his sons came home. Because Jacob did not act, his sons did, though without the wisdom and integrity necessary for justice. Dinah’s full brothers were shocked and furious that Shechem had done such a disgraceful thing to Jacob’s family (literally in Israel; this is the first use of the name Israel to describe the family). This sexual crime was an outrage against the c...","summary_en":"34:5-7 Jacob’s response to this crime is surprising. When he heard that Dinah had been defiled, he said nothing about it until his sons came home. Because Jacob did not act, his sons did, though without the wisdom and integrity necessary for justice. Dinah’s full brothers were shocked and furious that Shechem had done such a disgraceful thing to Jacob’s family (literally in Israel; this is the first use of the name Israel to describe the family). This sexual crime was an outrage against the c...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":98615,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 34:5","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 34:5","content_ro":"<p><strong>34:5-7<\/strong> Jacob’s response to this crime is surprising. When he <em>heard<\/em> that Dinah had been <em>defiled,<\/em> he said nothing about it until <em>his sons<\/em> came home. Because Jacob did not act, his sons did, though without the wisdom and integrity necessary for justice. Dinah’s full brothers <em>were shocked and furious<\/em> that Shechem had done such a <em>disgraceful thing<\/em> to <em>Jacob’s family<\/em> (literally <em>in Israel;<\/em> this is the first use of the name <em>Israel<\/em> to describe the family). This sexual crime was an outrage against the community of God’s people and deserved punishment, but the leader of the clan did nothing.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>34:5-7<\/strong> Jacob’s response to this crime is surprising. When he <em>heard<\/em> that Dinah had been <em>defiled,<\/em> he said nothing about it until <em>his sons<\/em> came home. Because Jacob did not act, his sons did, though without the wisdom and integrity necessary for justice. Dinah’s full brothers <em>were shocked and furious<\/em> that Shechem had done such a <em>disgraceful thing<\/em> to <em>Jacob’s family<\/em> (literally <em>in Israel;<\/em> this is the first use of the name <em>Israel<\/em> to describe the family). This sexual crime was an outrage against the community of God’s people and deserved punishment, but the leader of the clan did nothing.<\/p>","summary_ro":"34:5-7 Jacob’s response to this crime is surprising. When he heard that Dinah had been defiled, he said nothing about it until his sons came home. Because Jacob did not act, his sons did, though without the wisdom and integrity necessary for justice. Dinah’s full brothers were shocked and furious that Shechem had done such a disgraceful thing to Jacob’s family (literally in Israel; this is the first use of the name Israel to describe the family). This sexual crime was an outrage against the c...","summary_en":"34:5-7 Jacob’s response to this crime is surprising. When he heard that Dinah had been defiled, he said nothing about it until his sons came home. Because Jacob did not act, his sons did, though without the wisdom and integrity necessary for justice. Dinah’s full brothers were shocked and furious that Shechem had done such a disgraceful thing to Jacob’s family (literally in Israel; this is the first use of the name Israel to describe the family). This sexual crime was an outrage against the c...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":126241,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 34:5","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 34:5","content_ro":"<p><strong>34:5-7<\/strong> Jacob’s response to this crime is surprising. When he <em>heard<\/em> that Dinah had been <em>defiled,<\/em> he said nothing about it until <em>his sons<\/em> came home. Because Jacob did not act, his sons did, though without the wisdom and integrity necessary for justice. Dinah’s full brothers <em>were shocked and furious<\/em> that Shechem had done such a <em>disgraceful thing<\/em> to <em>Jacob’s family<\/em> (literally <em>in Israel;<\/em> this is the first use of the name <em>Israel<\/em> to describe the family). This sexual crime was an outrage against the community of God’s people and deserved punishment, but the leader of the clan did nothing.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>34:5-7<\/strong> Jacob’s response to this crime is surprising. When he <em>heard<\/em> that Dinah had been <em>defiled,<\/em> he said nothing about it until <em>his sons<\/em> came home. Because Jacob did not act, his sons did, though without the wisdom and integrity necessary for justice. Dinah’s full brothers <em>were shocked and furious<\/em> that Shechem had done such a <em>disgraceful thing<\/em> to <em>Jacob’s family<\/em> (literally <em>in Israel;<\/em> this is the first use of the name <em>Israel<\/em> to describe the family). This sexual crime was an outrage against the community of God’s people and deserved punishment, but the leader of the clan did nothing.<\/p>","summary_ro":"34:5-7 Jacob’s response to this crime is surprising. When he heard that Dinah had been defiled, he said nothing about it until his sons came home. Because Jacob did not act, his sons did, though without the wisdom and integrity necessary for justice. Dinah’s full brothers were shocked and furious that Shechem had done such a disgraceful thing to Jacob’s family (literally in Israel; this is the first use of the name Israel to describe the family). This sexual crime was an outrage against the c...","summary_en":"34:5-7 Jacob’s response to this crime is surprising. When he heard that Dinah had been defiled, he said nothing about it until his sons came home. Because Jacob did not act, his sons did, though without the wisdom and integrity necessary for justice. Dinah’s full brothers were shocked and furious that Shechem had done such a disgraceful thing to Jacob’s family (literally in Israel; this is the first use of the name Israel to describe the family). This sexual crime was an outrage against the c...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"8":[{"id":43364,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 34:8","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 34:8","content_ro":"<p><strong>34:8-10<\/strong> <em>Hamor<\/em> proposed an alliance of intermarriage with the prospect of mutual economic benefit, but God had already promised Jacob everything, including the land (34:10; see 14:21-24). Hamor wanted to gain control of Israel’s wealth (34:23); no good could come of trusting the defiling Canaanites. For some of these reasons, intermarriage with Canaanites was not allowed under the law (see Exod 23:27-33; Deut 7:1-5)—unless, of course, they came to faith (see Josh 2:1-15; 6:23-25; Matt 1:5).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>34:8-10<\/strong> <em>Hamor<\/em> proposed an alliance of intermarriage with the prospect of mutual economic benefit, but God had already promised Jacob everything, including the land (34:10; see 14:21-24). Hamor wanted to gain control of Israel’s wealth (34:23); no good could come of trusting the defiling Canaanites. For some of these reasons, intermarriage with Canaanites was not allowed under the law (see Exod 23:27-33; Deut 7:1-5)—unless, of course, they came to faith (see Josh 2:1-15; 6:23-25; Matt 1:5).<\/p>","summary_ro":"34:8-10 Hamor proposed an alliance of intermarriage with the prospect of mutual economic benefit, but God had already promised Jacob everything, including the land (34:10; see 14:21-24). Hamor wanted to gain control of Israel’s wealth (34:23); no good could come of trusting the defiling Canaanites. For some of these reasons, intermarriage with Canaanites was not allowed under the law (see Exod 23:27-33; Deut 7:1-5)—unless, of course, they came to faith (see Josh 2:1-15; 6:23-25; Matt 1:5).","summary_en":"34:8-10 Hamor proposed an alliance of intermarriage with the prospect of mutual economic benefit, but God had already promised Jacob everything, including the land (34:10; see 14:21-24). Hamor wanted to gain control of Israel’s wealth (34:23); no good could come of trusting the defiling Canaanites. For some of these reasons, intermarriage with Canaanites was not allowed under the law (see Exod 23:27-33; Deut 7:1-5)—unless, of course, they came to faith (see Josh 2:1-15; 6:23-25; Matt 1:5).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":70990,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 34:8","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 34:8","content_ro":"<p><strong>34:8-10<\/strong> <em>Hamor<\/em> proposed an alliance of intermarriage with the prospect of mutual economic benefit, but God had already promised Jacob everything, including the land (34:10; see 14:21-24). Hamor wanted to gain control of Israel’s wealth (34:23); no good could come of trusting the defiling Canaanites. For some of these reasons, intermarriage with Canaanites was not allowed under the law (see Exod 23:27-33; Deut 7:1-5)—unless, of course, they came to faith (see Josh 2:1-15; 6:23-25; Matt 1:5).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>34:8-10<\/strong> <em>Hamor<\/em> proposed an alliance of intermarriage with the prospect of mutual economic benefit, but God had already promised Jacob everything, including the land (34:10; see 14:21-24). Hamor wanted to gain control of Israel’s wealth (34:23); no good could come of trusting the defiling Canaanites. For some of these reasons, intermarriage with Canaanites was not allowed under the law (see Exod 23:27-33; Deut 7:1-5)—unless, of course, they came to faith (see Josh 2:1-15; 6:23-25; Matt 1:5).<\/p>","summary_ro":"34:8-10 Hamor proposed an alliance of intermarriage with the prospect of mutual economic benefit, but God had already promised Jacob everything, including the land (34:10; see 14:21-24). Hamor wanted to gain control of Israel’s wealth (34:23); no good could come of trusting the defiling Canaanites. For some of these reasons, intermarriage with Canaanites was not allowed under the law (see Exod 23:27-33; Deut 7:1-5)—unless, of course, they came to faith (see Josh 2:1-15; 6:23-25; Matt 1:5).","summary_en":"34:8-10 Hamor proposed an alliance of intermarriage with the prospect of mutual economic benefit, but God had already promised Jacob everything, including the land (34:10; see 14:21-24). Hamor wanted to gain control of Israel’s wealth (34:23); no good could come of trusting the defiling Canaanites. For some of these reasons, intermarriage with Canaanites was not allowed under the law (see Exod 23:27-33; Deut 7:1-5)—unless, of course, they came to faith (see Josh 2:1-15; 6:23-25; Matt 1:5).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":98616,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 34:8","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 34:8","content_ro":"<p><strong>34:8-10<\/strong> <em>Hamor<\/em> proposed an alliance of intermarriage with the prospect of mutual economic benefit, but God had already promised Jacob everything, including the land (34:10; see 14:21-24). Hamor wanted to gain control of Israel’s wealth (34:23); no good could come of trusting the defiling Canaanites. For some of these reasons, intermarriage with Canaanites was not allowed under the law (see Exod 23:27-33; Deut 7:1-5)—unless, of course, they came to faith (see Josh 2:1-15; 6:23-25; Matt 1:5).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>34:8-10<\/strong> <em>Hamor<\/em> proposed an alliance of intermarriage with the prospect of mutual economic benefit, but God had already promised Jacob everything, including the land (34:10; see 14:21-24). Hamor wanted to gain control of Israel’s wealth (34:23); no good could come of trusting the defiling Canaanites. For some of these reasons, intermarriage with Canaanites was not allowed under the law (see Exod 23:27-33; Deut 7:1-5)—unless, of course, they came to faith (see Josh 2:1-15; 6:23-25; Matt 1:5).<\/p>","summary_ro":"34:8-10 Hamor proposed an alliance of intermarriage with the prospect of mutual economic benefit, but God had already promised Jacob everything, including the land (34:10; see 14:21-24). Hamor wanted to gain control of Israel’s wealth (34:23); no good could come of trusting the defiling Canaanites. For some of these reasons, intermarriage with Canaanites was not allowed under the law (see Exod 23:27-33; Deut 7:1-5)—unless, of course, they came to faith (see Josh 2:1-15; 6:23-25; Matt 1:5).","summary_en":"34:8-10 Hamor proposed an alliance of intermarriage with the prospect of mutual economic benefit, but God had already promised Jacob everything, including the land (34:10; see 14:21-24). Hamor wanted to gain control of Israel’s wealth (34:23); no good could come of trusting the defiling Canaanites. For some of these reasons, intermarriage with Canaanites was not allowed under the law (see Exod 23:27-33; Deut 7:1-5)—unless, of course, they came to faith (see Josh 2:1-15; 6:23-25; Matt 1:5).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":126242,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 34:8","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 34:8","content_ro":"<p><strong>34:8-10<\/strong> <em>Hamor<\/em> proposed an alliance of intermarriage with the prospect of mutual economic benefit, but God had already promised Jacob everything, including the land (34:10; see 14:21-24). Hamor wanted to gain control of Israel’s wealth (34:23); no good could come of trusting the defiling Canaanites. For some of these reasons, intermarriage with Canaanites was not allowed under the law (see Exod 23:27-33; Deut 7:1-5)—unless, of course, they came to faith (see Josh 2:1-15; 6:23-25; Matt 1:5).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>34:8-10<\/strong> <em>Hamor<\/em> proposed an alliance of intermarriage with the prospect of mutual economic benefit, but God had already promised Jacob everything, including the land (34:10; see 14:21-24). Hamor wanted to gain control of Israel’s wealth (34:23); no good could come of trusting the defiling Canaanites. For some of these reasons, intermarriage with Canaanites was not allowed under the law (see Exod 23:27-33; Deut 7:1-5)—unless, of course, they came to faith (see Josh 2:1-15; 6:23-25; Matt 1:5).<\/p>","summary_ro":"34:8-10 Hamor proposed an alliance of intermarriage with the prospect of mutual economic benefit, but God had already promised Jacob everything, including the land (34:10; see 14:21-24). Hamor wanted to gain control of Israel’s wealth (34:23); no good could come of trusting the defiling Canaanites. For some of these reasons, intermarriage with Canaanites was not allowed under the law (see Exod 23:27-33; Deut 7:1-5)—unless, of course, they came to faith (see Josh 2:1-15; 6:23-25; Matt 1:5).","summary_en":"34:8-10 Hamor proposed an alliance of intermarriage with the prospect of mutual economic benefit, but God had already promised Jacob everything, including the land (34:10; see 14:21-24). Hamor wanted to gain control of Israel’s wealth (34:23); no good could come of trusting the defiling Canaanites. For some of these reasons, intermarriage with Canaanites was not allowed under the law (see Exod 23:27-33; Deut 7:1-5)—unless, of course, they came to faith (see Josh 2:1-15; 6:23-25; Matt 1:5).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"12":[{"id":11928,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Family Life and Relations","title_en":"Family Life and Relations","content_ro":"<h3>FAMILY LIFE AND RELATIONS<\/h3>\n<p>In Bible times, the family comprised members of a household, including not only parents and children, along with other relatives and concubines, but also servants, travelers, aliens, and anyone else who happened to be within the house and was therefore under the protection of the head of the family. The family of Jacob, for example, comprised three generations (Gn 46:8-26). Biblically, the term “family” is interchangeable with “house,” and “founding a house” can refer to setting up a separate dwelling as well as establishing a family. In the broader sense, “house” may refer to an entire nation (“house of Israel”). The heads of families returning from Babylon in the postexilic period controlled sometimes several hundred family members (Ezr 8:1-14). The family was a smaller part of a clan and tribe. In nomadic times the responsibilities and allegiances centered on the larger family group.<\/p>\n<p>Those who belonged to the clan knew that they had to work for common interests and accept responsibility for the whole group. All members of the family were to be protected and assisted in time of need.<\/p>\n<p>As the life of the Israelites became more settled, families (in the wider sense of the term) lived in villages surrounded by fields of wheat, barley, and flax, with areas of grazing land for sheep and goats. Each group of villages consisted of an intermarried, interdependent family group, such as that of the Danites of Zorah and Eshtaol (Jgs 18:11). The hard life of those days demanded a sharing of work and the loyal cooperation of the entire family for survival.<\/p>\n<p>As crafts and trades developed, along with a more sedentary lifestyle, sons learned their fathers’ skills and continued the family trade. Consequently, the whole village might follow a particular craft (1 Chr 4:14; Neh 11:35). By specializing in such trades, however, the villagers became less self-sufficient, depending more on farmers for food and on other specialized villages for the production of cloth or pottery (1 Chr 4:21-23).<\/p>\n<p>With the growth of cities, related groups lived together in specific areas. Many members of the tribes of Benjamin and Judah were listed in the census of Jerusalem by Nehemiah (Neh 11:4-8), and by the writer of Chronicles (1 Chr 9:3-9). One consequence of life in the cities was the fragmentation of the family group. As the bonds of the wider family were loosened, the unit consisted increasingly of a husband and wife with their children, living in one house. The size of houses that have been excavated precludes the idea of any larger family unit as the norm in OT societies.<\/p>\n<p>During the kingdom period, King David’s sons Amnon and Absalom set up their own separate houses (2 Sm 13:7-8, 20). At that time there were few slaves in Hebrew society, but they also were considered members of the family. As bonds of the wider family loosened, and the master of the household lost a degree of authority, the society became one in which the king was sovereign and all the people were his subjects.<\/p>\n<p>The early kings of Israel promoted such a change in order to establish a central ruling authority for the entire country. The king’s subjects fell broadly into the categories of employers and employees, corresponding to the rich and poor of society. By the eighth century <span>BC<\/span>, members of the wider family no longer worked for the communal good under the authority of the clan’s head; rather, individuals worked primarily for the good of their own immediate family. Hence one’s labor and devotion were focused more narrowly, and the greatest beneficiary was the king, the personal symbol of the nation.<\/p>\n<p>Emphasis on the smaller family unit increased, and old duties that had been willingly accepted by the wider groups in former times came to be neglected. People did not always help relatives in times of need, and they frequently had to be reminded of their obligations, particularly toward widows and orphans (Is 1:17; Jer 7:6). Family feuds also declined because members no longer felt responsible to take vengeance as a way to uphold the honor of the clan (2 Sm 3:27; 16:8; 2 Kgs 9:26). Nevertheless, Nehemiah expected Israelites to fight for their family honor (Neh 4:14). In NT times, the family was such a unit that it could be sold for a debt incurred by one of its members (Mt 18:25).<\/p>\n<p>The Hebrew religion’s emphasis on family participation in certain celebrations strengthened the small unit. The Passover, for example, was always celebrated as a family thanksgiving meal (Ex 12:3-4, 46). The prophet Samuel’s parents made a traditional annual pilgrimage to the shrine at Shiloh (1 Sm 2:19). In modern times, a young Jewish boy’s arrival at the threshold of manhood is celebrated with the Bar Mitzvah ceremony. Being so honored in the midst of a religious family preserves the ancient Hebrew tradition of family participation in religious ceremonies.<\/p>\n<p>In his preaching Jesus used the family as a symbol for the relationship of God to his people (Mt 19:14; 23:9; Lk 8:21). From the cross he handed over responsibility for the care of his mother to his disciple John (Jn 19:27).<\/p>\n<p>In NT times, the communion meals in the Jerusalem church took place by households (Acts 2:46). Early Christian meetings were held in the homes of believers because of opposition by the authorities. The book of Acts contains examples of entire families being converted to Christianity (Acts 10:24, 44-48; 16:15, 31-32). Timothy learned the gospel from his grandmother and mother (2 Tm 1:5).<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Status of Family Members<\/p>\n<p>• Marital Security<\/p>\n<p>• Position of Children<\/p>\n<p>• The Rights of Children<\/p>\n<p>• Daily Life of the Hebrew Family<\/p>\n<p>• In New Testament Times<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"StatusofFamilyMembers\">Status of Family Members<\/p>\n<p>From nomadic times, a father’s authority held the family group together in their encampment, and he became the symbol of their security. In ancient patriarchal societies, the father was an absolute master who had the power of life and death over family members, ruling with unchallenged authority. Although he had extensive responsibilities for those under his care, his power was awesome and his status unquestioned.<\/p>\n<p>A man’s possessions included his wife, servants, slaves, and animals (Ex 20:17; Dt 5:21). In fact, the phrase “to marry a wife” comes from a Hebrew root meaning “to become the master of a wife.” A husband was as much the master of his wife as he was of his home or his fields. Consequently, the wife addressed him in a subservient manner, as a slave would address a master (Gn 18:12; Jgs 19:26). This low status for a woman extended to a daughter’s position in the ancient household. Females were always under the authority of a male relative: first, the father; then a husband. If a woman became a widow, she was subject to her husband’s nearest male relative, who became her “redeemer.” The bride price (Gn 29:18, 27; Ex 22:16-17; 1 Sm 18:25; 2 Sm 3:14) paid by her husband was not exactly a purchase of the woman from her father, but the exchange of money did stigmatize her. The amount of a bride price depended on the father’s status (Gn 34:12). The usual price was probably 20 to 30 shekels of silver. The bride received gifts of jewelry, ornaments, and clothing from her future husband, and she occasionally enjoyed some sort of financial or material return from the bride price for her own use (Jos 15:19; Jgs 1:15). When her father or husband died, the money frequently reverted to her.<\/p>\n<p>An engaged woman was considered her fiancé’s property just as much as if she were already married to him (Dt 22:23-27). The woman left her own family at marriage, to live with and become part of her new husband’s family. Normally, any succeeding marriages would be with members of that family.<\/p>\n<p>Despite the low legal status of the mother of the family, her life was not as bad as one might suppose. She was the legal wife, not an unpaid servant, and she frequently took a strong role as adviser to her husband in family affairs. Her most important function, aside from childbearing, was organization of the household, of which she was generally the respected manager. Even though the wife might have been acquired through capture in war (Dt 21:10-14), she could not be sold as a slave or daughter could (Ex 21:7; Neh 5:5).<\/p>\n<p>Nevertheless, her position was precarious, in that she could be disowned or divorced by her husband as the result of a simple renunciation: “She is no longer my wife, and I am no longer her husband.” Perhaps he had found fault with her culinary skills, or possibly he was casting his eyes on another woman. In any event, a husband knew that if his wife did not obey even a signal or a glance, he was within his rights to obtain a divorce (cf. Ecclus 25:26). The wife, however, obtained a certain degree of protection in the letter of repudiation, by which her freedom was formally restored. Under Jewish tradition, a wife could not divorce her husband.<\/p>\n<p>In matters of domestic protocol, the Hebrew wife was not introduced to her husband’s guests, a tradition that subsequently led to considerable embarrassment for Abraham’s wife, Sarah, and for Rebekah (Gn 20:16). A woman normally remained veiled in public (24:65; 38:14; Is 47:2).<\/p>\n<p>The imagery in Proverbs 19:13 and 27:15 draws a vigorous comparison between a contentious woman and water dripping from a leaky roof. The OT leaves little doubt about the type of behavior expected from a woman. She was expected to be charming, soft-spoken, discreet, and calm (Prv 9:13; 11:16, 22; 21:9). She was also to be responsible, well-organized, intelligent, thoughtful, reverent, and a good manager of both the household and the family purse (31:10-31). A woman should also be pious and beautiful, and in NT tradition, submissive to her husband, as befitted a woman adorned with the priceless jewel of a gentle and quiet spirit (Ti 2:4-5; 1 Pt 3:1-6).<\/p>\n<p>The actions of a few women whose roles in life do not seem to fit the pattern of the meek, passive female pictured above, are recorded in the Bible and the Apocrypha. The books of Judith and Esther recount heroic tales of how national fortunes were saved by women. Deborah and Jael were renowned heroines (Jgs 4–5), and the kingdom of Judah was ruled by a vicious woman, Athaliah, for several years (2 Kgs 11). The women who stepped to the forefront of public life were exceptional and few in number. Judith was a rich widow, an unusual thing in Israel.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MaritalSecurity\">Marital Security<\/p>\n<p>The security of a wife’s position improved considerably when she produced her first child, particularly if it was a son. A woman’s primary duty to her husband and his family was procreation (Gn 1:28; 9:1), and until she gave birth to a son, she feared displacement by a second wife or a concubine. Polygamous marriages were by no means rare, especially in wealthy families. They resulted in two ill-defined family groups, controlled by the mothers but under the overall authority of fathers; there were inevitable jealousies and frictions.<\/p>\n<p>The legal status of a woman was consistently poor in Bible times. With no evidence at all, a husband could accuse his wife of adultery, and she was compelled to face a trial by ordeal. She had to abase herself by taking an oath, eating dust and a cereal offering, and drinking bitter water. A priest, meanwhile, made pronouncements regarding the dire results that would come to her if she were guilty: she would become an outcast with no hope of survival. But if she maintained her serenity, and if her thigh did not rot nor her abdomen swell, she was considered to have “proved” her innocence. In such an event she would go free, and her husband bore no blame whatsoever for his false accusation (Nm 5:12-31).<\/p>\n<p>If a woman took a vow, it was legal only as long as her father or husband approved it. If she became a widow, the vow still remained in force and could be used against her (Nm 30:3-15).<\/p>\n<p>A woman in Israel was always under the protection of a male, be it her father, grandfather, great-grandfather, brother, husband, or some other member of her husband’s family. She had few legal rights and, in contrast to Babylonian traditions, could not inherit at her husband’s death. It is small wonder that widows were classed with orphans and the poor. A childless widow could on occasion return to her father’s family (Gn 38:11; Lv 22:13; Ru 1:8), thus becoming subject again to the authority of her father. A Hebrew widow could also remain with her late husband’s family. She would then come under the protection of her “redeemer,” a male relative of her husband’s family who assumed responsibility for her. If a husband died leaving a woman childless, it was the responsibility of the husband’s brother to marry her. The first son born of such a union was then regarded as the heir of the first husband.<\/p>\n<p>It was normal for a brother to accept the obligation for such a marriage (levirate). It could be refused on various grounds, but such refusal was considered dishonorable, for it was a man’s duty to perpetuate his brother’s name and to safeguard the family fortune.<\/p>\n<p>A redeemer’s responsibilities were considerable. In addition to the marriage, he was perhaps involved in avenging the family reputation, and he had to ensure that family property increased and remained within family control.<\/p>\n<p>If an Israelite fell into debt and was forced to sell himself into slavery, he would normally be “redeemed” by one of his relatives (Lv 25:47-49). If in his penury an Israelite had to sell his land or his house, the redeemer had the right of first refusal over all other prospective purchasers. It was as much his duty as his right to prevent family property from passing into the hands of strangers (v 25). The prophet Jeremiah bought his cousin Hanamel’s field under similar circumstances (Jer 32:6-15).<\/p>\n<p>The most familiar OT story of a childless widow, her “redeemer,” and their levirate marriage is recorded in the book of Ruth. One of Naomi’s two sons married Ruth. When Ruth was widowed, her impoverished mother-in-law, Naomi, left her home in Moab and returned to Bethlehem to sell some of the family property. Although a close relative was prepared to buy the land and keep it in the family, he was not ready to marry Ruth as well (Ru 3:12; 4:4). He knew that a son of that union would be deemed a son of the deceased, bearing the dead husband’s name, and thus ultimately inheriting the land (4:4-6). The next relative in order of kinship was Boaz, who became Ruth’s “redeemer.” He was prepared to accept the double obligation of purchasing the land and marrying Ruth (4:9-10).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PositionofChildren\">Position of Children<\/p>\n<p>Children were generally well loved, but their childhood was short and they were often regarded as laborers for the house or fields. According to the law of primogeniture, the eldest son received a double portion of the estate as his birthright (Dt 21:17). Thus, he was assured of the position of family head. Even during his father’s lifetime, the eldest son took precedence over his brothers and sisters (Gn 43:33). Where twins were born, the first to emerge from the womb was considered the elder, with all the attendant privileges (25:24-26; 38:27-30).<\/p>\n<p>For a serious offense, the eldest son could lose the right of primogeniture (Gn 35:22; 49:3-4; 1 Chr 5:1), or it could be surrendered voluntarily, as Esau did by selling his birthright to his brother Jacob (Gn 25:29-34). There was a law protecting the eldest son from his father’s favoritism for a younger brother (Dt 21:15-17). Nevertheless, King David gave his kingdom to Solomon, his youngest son (1 Kgs 2:15).<\/p>\n<p>In a family with no sons, a daughter could inherit property (Nm 27:8). Frequently, parents consulted neither sons nor daughters when marriage partners were arranged for them. Marriage was often an alliance or contract between two families, and thus the wishes and concerns of individuals were considered unimportant. Love matches were few, although occasionally a son would marry in defiance of his parents, as Esau did (Gn 26:34-35). Although it was rare for young people to express their feelings and preferences about marriage in an open fashion, Saul’s daughter, Michal, made known her love for David (1 Sm 18:20).<\/p>\n<p>There is no record of legal adoption among the Hebrews, but it was practiced from ancient times in Mesopotamia. It was especially useful as a means of ensuring a childless couple that their land would be tilled and that they would be cared for in their old age. All examples of adoption mentioned in the OT took place outside the land of Israel (Ex 2:10; 1 Kgs 11:20; Est 2:7, 15) and are not examples of true adoption as a lifetime member of a family.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheRightsofChildren\">The Rights of Children<\/p>\n<p>The nature of patriarchal society made for unfortunate distinctions between male and female children. The position of a daughter, who could be sold into slavery or sold to be the concubine of a man and then possibly sold again (Ex 21:7-11), was certainly inferior to that of a son. In the patriarchal period, however, both a son and a daughter could be put to death for disobeying the head of the family. One’s children could also be sacrificed in worship rituals (see Gn 22; Jgs 11). It is probable that infant sacrifice was practiced by nations neighboring Israel, including Canaan and Ammon.<\/p>\n<p>The rights of children were improved considerably with the promulgation of the code of Mosaic law. A father was no longer permitted to put his child to death without referring the case to the elders (Dt 21:18-21). Both sons and daughters could be brought before such authorities and accused of being disobedient, gluttonous, or drunkards. A father’s absolute authority even extended to his married son and family if they were living under his roof. The law also prohibited children from being held responsible for the crimes of their parents (Dt 24:16). In King David’s time a person convicted by the community had the right of appeal to the king (2 Sm 14:4-11).<\/p>\n<p>In Hebrew families both parents were held in high respect. Honor had to be given to both mother and father (Ex 20:12), and the law condemned offenses against either parent (21:17; Lv 20:9; Dt 21:18; 27:16). Respect due to the mother is a recurrent theme in the Wisdom Literature (Prv 19:26; 20:20; cf. Ecclus 3:1-16).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DailyLifeoftheHebrewFamily\">Daily Life of the Hebrew Family<\/p>\n<p>In the everyday affairs of a Hebrew household, it was the father’s responsibility to maintain the family fortune and to be the provider. He might work in the fields, most probably with crops of flax, barley, or wheat. Or he would work at a trade, possibly as a weaver, builder, potter, dyer, fuller, or a worker in copper or bronze. If he lived near the shore, he might be a fisherman.<\/p>\n<p>The father was also responsible for the religious well-being of the family. It was his duty to take over his sons’ education from the mother at an early age, teaching them the tenets of Hebrew religion (Ex 10:2; 12:26; Dt 4:9; 6:7). He also explained all the facets of the law and the interwoven history of the nation.<\/p>\n<p>The father was the disciplinarian of the family, with the rod being used to drive home the lessons taught (Prv 13:24; 22:15; 29:15-17). Though children were loved and valued, they were not pampered (Ecclus 30:9-12). In postexilic times education also took place within the precincts of the synagogue, and shortly before the time of Christ, a general elementary education was introduced. It was also imperative that a father teach his sons a trade, normally his own, for a man without a trade either starved or became a thief. Another important paternal responsibility was to provide wives for male offspring in the household.<\/p>\n<p>The mother was responsible for her sons’ and daughters’ early education (Prv 1:8; 6:20), teaching them religious songs and prayers as soon as they could talk. A father took over the education of his sons, but the mother continued with the daughters, training them to spin, weave, cook, clean, trim the lamps, and generally to become competent in all the household duties (31:13-31).<\/p>\n<p>With little furniture, keeping a house clean meant sweeping the floors to keep them free from dust and dirt. Cooking was at once simple and difficult. It was simple in that much of the food was cooked in the form of a soup or stew, or else made into a cake and cooked on a griddle. It was difficult in that the corn had to be ground by hand and bread was baked daily.<\/p>\n<p>A mother was expected to take wool, card it, spin it, and often weave and make clothes for her family. In addition, she would help her husband in the fields at harvesttime. Because many families had one or more olive trees, a few grapevines, and fig trees, the mother would also assist in picking the fruit. She would sometimes work at the press when the olives or grapes were being processed. Frequently the treading of grapes in the family vat would be done together by husband and wife. Drawing water from the well was considered a menial task and was generally the wife’s responsibility, although sometimes it was assigned to the children (Gn 24:15-16).<\/p>\n<p>As in all societies, there was a time when children laughed and played together (Zec 8:5; Mt 11:16), although childhood and adolescence were not recognized as specific stages of development. Children were considered as sucklings if under three, but were regarded as boys or girls when they were able to take care of themselves. A small child sat on his mother’s lap and was played with (Is 66:12). There is no evidence of organized sports for children. Toys, including whistles, rattles, dolls, and miniature cooking utensils, have been excavated at Palestinian sites.<\/p>\n<p>As soon as a boy was old enough, he took his place in the family and accepted his appointed task. Among other things, children were expected to gather fuel (Jer 7:18). Young boys and girls tended the flocks. The sheep had to be protected from marauding wild beasts, guarded against their own folly when they wandered near crevices, steered toward good pasture and water, and carried home when sick or injured (Gn 29:6; Ex 2:16). The care of cattle was also the responsibility of children (1 Sm 16:11). Of necessity, boys were trained in the various arts of war.<\/p>\n<p>Children sometimes joined their fathers in the fields, and their presence was always welcome. From earliest times, boys in particular would watch their fathers until they too picked up a tool or implement to try their skill; girls watched and learned from their mothers. Young children frequently listened to the talk of the elders at the city gates or in the villages. A visit to a sanctuary at festival time was a family affair, furnishing an ideal learning experience. As a child, Jesus accompanied his parents, Mary and Joseph, to the temple in Jerusalem (Lk 2:42-47).<\/p>\n<p>Young girls were surprisingly free to go about their appointed tasks. They were not secluded or veiled and could visit uninhibited with friends and neighbors (Gn 34:1). They were also able to converse with men without embarrassment (24:15-25; 29:11-12; 1 Sm 9:11-13).<\/p>\n<p>Mealtimes were strictly family times. It is doubtful whether a meal comparable to a breakfast was eaten, and a farmer would probably have a light lunch in the fields. The main meal of the day was prepared by the mother, and it would be eaten in the early evening. Although the variety of food available was limited, its preparation was time-consuming.<\/p>\n<p>Feast times were periods of great religious significance and were also the days when family members participated in the symbolic rituals of their faith. Among the Israelites several kinds of food were fundamental to their religious ritual. Family unity and the national religion were molded together by special meals in the home.<\/p>\n<p>Daylight played an important part in the daily habits of the people in antiquity. Although oil lamps were readily available in later periods, it was customary to rise with the sun and go to bed relatively soon after dark. The wife would probably be up before sunrise and might continue her labor after dark.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"InNewTestamentTimes\">In New Testament Times<\/p>\n<p>By NT times, for those who followed the Greek and Roman style, life became more elegant. Despite that, the status of many family members did not change substantially. Wealthier families had more slaves, and the children were more likely to have formal education, sometimes spending less effort on family chores. Even in Roman times, however, the father still had a legal right to accept or reject his child.<\/p>\n<p>The status of the woman had definitely improved by the NT period. A Roman matron was highly respected and exerted a strong influence over her husband. She was not sequestered in a particular section of the house, as a Greek woman was, but managed and supervised tasks in any part of her home. She helped her husband in business, had her own place in theaters, games, and religious festivals, and sometimes managed her own property. Palestinian women began to enjoy a new status and dignity as the result of Jesus’ attitude toward women and its influence on the early Christian church.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Education; Marriage, Marriage Customs; Sex, Sexuality; Widow; Woman.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>FAMILY LIFE AND RELATIONS<\/h3>\n<p>In Bible times, the family comprised members of a household, including not only parents and children, along with other relatives and concubines, but also servants, travelers, aliens, and anyone else who happened to be within the house and was therefore under the protection of the head of the family. The family of Jacob, for example, comprised three generations (Gn 46:8-26). Biblically, the term “family” is interchangeable with “house,” and “founding a house” can refer to setting up a separate dwelling as well as establishing a family. In the broader sense, “house” may refer to an entire nation (“house of Israel”). The heads of families returning from Babylon in the postexilic period controlled sometimes several hundred family members (Ezr 8:1-14). The family was a smaller part of a clan and tribe. In nomadic times the responsibilities and allegiances centered on the larger family group.<\/p>\n<p>Those who belonged to the clan knew that they had to work for common interests and accept responsibility for the whole group. All members of the family were to be protected and assisted in time of need.<\/p>\n<p>As the life of the Israelites became more settled, families (in the wider sense of the term) lived in villages surrounded by fields of wheat, barley, and flax, with areas of grazing land for sheep and goats. Each group of villages consisted of an intermarried, interdependent family group, such as that of the Danites of Zorah and Eshtaol (Jgs 18:11). The hard life of those days demanded a sharing of work and the loyal cooperation of the entire family for survival.<\/p>\n<p>As crafts and trades developed, along with a more sedentary lifestyle, sons learned their fathers’ skills and continued the family trade. Consequently, the whole village might follow a particular craft (1 Chr 4:14; Neh 11:35). By specializing in such trades, however, the villagers became less self-sufficient, depending more on farmers for food and on other specialized villages for the production of cloth or pottery (1 Chr 4:21-23).<\/p>\n<p>With the growth of cities, related groups lived together in specific areas. Many members of the tribes of Benjamin and Judah were listed in the census of Jerusalem by Nehemiah (Neh 11:4-8), and by the writer of Chronicles (1 Chr 9:3-9). One consequence of life in the cities was the fragmentation of the family group. As the bonds of the wider family were loosened, the unit consisted increasingly of a husband and wife with their children, living in one house. The size of houses that have been excavated precludes the idea of any larger family unit as the norm in OT societies.<\/p>\n<p>During the kingdom period, King David’s sons Amnon and Absalom set up their own separate houses (2 Sm 13:7-8, 20). At that time there were few slaves in Hebrew society, but they also were considered members of the family. As bonds of the wider family loosened, and the master of the household lost a degree of authority, the society became one in which the king was sovereign and all the people were his subjects.<\/p>\n<p>The early kings of Israel promoted such a change in order to establish a central ruling authority for the entire country. The king’s subjects fell broadly into the categories of employers and employees, corresponding to the rich and poor of society. By the eighth century <span>BC<\/span>, members of the wider family no longer worked for the communal good under the authority of the clan’s head; rather, individuals worked primarily for the good of their own immediate family. Hence one’s labor and devotion were focused more narrowly, and the greatest beneficiary was the king, the personal symbol of the nation.<\/p>\n<p>Emphasis on the smaller family unit increased, and old duties that had been willingly accepted by the wider groups in former times came to be neglected. People did not always help relatives in times of need, and they frequently had to be reminded of their obligations, particularly toward widows and orphans (Is 1:17; Jer 7:6). Family feuds also declined because members no longer felt responsible to take vengeance as a way to uphold the honor of the clan (2 Sm 3:27; 16:8; 2 Kgs 9:26). Nevertheless, Nehemiah expected Israelites to fight for their family honor (Neh 4:14). In NT times, the family was such a unit that it could be sold for a debt incurred by one of its members (Mt 18:25).<\/p>\n<p>The Hebrew religion’s emphasis on family participation in certain celebrations strengthened the small unit. The Passover, for example, was always celebrated as a family thanksgiving meal (Ex 12:3-4, 46). The prophet Samuel’s parents made a traditional annual pilgrimage to the shrine at Shiloh (1 Sm 2:19). In modern times, a young Jewish boy’s arrival at the threshold of manhood is celebrated with the Bar Mitzvah ceremony. Being so honored in the midst of a religious family preserves the ancient Hebrew tradition of family participation in religious ceremonies.<\/p>\n<p>In his preaching Jesus used the family as a symbol for the relationship of God to his people (Mt 19:14; 23:9; Lk 8:21). From the cross he handed over responsibility for the care of his mother to his disciple John (Jn 19:27).<\/p>\n<p>In NT times, the communion meals in the Jerusalem church took place by households (Acts 2:46). Early Christian meetings were held in the homes of believers because of opposition by the authorities. The book of Acts contains examples of entire families being converted to Christianity (Acts 10:24, 44-48; 16:15, 31-32). Timothy learned the gospel from his grandmother and mother (2 Tm 1:5).<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Status of Family Members<\/p>\n<p>• Marital Security<\/p>\n<p>• Position of Children<\/p>\n<p>• The Rights of Children<\/p>\n<p>• Daily Life of the Hebrew Family<\/p>\n<p>• In New Testament Times<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"StatusofFamilyMembers\">Status of Family Members<\/p>\n<p>From nomadic times, a father’s authority held the family group together in their encampment, and he became the symbol of their security. In ancient patriarchal societies, the father was an absolute master who had the power of life and death over family members, ruling with unchallenged authority. Although he had extensive responsibilities for those under his care, his power was awesome and his status unquestioned.<\/p>\n<p>A man’s possessions included his wife, servants, slaves, and animals (Ex 20:17; Dt 5:21). In fact, the phrase “to marry a wife” comes from a Hebrew root meaning “to become the master of a wife.” A husband was as much the master of his wife as he was of his home or his fields. Consequently, the wife addressed him in a subservient manner, as a slave would address a master (Gn 18:12; Jgs 19:26). This low status for a woman extended to a daughter’s position in the ancient household. Females were always under the authority of a male relative: first, the father; then a husband. If a woman became a widow, she was subject to her husband’s nearest male relative, who became her “redeemer.” The bride price (Gn 29:18, 27; Ex 22:16-17; 1 Sm 18:25; 2 Sm 3:14) paid by her husband was not exactly a purchase of the woman from her father, but the exchange of money did stigmatize her. The amount of a bride price depended on the father’s status (Gn 34:12). The usual price was probably 20 to 30 shekels of silver. The bride received gifts of jewelry, ornaments, and clothing from her future husband, and she occasionally enjoyed some sort of financial or material return from the bride price for her own use (Jos 15:19; Jgs 1:15). When her father or husband died, the money frequently reverted to her.<\/p>\n<p>An engaged woman was considered her fiancé’s property just as much as if she were already married to him (Dt 22:23-27). The woman left her own family at marriage, to live with and become part of her new husband’s family. Normally, any succeeding marriages would be with members of that family.<\/p>\n<p>Despite the low legal status of the mother of the family, her life was not as bad as one might suppose. She was the legal wife, not an unpaid servant, and she frequently took a strong role as adviser to her husband in family affairs. Her most important function, aside from childbearing, was organization of the household, of which she was generally the respected manager. Even though the wife might have been acquired through capture in war (Dt 21:10-14), she could not be sold as a slave or daughter could (Ex 21:7; Neh 5:5).<\/p>\n<p>Nevertheless, her position was precarious, in that she could be disowned or divorced by her husband as the result of a simple renunciation: “She is no longer my wife, and I am no longer her husband.” Perhaps he had found fault with her culinary skills, or possibly he was casting his eyes on another woman. In any event, a husband knew that if his wife did not obey even a signal or a glance, he was within his rights to obtain a divorce (cf. Ecclus 25:26). The wife, however, obtained a certain degree of protection in the letter of repudiation, by which her freedom was formally restored. Under Jewish tradition, a wife could not divorce her husband.<\/p>\n<p>In matters of domestic protocol, the Hebrew wife was not introduced to her husband’s guests, a tradition that subsequently led to considerable embarrassment for Abraham’s wife, Sarah, and for Rebekah (Gn 20:16). A woman normally remained veiled in public (24:65; 38:14; Is 47:2).<\/p>\n<p>The imagery in Proverbs 19:13 and 27:15 draws a vigorous comparison between a contentious woman and water dripping from a leaky roof. The OT leaves little doubt about the type of behavior expected from a woman. She was expected to be charming, soft-spoken, discreet, and calm (Prv 9:13; 11:16, 22; 21:9). She was also to be responsible, well-organized, intelligent, thoughtful, reverent, and a good manager of both the household and the family purse (31:10-31). A woman should also be pious and beautiful, and in NT tradition, submissive to her husband, as befitted a woman adorned with the priceless jewel of a gentle and quiet spirit (Ti 2:4-5; 1 Pt 3:1-6).<\/p>\n<p>The actions of a few women whose roles in life do not seem to fit the pattern of the meek, passive female pictured above, are recorded in the Bible and the Apocrypha. The books of Judith and Esther recount heroic tales of how national fortunes were saved by women. Deborah and Jael were renowned heroines (Jgs 4–5), and the kingdom of Judah was ruled by a vicious woman, Athaliah, for several years (2 Kgs 11). The women who stepped to the forefront of public life were exceptional and few in number. Judith was a rich widow, an unusual thing in Israel.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MaritalSecurity\">Marital Security<\/p>\n<p>The security of a wife’s position improved considerably when she produced her first child, particularly if it was a son. A woman’s primary duty to her husband and his family was procreation (Gn 1:28; 9:1), and until she gave birth to a son, she feared displacement by a second wife or a concubine. Polygamous marriages were by no means rare, especially in wealthy families. They resulted in two ill-defined family groups, controlled by the mothers but under the overall authority of fathers; there were inevitable jealousies and frictions.<\/p>\n<p>The legal status of a woman was consistently poor in Bible times. With no evidence at all, a husband could accuse his wife of adultery, and she was compelled to face a trial by ordeal. She had to abase herself by taking an oath, eating dust and a cereal offering, and drinking bitter water. A priest, meanwhile, made pronouncements regarding the dire results that would come to her if she were guilty: she would become an outcast with no hope of survival. But if she maintained her serenity, and if her thigh did not rot nor her abdomen swell, she was considered to have “proved” her innocence. In such an event she would go free, and her husband bore no blame whatsoever for his false accusation (Nm 5:12-31).<\/p>\n<p>If a woman took a vow, it was legal only as long as her father or husband approved it. If she became a widow, the vow still remained in force and could be used against her (Nm 30:3-15).<\/p>\n<p>A woman in Israel was always under the protection of a male, be it her father, grandfather, great-grandfather, brother, husband, or some other member of her husband’s family. She had few legal rights and, in contrast to Babylonian traditions, could not inherit at her husband’s death. It is small wonder that widows were classed with orphans and the poor. A childless widow could on occasion return to her father’s family (Gn 38:11; Lv 22:13; Ru 1:8), thus becoming subject again to the authority of her father. A Hebrew widow could also remain with her late husband’s family. She would then come under the protection of her “redeemer,” a male relative of her husband’s family who assumed responsibility for her. If a husband died leaving a woman childless, it was the responsibility of the husband’s brother to marry her. The first son born of such a union was then regarded as the heir of the first husband.<\/p>\n<p>It was normal for a brother to accept the obligation for such a marriage (levirate). It could be refused on various grounds, but such refusal was considered dishonorable, for it was a man’s duty to perpetuate his brother’s name and to safeguard the family fortune.<\/p>\n<p>A redeemer’s responsibilities were considerable. In addition to the marriage, he was perhaps involved in avenging the family reputation, and he had to ensure that family property increased and remained within family control.<\/p>\n<p>If an Israelite fell into debt and was forced to sell himself into slavery, he would normally be “redeemed” by one of his relatives (Lv 25:47-49). If in his penury an Israelite had to sell his land or his house, the redeemer had the right of first refusal over all other prospective purchasers. It was as much his duty as his right to prevent family property from passing into the hands of strangers (v 25). The prophet Jeremiah bought his cousin Hanamel’s field under similar circumstances (Jer 32:6-15).<\/p>\n<p>The most familiar OT story of a childless widow, her “redeemer,” and their levirate marriage is recorded in the book of Ruth. One of Naomi’s two sons married Ruth. When Ruth was widowed, her impoverished mother-in-law, Naomi, left her home in Moab and returned to Bethlehem to sell some of the family property. Although a close relative was prepared to buy the land and keep it in the family, he was not ready to marry Ruth as well (Ru 3:12; 4:4). He knew that a son of that union would be deemed a son of the deceased, bearing the dead husband’s name, and thus ultimately inheriting the land (4:4-6). The next relative in order of kinship was Boaz, who became Ruth’s “redeemer.” He was prepared to accept the double obligation of purchasing the land and marrying Ruth (4:9-10).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PositionofChildren\">Position of Children<\/p>\n<p>Children were generally well loved, but their childhood was short and they were often regarded as laborers for the house or fields. According to the law of primogeniture, the eldest son received a double portion of the estate as his birthright (Dt 21:17). Thus, he was assured of the position of family head. Even during his father’s lifetime, the eldest son took precedence over his brothers and sisters (Gn 43:33). Where twins were born, the first to emerge from the womb was considered the elder, with all the attendant privileges (25:24-26; 38:27-30).<\/p>\n<p>For a serious offense, the eldest son could lose the right of primogeniture (Gn 35:22; 49:3-4; 1 Chr 5:1), or it could be surrendered voluntarily, as Esau did by selling his birthright to his brother Jacob (Gn 25:29-34). There was a law protecting the eldest son from his father’s favoritism for a younger brother (Dt 21:15-17). Nevertheless, King David gave his kingdom to Solomon, his youngest son (1 Kgs 2:15).<\/p>\n<p>In a family with no sons, a daughter could inherit property (Nm 27:8). Frequently, parents consulted neither sons nor daughters when marriage partners were arranged for them. Marriage was often an alliance or contract between two families, and thus the wishes and concerns of individuals were considered unimportant. Love matches were few, although occasionally a son would marry in defiance of his parents, as Esau did (Gn 26:34-35). Although it was rare for young people to express their feelings and preferences about marriage in an open fashion, Saul’s daughter, Michal, made known her love for David (1 Sm 18:20).<\/p>\n<p>There is no record of legal adoption among the Hebrews, but it was practiced from ancient times in Mesopotamia. It was especially useful as a means of ensuring a childless couple that their land would be tilled and that they would be cared for in their old age. All examples of adoption mentioned in the OT took place outside the land of Israel (Ex 2:10; 1 Kgs 11:20; Est 2:7, 15) and are not examples of true adoption as a lifetime member of a family.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheRightsofChildren\">The Rights of Children<\/p>\n<p>The nature of patriarchal society made for unfortunate distinctions between male and female children. The position of a daughter, who could be sold into slavery or sold to be the concubine of a man and then possibly sold again (Ex 21:7-11), was certainly inferior to that of a son. In the patriarchal period, however, both a son and a daughter could be put to death for disobeying the head of the family. One’s children could also be sacrificed in worship rituals (see Gn 22; Jgs 11). It is probable that infant sacrifice was practiced by nations neighboring Israel, including Canaan and Ammon.<\/p>\n<p>The rights of children were improved considerably with the promulgation of the code of Mosaic law. A father was no longer permitted to put his child to death without referring the case to the elders (Dt 21:18-21). Both sons and daughters could be brought before such authorities and accused of being disobedient, gluttonous, or drunkards. A father’s absolute authority even extended to his married son and family if they were living under his roof. The law also prohibited children from being held responsible for the crimes of their parents (Dt 24:16). In King David’s time a person convicted by the community had the right of appeal to the king (2 Sm 14:4-11).<\/p>\n<p>In Hebrew families both parents were held in high respect. Honor had to be given to both mother and father (Ex 20:12), and the law condemned offenses against either parent (21:17; Lv 20:9; Dt 21:18; 27:16). Respect due to the mother is a recurrent theme in the Wisdom Literature (Prv 19:26; 20:20; cf. Ecclus 3:1-16).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DailyLifeoftheHebrewFamily\">Daily Life of the Hebrew Family<\/p>\n<p>In the everyday affairs of a Hebrew household, it was the father’s responsibility to maintain the family fortune and to be the provider. He might work in the fields, most probably with crops of flax, barley, or wheat. Or he would work at a trade, possibly as a weaver, builder, potter, dyer, fuller, or a worker in copper or bronze. If he lived near the shore, he might be a fisherman.<\/p>\n<p>The father was also responsible for the religious well-being of the family. It was his duty to take over his sons’ education from the mother at an early age, teaching them the tenets of Hebrew religion (Ex 10:2; 12:26; Dt 4:9; 6:7). He also explained all the facets of the law and the interwoven history of the nation.<\/p>\n<p>The father was the disciplinarian of the family, with the rod being used to drive home the lessons taught (Prv 13:24; 22:15; 29:15-17). Though children were loved and valued, they were not pampered (Ecclus 30:9-12). In postexilic times education also took place within the precincts of the synagogue, and shortly before the time of Christ, a general elementary education was introduced. It was also imperative that a father teach his sons a trade, normally his own, for a man without a trade either starved or became a thief. Another important paternal responsibility was to provide wives for male offspring in the household.<\/p>\n<p>The mother was responsible for her sons’ and daughters’ early education (Prv 1:8; 6:20), teaching them religious songs and prayers as soon as they could talk. A father took over the education of his sons, but the mother continued with the daughters, training them to spin, weave, cook, clean, trim the lamps, and generally to become competent in all the household duties (31:13-31).<\/p>\n<p>With little furniture, keeping a house clean meant sweeping the floors to keep them free from dust and dirt. Cooking was at once simple and difficult. It was simple in that much of the food was cooked in the form of a soup or stew, or else made into a cake and cooked on a griddle. It was difficult in that the corn had to be ground by hand and bread was baked daily.<\/p>\n<p>A mother was expected to take wool, card it, spin it, and often weave and make clothes for her family. In addition, she would help her husband in the fields at harvesttime. Because many families had one or more olive trees, a few grapevines, and fig trees, the mother would also assist in picking the fruit. She would sometimes work at the press when the olives or grapes were being processed. Frequently the treading of grapes in the family vat would be done together by husband and wife. Drawing water from the well was considered a menial task and was generally the wife’s responsibility, although sometimes it was assigned to the children (Gn 24:15-16).<\/p>\n<p>As in all societies, there was a time when children laughed and played together (Zec 8:5; Mt 11:16), although childhood and adolescence were not recognized as specific stages of development. Children were considered as sucklings if under three, but were regarded as boys or girls when they were able to take care of themselves. A small child sat on his mother’s lap and was played with (Is 66:12). There is no evidence of organized sports for children. Toys, including whistles, rattles, dolls, and miniature cooking utensils, have been excavated at Palestinian sites.<\/p>\n<p>As soon as a boy was old enough, he took his place in the family and accepted his appointed task. Among other things, children were expected to gather fuel (Jer 7:18). Young boys and girls tended the flocks. The sheep had to be protected from marauding wild beasts, guarded against their own folly when they wandered near crevices, steered toward good pasture and water, and carried home when sick or injured (Gn 29:6; Ex 2:16). The care of cattle was also the responsibility of children (1 Sm 16:11). Of necessity, boys were trained in the various arts of war.<\/p>\n<p>Children sometimes joined their fathers in the fields, and their presence was always welcome. From earliest times, boys in particular would watch their fathers until they too picked up a tool or implement to try their skill; girls watched and learned from their mothers. Young children frequently listened to the talk of the elders at the city gates or in the villages. A visit to a sanctuary at festival time was a family affair, furnishing an ideal learning experience. As a child, Jesus accompanied his parents, Mary and Joseph, to the temple in Jerusalem (Lk 2:42-47).<\/p>\n<p>Young girls were surprisingly free to go about their appointed tasks. They were not secluded or veiled and could visit uninhibited with friends and neighbors (Gn 34:1). They were also able to converse with men without embarrassment (24:15-25; 29:11-12; 1 Sm 9:11-13).<\/p>\n<p>Mealtimes were strictly family times. It is doubtful whether a meal comparable to a breakfast was eaten, and a farmer would probably have a light lunch in the fields. The main meal of the day was prepared by the mother, and it would be eaten in the early evening. Although the variety of food available was limited, its preparation was time-consuming.<\/p>\n<p>Feast times were periods of great religious significance and were also the days when family members participated in the symbolic rituals of their faith. Among the Israelites several kinds of food were fundamental to their religious ritual. Family unity and the national religion were molded together by special meals in the home.<\/p>\n<p>Daylight played an important part in the daily habits of the people in antiquity. Although oil lamps were readily available in later periods, it was customary to rise with the sun and go to bed relatively soon after dark. The wife would probably be up before sunrise and might continue her labor after dark.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"InNewTestamentTimes\">In New Testament Times<\/p>\n<p>By NT times, for those who followed the Greek and Roman style, life became more elegant. Despite that, the status of many family members did not change substantially. Wealthier families had more slaves, and the children were more likely to have formal education, sometimes spending less effort on family chores. Even in Roman times, however, the father still had a legal right to accept or reject his child.<\/p>\n<p>The status of the woman had definitely improved by the NT period. A Roman matron was highly respected and exerted a strong influence over her husband. She was not sequestered in a particular section of the house, as a Greek woman was, but managed and supervised tasks in any part of her home. She helped her husband in business, had her own place in theaters, games, and religious festivals, and sometimes managed her own property. Palestinian women began to enjoy a new status and dignity as the result of Jesus’ attitude toward women and its influence on the early Christian church.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Education; Marriage, Marriage Customs; Sex, Sexuality; Widow; Woman.<\/p>","summary_ro":"FAMILY LIFE AND RELATIONS In Bible times, the family comprised members of a household, including not only parents and children, along with other relatives and concubines, but also servants, travelers, aliens, and anyone else who happened to be within the house and was therefore under the protection of the head of the family. The family of Jacob, for example, comprised three generations (Gn 46:8-26). Biblically, the term “family” is interchangeable with “house,” and “founding a house” can refe...","summary_en":"FAMILY LIFE AND RELATIONS In Bible times, the family comprised members of a household, including not only parents and children, along with other relatives and concubines, but also servants, travelers, aliens, and anyone else who happened to be within the house and was therefore under the protection of the head of the family. The family of Jacob, for example, comprised three generations (Gn 46:8-26). Biblically, the term “family” is interchangeable with “house,” and “founding a house” can refe...","source":"Articles\/F.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":24509,"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>\n<p>The joining together of male and female in matrimony, as practiced by various cultures.<\/p>\n<p>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).<\/p>\n<p>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 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>\n<p>Generally, 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>\n<p>Hebrew 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>A 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>Despite 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>Marriage 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>\n<p>When 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>It 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>\n<p>Normally 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>\n<p>One 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>\n<p>At 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>\n<p>Marriage 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>A 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>Symbolic 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>\n<p>In 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 <span>AD<\/span>. Divorce was discouraged, however, and gradually the procedure became more complex, being hedged about with a number of deterrents.<\/p>\n<p>As 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>\n<p>If 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>\n<p>In 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>\n<p>In 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>\n<p>In 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>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"JesusTeachingsonMarriageandAdultery\">Jesus’ Teachings on Marriage and Adultery<\/p>\n<p>In 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>\n<p>There 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>\n<p><em>See 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>\n<p>The joining together of male and female in matrimony, as practiced by various cultures.<\/p>\n<p>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).<\/p>\n<p>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 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>\n<p>Generally, 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>\n<p>Hebrew 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>A 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>Despite 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>Marriage 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>\n<p>When 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>It 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>\n<p>Normally 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>\n<p>One 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>\n<p>At 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>\n<p>Marriage 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>A 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>Symbolic 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>\n<p>In 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 <span>AD<\/span>. Divorce was discouraged, however, and gradually the procedure became more complex, being hedged about with a number of deterrents.<\/p>\n<p>As 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>\n<p>If 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>\n<p>In 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>\n<p>In 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>\n<p>In 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>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"JesusTeachingsonMarriageandAdultery\">Jesus’ Teachings on Marriage and Adultery<\/p>\n<p>In 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>\n<p>There 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>\n<p><em>See 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}],"13":[{"id":43365,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 34:13","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 34:13","content_ro":"<p><strong>34:13-17<\/strong> Dinah’s brothers <em>responded<\/em> to the proposal without waiting for Jacob to respond, and they acted <em>deceitfully<\/em>. They may not have thought that <em>Shechem<\/em> and his people would ever agree to the rite of circumcision, but they knew what they would do if the Canaanites accepted (34:25).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>34:13-17<\/strong> Dinah’s brothers <em>responded<\/em> to the proposal without waiting for Jacob to respond, and they acted <em>deceitfully<\/em>. They may not have thought that <em>Shechem<\/em> and his people would ever agree to the rite of circumcision, but they knew what they would do if the Canaanites accepted (34:25).<\/p>","summary_ro":"34:13-17 Dinah’s brothers responded to the proposal without waiting for Jacob to respond, and they acted deceitfully. They may not have thought that Shechem and his people would ever agree to the rite of circumcision, but they knew what they would do if the Canaanites accepted (34:25).","summary_en":"34:13-17 Dinah’s brothers responded to the proposal without waiting for Jacob to respond, and they acted deceitfully. They may not have thought that Shechem and his people would ever agree to the rite of circumcision, but they knew what they would do if the Canaanites accepted (34:25).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":70991,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 34:13","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 34:13","content_ro":"<p><strong>34:13-17<\/strong> Dinah’s brothers <em>responded<\/em> to the proposal without waiting for Jacob to respond, and they acted <em>deceitfully<\/em>. They may not have thought that <em>Shechem<\/em> and his people would ever agree to the rite of circumcision, but they knew what they would do if the Canaanites accepted (34:25).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>34:13-17<\/strong> Dinah’s brothers <em>responded<\/em> to the proposal without waiting for Jacob to respond, and they acted <em>deceitfully<\/em>. They may not have thought that <em>Shechem<\/em> and his people would ever agree to the rite of circumcision, but they knew what they would do if the Canaanites accepted (34:25).<\/p>","summary_ro":"34:13-17 Dinah’s brothers responded to the proposal without waiting for Jacob to respond, and they acted deceitfully. They may not have thought that Shechem and his people would ever agree to the rite of circumcision, but they knew what they would do if the Canaanites accepted (34:25).","summary_en":"34:13-17 Dinah’s brothers responded to the proposal without waiting for Jacob to respond, and they acted deceitfully. They may not have thought that Shechem and his people would ever agree to the rite of circumcision, but they knew what they would do if the Canaanites accepted (34:25).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":98617,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 34:13","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 34:13","content_ro":"<p><strong>34:13-17<\/strong> Dinah’s brothers <em>responded<\/em> to the proposal without waiting for Jacob to respond, and they acted <em>deceitfully<\/em>. They may not have thought that <em>Shechem<\/em> and his people would ever agree to the rite of circumcision, but they knew what they would do if the Canaanites accepted (34:25).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>34:13-17<\/strong> Dinah’s brothers <em>responded<\/em> to the proposal without waiting for Jacob to respond, and they acted <em>deceitfully<\/em>. They may not have thought that <em>Shechem<\/em> and his people would ever agree to the rite of circumcision, but they knew what they would do if the Canaanites accepted (34:25).<\/p>","summary_ro":"34:13-17 Dinah’s brothers responded to the proposal without waiting for Jacob to respond, and they acted deceitfully. They may not have thought that Shechem and his people would ever agree to the rite of circumcision, but they knew what they would do if the Canaanites accepted (34:25).","summary_en":"34:13-17 Dinah’s brothers responded to the proposal without waiting for Jacob to respond, and they acted deceitfully. They may not have thought that Shechem and his people would ever agree to the rite of circumcision, but they knew what they would do if the Canaanites accepted (34:25).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":126243,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 34:13","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 34:13","content_ro":"<p><strong>34:13-17<\/strong> Dinah’s brothers <em>responded<\/em> to the proposal without waiting for Jacob to respond, and they acted <em>deceitfully<\/em>. They may not have thought that <em>Shechem<\/em> and his people would ever agree to the rite of circumcision, but they knew what they would do if the Canaanites accepted (34:25).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>34:13-17<\/strong> Dinah’s brothers <em>responded<\/em> to the proposal without waiting for Jacob to respond, and they acted <em>deceitfully<\/em>. They may not have thought that <em>Shechem<\/em> and his people would ever agree to the rite of circumcision, but they knew what they would do if the Canaanites accepted (34:25).<\/p>","summary_ro":"34:13-17 Dinah’s brothers responded to the proposal without waiting for Jacob to respond, and they acted deceitfully. They may not have thought that Shechem and his people would ever agree to the rite of circumcision, but they knew what they would do if the Canaanites accepted (34:25).","summary_en":"34:13-17 Dinah’s brothers responded to the proposal without waiting for Jacob to respond, and they acted deceitfully. They may not have thought that Shechem and his people would ever agree to the rite of circumcision, but they knew what they would do if the Canaanites accepted (34:25).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"14":[{"id":12622,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Foreigner","title_en":"Foreigner","content_ro":"<h3>FOREIGNER<\/h3>\n<p>Noncitizen or alien, temporary guest, sojourner, or stranger.<\/p>\n<p>The Hebrew word meaning “foreigner” is rendered correctly on all occasions in the <span>rsv<\/span>, but the <span>kjv<\/span> uses it in its truest sense on only two occasions (Dt 15:3; Ob 1:11). In most cases the <span>kjv<\/span> translates the word as “alien” (Dt 14:21; Jb 19:15; Ps 69:8; Lam 5:2) or “stranger” (Gn 15:13; Ex 2:22; Lv 25:35). Another Hebrew word means “dweller” (Lv 25:35; 1 Chr 29:15; Ps 39:12) or “settler.” For the most part, however, it is rendered “foreigner.”<\/p>\n<p>A temporary guest or sojourner was usually someone who wanted to take up temporary residence or had moved from one tribe of people to another, and then attempted to obtain certain privileges or rights belonging to the natives. A whole tribe might be sojourners in Israel. This was the case with the Gibeonites (Jos 9) and the Beerothites (2 Sm 4:3; cf. 2 Chr 2:17). The Israelites themselves were sojourners in the land of Egypt (Gn 15:13; 23:4; 26:3; 47:4; Ex 2:22; 23:9) and in other lands (Ru 1:1).<\/p>\n<p>Foreigners or sojourners had certain rights but also certain limitations while in Israel. They could offer sacrifices (Lv 17:8; 22:18) but could not enter the sanctuary unless circumcised (Ez 44:9). They were allowed to participate in the three great Jewish festivals (Dt 16:11, 14) but could not eat the Passover meal unless circumcised (Ex 12:43, 48). Foreigners were not obliged to follow the Israelite religion, but they shared in some of its benefits (Dt 14:29). They were not to work on the Sabbath or the Day of Atonement (Ex 20:10; 23:12; Lv 16:29; Dt 5:14) and could be stoned for reviling or blaspheming God’s name (Lv 24:16; Nm 15:30). Foreigners were forbidden to eat blood (Lv 17:10-12) but could eat animals that had died a natural death (Dt 14:21). Israel’s code of sexual morality also applied to the foreigner (Lv 18:26). There were prohibitions against Israelites intermarrying with foreigners, but it was nevertheless a common occurrence (Gn 34:14; Ex 34:12, 16; Dt 7:3-4; Jos 23:12).<\/p>\n<p>Civil rights were provided for foreigners by the law of Moses (Ex 12:49; Lv 24:22), and they came under the same legal processes and penalties (Lv 20:2; 24:16, 22; Dt 1:16). They were to be treated politely (Ex 22:21; 23:9), loved as those under the love of God (Lv 19:34; Dt 10:18-19), and treated generously (Lv 19:10; 23:22; Dt 24:19-22). They could receive asylum in times of trouble (Nm 35:15; Jos 20:9). Foreign servants were to receive treatment equal to Hebrew servants (Dt 24:14). A foreigner could not take part in tribal deliberations or become a king (17:15). The prophet Ezekiel looked forward to the messianic age when the foreigner would share all the blessings of the land with God’s own people (Ez 47:22-23).<\/p>\n<p>In the NT, “foreigner” is often used metaphorically. On the one hand, the work of Christ allowed all foreigners (i.e., those alienated from Christ) to become members of God’s household (Eph 2:11-19). On the other hand, Christians should consider themselves foreigners in this world (Heb 11:13; 1 Pt 2:11).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Barbarian; Neighbor.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>FOREIGNER<\/h3>\n<p>Noncitizen or alien, temporary guest, sojourner, or stranger.<\/p>\n<p>The Hebrew word meaning “foreigner” is rendered correctly on all occasions in the <span>rsv<\/span>, but the <span>kjv<\/span> uses it in its truest sense on only two occasions (Dt 15:3; Ob 1:11). In most cases the <span>kjv<\/span> translates the word as “alien” (Dt 14:21; Jb 19:15; Ps 69:8; Lam 5:2) or “stranger” (Gn 15:13; Ex 2:22; Lv 25:35). Another Hebrew word means “dweller” (Lv 25:35; 1 Chr 29:15; Ps 39:12) or “settler.” For the most part, however, it is rendered “foreigner.”<\/p>\n<p>A temporary guest or sojourner was usually someone who wanted to take up temporary residence or had moved from one tribe of people to another, and then attempted to obtain certain privileges or rights belonging to the natives. A whole tribe might be sojourners in Israel. This was the case with the Gibeonites (Jos 9) and the Beerothites (2 Sm 4:3; cf. 2 Chr 2:17). The Israelites themselves were sojourners in the land of Egypt (Gn 15:13; 23:4; 26:3; 47:4; Ex 2:22; 23:9) and in other lands (Ru 1:1).<\/p>\n<p>Foreigners or sojourners had certain rights but also certain limitations while in Israel. They could offer sacrifices (Lv 17:8; 22:18) but could not enter the sanctuary unless circumcised (Ez 44:9). They were allowed to participate in the three great Jewish festivals (Dt 16:11, 14) but could not eat the Passover meal unless circumcised (Ex 12:43, 48). Foreigners were not obliged to follow the Israelite religion, but they shared in some of its benefits (Dt 14:29). They were not to work on the Sabbath or the Day of Atonement (Ex 20:10; 23:12; Lv 16:29; Dt 5:14) and could be stoned for reviling or blaspheming God’s name (Lv 24:16; Nm 15:30). Foreigners were forbidden to eat blood (Lv 17:10-12) but could eat animals that had died a natural death (Dt 14:21). Israel’s code of sexual morality also applied to the foreigner (Lv 18:26). There were prohibitions against Israelites intermarrying with foreigners, but it was nevertheless a common occurrence (Gn 34:14; Ex 34:12, 16; Dt 7:3-4; Jos 23:12).<\/p>\n<p>Civil rights were provided for foreigners by the law of Moses (Ex 12:49; Lv 24:22), and they came under the same legal processes and penalties (Lv 20:2; 24:16, 22; Dt 1:16). They were to be treated politely (Ex 22:21; 23:9), loved as those under the love of God (Lv 19:34; Dt 10:18-19), and treated generously (Lv 19:10; 23:22; Dt 24:19-22). They could receive asylum in times of trouble (Nm 35:15; Jos 20:9). Foreign servants were to receive treatment equal to Hebrew servants (Dt 24:14). A foreigner could not take part in tribal deliberations or become a king (17:15). The prophet Ezekiel looked forward to the messianic age when the foreigner would share all the blessings of the land with God’s own people (Ez 47:22-23).<\/p>\n<p>In the NT, “foreigner” is often used metaphorically. On the one hand, the work of Christ allowed all foreigners (i.e., those alienated from Christ) to become members of God’s household (Eph 2:11-19). On the other hand, Christians should consider themselves foreigners in this world (Heb 11:13; 1 Pt 2:11).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Barbarian; Neighbor.<\/p>","summary_ro":"FOREIGNER Noncitizen or alien, temporary guest, sojourner, or stranger. The Hebrew word meaning “foreigner” is rendered correctly on all occasions in the rsv, but the kjv uses it in its truest sense on only two occasions (Dt 15:3; Ob 1:11). In most cases the kjv translates the word as “alien” (Dt 14:21; Jb 19:15; Ps 69:8; Lam 5:2) or “stranger” (Gn 15:13; Ex 2:22; Lv 25:35). Another Hebrew word means “dweller” (Lv 25:35; 1 Chr 29:15; Ps 39:12) or “settler.” For the most part, however, it is r...","summary_en":"FOREIGNER Noncitizen or alien, temporary guest, sojourner, or stranger. The Hebrew word meaning “foreigner” is rendered correctly on all occasions in the rsv, but the kjv uses it in its truest sense on only two occasions (Dt 15:3; Ob 1:11). In most cases the kjv translates the word as “alien” (Dt 14:21; Jb 19:15; Ps 69:8; Lam 5:2) or “stranger” (Gn 15:13; Ex 2:22; Lv 25:35). Another Hebrew word means “dweller” (Lv 25:35; 1 Chr 29:15; Ps 39:12) or “settler.” For the most part, however, it is r...","source":"Articles\/F.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"15":[{"id":59915,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Circumcision","title_en":"Circumcision","content_ro":"<h3>Circumcision<\/h3>\n<p>Circumcision, the removal of the male foreskin, was practiced by a number of cultures in the ancient world (see Jer 9:25-26).<\/p>\n<p>God chose circumcision as the sign of a covenant that focuses on descendants. God had promised to make Abraham and his descendants into a great nation (Gen 12:2; 17:3-6) and to use them to redeem the Gentile nations (12:3; see Gal 3:8-9). Circumcision was God’s signature in flesh; it would identify Abraham and his descendants as God’s own people (Gen 17:9-14) and remind them to live in faithfulness to the covenant.<\/p>\n<p>Although circumcision was applied to adult males when they joined the covenant community (Gen 17:23-27; Exod 12:48; Josh 5:3-7), it was usually performed on infants (Gen 21:4; Lev 12:3), who received God’s promises and membership in the covenant community through their parents. Faith was required in order to receive God’s blessings, however, as can be seen in the differentiation between Ishmael and Isaac, Esau and Jacob, and Joseph and his brothers. Non-Israelites could also obligate themselves to Israel’s covenant (Exod 12:48; cp. Gen 34:15-24), and circumcision marked their inclusion into the worshiping community (e.g., Exod 12:44).<\/p>\n<p>Circumcision would help Israel recognize and remember that they must lay aside natural impurity. God’s people had to be loyal to the covenant, to the family, and to their own marriages. Intermarriage with uncircumcised people who were not of the covenant was a violation of the covenant. Any man who refused to be circumcised (physically <em>cut<\/em> in this symbolic way) would be <em>cut<\/em> off from the covenant people because of his disobedience to God’s command (Gen 17:14).<\/p>\n<p>Circumcision is a symbol of separation from the world, of purity, and of loyalty to the covenant. It provides the powerful metaphor of “circumcision of the heart,” which designates a heart that is committed to God and is inwardly set apart to God, rather than being stubbornly resistant (Lev 26:41; Deut 30:6; Jer 4:4; 9:26; Eph 2:11). Circumcision of the heart evidences salvation and fellowship with God (see Ezek 18:31-32; 36:25-27; Rom 2:28-29; 4:11).<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus Christ established God’s new covenant, he fulfilled the requirements of the old covenant. It is not necessary for Gentile believers to be circumcised, since they are incorporated into the people of God through faith in Christ (Acts 15:1-29; Rom 2:25-29; Gal 2:1-10; 6:15; Col 2:11-12). One must turn in confidence to God and his promises, lay aside sinful behavior and the customs of the world, and live a new life by faith (see Jer 31:33-34; Rom 8:1-17; Gal 5:16–6:10).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 17:9-14, 23-27; 21:4; 34:1-26; Exod 4:24-26; 12:48; Lev 12:3; Josh 5:2-8; Jer 9:25-26; Ezek 44:7-9; Luke 1:59; 2:21; Acts 15:1-31; 16:1-5; Rom 2:25-29; 1 Cor 7:17-19; Gal 5:1-6, 11-12; 6:12-16; Eph 2:11-18; Phil 3:2-7; Col 2:11; 3:11<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Circumcision<\/h3>\n<p>Circumcision, the removal of the male foreskin, was practiced by a number of cultures in the ancient world (see Jer 9:25-26).<\/p>\n<p>God chose circumcision as the sign of a covenant that focuses on descendants. God had promised to make Abraham and his descendants into a great nation (Gen 12:2; 17:3-6) and to use them to redeem the Gentile nations (12:3; see Gal 3:8-9). Circumcision was God’s signature in flesh; it would identify Abraham and his descendants as God’s own people (Gen 17:9-14) and remind them to live in faithfulness to the covenant.<\/p>\n<p>Although circumcision was applied to adult males when they joined the covenant community (Gen 17:23-27; Exod 12:48; Josh 5:3-7), it was usually performed on infants (Gen 21:4; Lev 12:3), who received God’s promises and membership in the covenant community through their parents. Faith was required in order to receive God’s blessings, however, as can be seen in the differentiation between Ishmael and Isaac, Esau and Jacob, and Joseph and his brothers. Non-Israelites could also obligate themselves to Israel’s covenant (Exod 12:48; cp. Gen 34:15-24), and circumcision marked their inclusion into the worshiping community (e.g., Exod 12:44).<\/p>\n<p>Circumcision would help Israel recognize and remember that they must lay aside natural impurity. God’s people had to be loyal to the covenant, to the family, and to their own marriages. Intermarriage with uncircumcised people who were not of the covenant was a violation of the covenant. Any man who refused to be circumcised (physically <em>cut<\/em> in this symbolic way) would be <em>cut<\/em> off from the covenant people because of his disobedience to God’s command (Gen 17:14).<\/p>\n<p>Circumcision is a symbol of separation from the world, of purity, and of loyalty to the covenant. It provides the powerful metaphor of “circumcision of the heart,” which designates a heart that is committed to God and is inwardly set apart to God, rather than being stubbornly resistant (Lev 26:41; Deut 30:6; Jer 4:4; 9:26; Eph 2:11). Circumcision of the heart evidences salvation and fellowship with God (see Ezek 18:31-32; 36:25-27; Rom 2:28-29; 4:11).<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus Christ established God’s new covenant, he fulfilled the requirements of the old covenant. It is not necessary for Gentile believers to be circumcised, since they are incorporated into the people of God through faith in Christ (Acts 15:1-29; Rom 2:25-29; Gal 2:1-10; 6:15; Col 2:11-12). One must turn in confidence to God and his promises, lay aside sinful behavior and the customs of the world, and live a new life by faith (see Jer 31:33-34; Rom 8:1-17; Gal 5:16–6:10).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 17:9-14, 23-27; 21:4; 34:1-26; Exod 4:24-26; 12:48; Lev 12:3; Josh 5:2-8; Jer 9:25-26; Ezek 44:7-9; Luke 1:59; 2:21; Acts 15:1-31; 16:1-5; Rom 2:25-29; 1 Cor 7:17-19; Gal 5:1-6, 11-12; 6:12-16; Eph 2:11-18; Phil 3:2-7; Col 2:11; 3:11<\/p>","summary_ro":"Circumcision Circumcision, the removal of the male foreskin, was practiced by a number of cultures in the ancient world (see Jer 9:25-26). God chose circumcision as the sign of a covenant that focuses on descendants. God had promised to make Abraham and his descendants into a great nation (Gen 12:2; 17:3-6) and to use them to redeem the Gentile nations (12:3; see Gal 3:8-9). Circumcision was God’s signature in flesh; it would identify Abraham and his descendants as God’s own people (Gen 17:9-...","summary_en":"Circumcision Circumcision, the removal of the male foreskin, was practiced by a number of cultures in the ancient world (see Jer 9:25-26). God chose circumcision as the sign of a covenant that focuses on descendants. God had promised to make Abraham and his descendants into a great nation (Gen 12:2; 17:3-6) and to use them to redeem the Gentile nations (12:3; see Gal 3:8-9). Circumcision was God’s signature in flesh; it would identify Abraham and his descendants as God’s own people (Gen 17:9-...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":87541,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Circumcision","title_en":"Circumcision","content_ro":"<h3>Circumcision<\/h3>\n<p>Circumcision, the removal of the male foreskin, was practiced by a number of cultures in the ancient world (see Jer 9:25-26).<\/p>\n<p>God chose circumcision as the sign of a covenant that focuses on descendants. God had promised to make Abraham and his descendants into a great nation (Gen 12:2; 17:3-6) and to use them to redeem the Gentile nations (12:3; see Gal 3:8-9). Circumcision was God’s signature in flesh; it would identify Abraham and his descendants as God’s own people (Gen 17:9-14) and remind them to live in faithfulness to the covenant.<\/p>\n<p>Although circumcision was applied to adult males when they joined the covenant community (Gen 17:23-27; Exod 12:48; Josh 5:3-7), it was usually performed on infants (Gen 21:4; Lev 12:3), who received God’s promises and membership in the covenant community through their parents. Faith was required in order to receive God’s blessings, however, as can be seen in the differentiation between Ishmael and Isaac, Esau and Jacob, and Joseph and his brothers. Non-Israelites could also obligate themselves to Israel’s covenant (Exod 12:48; cp. Gen 34:15-24), and circumcision marked their inclusion into the worshiping community (e.g., Exod 12:44).<\/p>\n<p>Circumcision would help Israel recognize and remember that they must lay aside natural impurity. God’s people had to be loyal to the covenant, to the family, and to their own marriages. Intermarriage with uncircumcised people who were not of the covenant was a violation of the covenant. Any man who refused to be circumcised (physically <em>cut<\/em> in this symbolic way) would be <em>cut<\/em> off from the covenant people because of his disobedience to God’s command (Gen 17:14).<\/p>\n<p>Circumcision is a symbol of separation from the world, of purity, and of loyalty to the covenant. It provides the powerful metaphor of “circumcision of the heart,” which designates a heart that is committed to God and is inwardly set apart to God, rather than being stubbornly resistant (Lev 26:41; Deut 30:6; Jer 4:4; 9:26; Eph 2:11). Circumcision of the heart evidences salvation and fellowship with God (see Ezek 18:31-32; 36:25-27; Rom 2:28-29; 4:11).<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus Christ established God’s new covenant, he fulfilled the requirements of the old covenant. It is not necessary for Gentile believers to be circumcised, since they are incorporated into the people of God through faith in Christ (Acts 15:1-29; Rom 2:25-29; Gal 2:1-10; 6:15; Col 2:11-12). One must turn in confidence to God and his promises, lay aside sinful behavior and the customs of the world, and live a new life by faith (see Jer 31:33-34; Rom 8:1-17; Gal 5:16–6:10).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 17:9-14, 23-27; 21:4; 34:1-26; Exod 4:24-26; 12:48; Lev 12:3; Josh 5:2-8; Jer 9:25-26; Ezek 44:7-9; Luke 1:59; 2:21; Acts 15:1-31; 16:1-5; Rom 2:25-29; 1 Cor 7:17-19; Gal 5:1-6, 11-12; 6:12-16; Eph 2:11-18; Phil 3:2-7; Col 2:11; 3:11<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Circumcision<\/h3>\n<p>Circumcision, the removal of the male foreskin, was practiced by a number of cultures in the ancient world (see Jer 9:25-26).<\/p>\n<p>God chose circumcision as the sign of a covenant that focuses on descendants. God had promised to make Abraham and his descendants into a great nation (Gen 12:2; 17:3-6) and to use them to redeem the Gentile nations (12:3; see Gal 3:8-9). Circumcision was God’s signature in flesh; it would identify Abraham and his descendants as God’s own people (Gen 17:9-14) and remind them to live in faithfulness to the covenant.<\/p>\n<p>Although circumcision was applied to adult males when they joined the covenant community (Gen 17:23-27; Exod 12:48; Josh 5:3-7), it was usually performed on infants (Gen 21:4; Lev 12:3), who received God’s promises and membership in the covenant community through their parents. Faith was required in order to receive God’s blessings, however, as can be seen in the differentiation between Ishmael and Isaac, Esau and Jacob, and Joseph and his brothers. Non-Israelites could also obligate themselves to Israel’s covenant (Exod 12:48; cp. Gen 34:15-24), and circumcision marked their inclusion into the worshiping community (e.g., Exod 12:44).<\/p>\n<p>Circumcision would help Israel recognize and remember that they must lay aside natural impurity. God’s people had to be loyal to the covenant, to the family, and to their own marriages. Intermarriage with uncircumcised people who were not of the covenant was a violation of the covenant. Any man who refused to be circumcised (physically <em>cut<\/em> in this symbolic way) would be <em>cut<\/em> off from the covenant people because of his disobedience to God’s command (Gen 17:14).<\/p>\n<p>Circumcision is a symbol of separation from the world, of purity, and of loyalty to the covenant. It provides the powerful metaphor of “circumcision of the heart,” which designates a heart that is committed to God and is inwardly set apart to God, rather than being stubbornly resistant (Lev 26:41; Deut 30:6; Jer 4:4; 9:26; Eph 2:11). Circumcision of the heart evidences salvation and fellowship with God (see Ezek 18:31-32; 36:25-27; Rom 2:28-29; 4:11).<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus Christ established God’s new covenant, he fulfilled the requirements of the old covenant. It is not necessary for Gentile believers to be circumcised, since they are incorporated into the people of God through faith in Christ (Acts 15:1-29; Rom 2:25-29; Gal 2:1-10; 6:15; Col 2:11-12). One must turn in confidence to God and his promises, lay aside sinful behavior and the customs of the world, and live a new life by faith (see Jer 31:33-34; Rom 8:1-17; Gal 5:16–6:10).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 17:9-14, 23-27; 21:4; 34:1-26; Exod 4:24-26; 12:48; Lev 12:3; Josh 5:2-8; Jer 9:25-26; Ezek 44:7-9; Luke 1:59; 2:21; Acts 15:1-31; 16:1-5; Rom 2:25-29; 1 Cor 7:17-19; Gal 5:1-6, 11-12; 6:12-16; Eph 2:11-18; Phil 3:2-7; Col 2:11; 3:11<\/p>","summary_ro":"Circumcision Circumcision, the removal of the male foreskin, was practiced by a number of cultures in the ancient world (see Jer 9:25-26). God chose circumcision as the sign of a covenant that focuses on descendants. God had promised to make Abraham and his descendants into a great nation (Gen 12:2; 17:3-6) and to use them to redeem the Gentile nations (12:3; see Gal 3:8-9). Circumcision was God’s signature in flesh; it would identify Abraham and his descendants as God’s own people (Gen 17:9-...","summary_en":"Circumcision Circumcision, the removal of the male foreskin, was practiced by a number of cultures in the ancient world (see Jer 9:25-26). God chose circumcision as the sign of a covenant that focuses on descendants. God had promised to make Abraham and his descendants into a great nation (Gen 12:2; 17:3-6) and to use them to redeem the Gentile nations (12:3; see Gal 3:8-9). Circumcision was God’s signature in flesh; it would identify Abraham and his descendants as God’s own people (Gen 17:9-...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":115167,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Circumcision","title_en":"Circumcision","content_ro":"<h3>Circumcision<\/h3>\n<p>Circumcision, the removal of the male foreskin, was practiced by a number of cultures in the ancient world (see Jer 9:25-26).<\/p>\n<p>God chose circumcision as the sign of a covenant that focuses on descendants. God had promised to make Abraham and his descendants into a great nation (Gen 12:2; 17:3-6) and to use them to redeem the Gentile nations (12:3; see Gal 3:8-9). Circumcision was God’s signature in flesh; it would identify Abraham and his descendants as God’s own people (Gen 17:9-14) and remind them to live in faithfulness to the covenant.<\/p>\n<p>Although circumcision was applied to adult males when they joined the covenant community (Gen 17:23-27; Exod 12:48; Josh 5:3-7), it was usually performed on infants (Gen 21:4; Lev 12:3), who received God’s promises and membership in the covenant community through their parents. Faith was required in order to receive God’s blessings, however, as can be seen in the differentiation between Ishmael and Isaac, Esau and Jacob, and Joseph and his brothers. Non-Israelites could also obligate themselves to Israel’s covenant (Exod 12:48; cp. Gen 34:15-24), and circumcision marked their inclusion into the worshiping community (e.g., Exod 12:44).<\/p>\n<p>Circumcision would help Israel recognize and remember that they must lay aside natural impurity. God’s people had to be loyal to the covenant, to the family, and to their own marriages. Intermarriage with uncircumcised people who were not of the covenant was a violation of the covenant. Any man who refused to be circumcised (physically <em>cut<\/em> in this symbolic way) would be <em>cut<\/em> off from the covenant people because of his disobedience to God’s command (Gen 17:14).<\/p>\n<p>Circumcision is a symbol of separation from the world, of purity, and of loyalty to the covenant. It provides the powerful metaphor of “circumcision of the heart,” which designates a heart that is committed to God and is inwardly set apart to God, rather than being stubbornly resistant (Lev 26:41; Deut 30:6; Jer 4:4; 9:26; Eph 2:11). Circumcision of the heart evidences salvation and fellowship with God (see Ezek 18:31-32; 36:25-27; Rom 2:28-29; 4:11).<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus Christ established God’s new covenant, he fulfilled the requirements of the old covenant. It is not necessary for Gentile believers to be circumcised, since they are incorporated into the people of God through faith in Christ (Acts 15:1-29; Rom 2:25-29; Gal 2:1-10; 6:15; Col 2:11-12). One must turn in confidence to God and his promises, lay aside sinful behavior and the customs of the world, and live a new life by faith (see Jer 31:33-34; Rom 8:1-17; Gal 5:16–6:10).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 17:9-14, 23-27; 21:4; 34:1-26; Exod 4:24-26; 12:48; Lev 12:3; Josh 5:2-8; Jer 9:25-26; Ezek 44:7-9; Luke 1:59; 2:21; Acts 15:1-31; 16:1-5; Rom 2:25-29; 1 Cor 7:17-19; Gal 5:1-6, 11-12; 6:12-16; Eph 2:11-18; Phil 3:2-7; Col 2:11; 3:11<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Circumcision<\/h3>\n<p>Circumcision, the removal of the male foreskin, was practiced by a number of cultures in the ancient world (see Jer 9:25-26).<\/p>\n<p>God chose circumcision as the sign of a covenant that focuses on descendants. God had promised to make Abraham and his descendants into a great nation (Gen 12:2; 17:3-6) and to use them to redeem the Gentile nations (12:3; see Gal 3:8-9). Circumcision was God’s signature in flesh; it would identify Abraham and his descendants as God’s own people (Gen 17:9-14) and remind them to live in faithfulness to the covenant.<\/p>\n<p>Although circumcision was applied to adult males when they joined the covenant community (Gen 17:23-27; Exod 12:48; Josh 5:3-7), it was usually performed on infants (Gen 21:4; Lev 12:3), who received God’s promises and membership in the covenant community through their parents. Faith was required in order to receive God’s blessings, however, as can be seen in the differentiation between Ishmael and Isaac, Esau and Jacob, and Joseph and his brothers. Non-Israelites could also obligate themselves to Israel’s covenant (Exod 12:48; cp. Gen 34:15-24), and circumcision marked their inclusion into the worshiping community (e.g., Exod 12:44).<\/p>\n<p>Circumcision would help Israel recognize and remember that they must lay aside natural impurity. God’s people had to be loyal to the covenant, to the family, and to their own marriages. Intermarriage with uncircumcised people who were not of the covenant was a violation of the covenant. Any man who refused to be circumcised (physically <em>cut<\/em> in this symbolic way) would be <em>cut<\/em> off from the covenant people because of his disobedience to God’s command (Gen 17:14).<\/p>\n<p>Circumcision is a symbol of separation from the world, of purity, and of loyalty to the covenant. It provides the powerful metaphor of “circumcision of the heart,” which designates a heart that is committed to God and is inwardly set apart to God, rather than being stubbornly resistant (Lev 26:41; Deut 30:6; Jer 4:4; 9:26; Eph 2:11). Circumcision of the heart evidences salvation and fellowship with God (see Ezek 18:31-32; 36:25-27; Rom 2:28-29; 4:11).<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus Christ established God’s new covenant, he fulfilled the requirements of the old covenant. It is not necessary for Gentile believers to be circumcised, since they are incorporated into the people of God through faith in Christ (Acts 15:1-29; Rom 2:25-29; Gal 2:1-10; 6:15; Col 2:11-12). One must turn in confidence to God and his promises, lay aside sinful behavior and the customs of the world, and live a new life by faith (see Jer 31:33-34; Rom 8:1-17; Gal 5:16–6:10).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 17:9-14, 23-27; 21:4; 34:1-26; Exod 4:24-26; 12:48; Lev 12:3; Josh 5:2-8; Jer 9:25-26; Ezek 44:7-9; Luke 1:59; 2:21; Acts 15:1-31; 16:1-5; Rom 2:25-29; 1 Cor 7:17-19; Gal 5:1-6, 11-12; 6:12-16; Eph 2:11-18; Phil 3:2-7; Col 2:11; 3:11<\/p>","summary_ro":"Circumcision Circumcision, the removal of the male foreskin, was practiced by a number of cultures in the ancient world (see Jer 9:25-26). God chose circumcision as the sign of a covenant that focuses on descendants. God had promised to make Abraham and his descendants into a great nation (Gen 12:2; 17:3-6) and to use them to redeem the Gentile nations (12:3; see Gal 3:8-9). Circumcision was God’s signature in flesh; it would identify Abraham and his descendants as God’s own people (Gen 17:9-...","summary_en":"Circumcision Circumcision, the removal of the male foreskin, was practiced by a number of cultures in the ancient world (see Jer 9:25-26). God chose circumcision as the sign of a covenant that focuses on descendants. God had promised to make Abraham and his descendants into a great nation (Gen 12:2; 17:3-6) and to use them to redeem the Gentile nations (12:3; see Gal 3:8-9). Circumcision was God’s signature in flesh; it would identify Abraham and his descendants as God’s own people (Gen 17:9-...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":142793,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Circumcision","title_en":"Circumcision","content_ro":"<h3>Circumcision<\/h3>\n<p>Circumcision, the removal of the male foreskin, was practiced by a number of cultures in the ancient world (see Jer 9:25-26).<\/p>\n<p>God chose circumcision as the sign of a covenant that focuses on descendants. God had promised to make Abraham and his descendants into a great nation (Gen 12:2; 17:3-6) and to use them to redeem the Gentile nations (12:3; see Gal 3:8-9). Circumcision was God’s signature in flesh; it would identify Abraham and his descendants as God’s own people (Gen 17:9-14) and remind them to live in faithfulness to the covenant.<\/p>\n<p>Although circumcision was applied to adult males when they joined the covenant community (Gen 17:23-27; Exod 12:48; Josh 5:3-7), it was usually performed on infants (Gen 21:4; Lev 12:3), who received God’s promises and membership in the covenant community through their parents. Faith was required in order to receive God’s blessings, however, as can be seen in the differentiation between Ishmael and Isaac, Esau and Jacob, and Joseph and his brothers. Non-Israelites could also obligate themselves to Israel’s covenant (Exod 12:48; cp. Gen 34:15-24), and circumcision marked their inclusion into the worshiping community (e.g., Exod 12:44).<\/p>\n<p>Circumcision would help Israel recognize and remember that they must lay aside natural impurity. God’s people had to be loyal to the covenant, to the family, and to their own marriages. Intermarriage with uncircumcised people who were not of the covenant was a violation of the covenant. Any man who refused to be circumcised (physically <em>cut<\/em> in this symbolic way) would be <em>cut<\/em> off from the covenant people because of his disobedience to God’s command (Gen 17:14).<\/p>\n<p>Circumcision is a symbol of separation from the world, of purity, and of loyalty to the covenant. It provides the powerful metaphor of “circumcision of the heart,” which designates a heart that is committed to God and is inwardly set apart to God, rather than being stubbornly resistant (Lev 26:41; Deut 30:6; Jer 4:4; 9:26; Eph 2:11). Circumcision of the heart evidences salvation and fellowship with God (see Ezek 18:31-32; 36:25-27; Rom 2:28-29; 4:11).<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus Christ established God’s new covenant, he fulfilled the requirements of the old covenant. It is not necessary for Gentile believers to be circumcised, since they are incorporated into the people of God through faith in Christ (Acts 15:1-29; Rom 2:25-29; Gal 2:1-10; 6:15; Col 2:11-12). One must turn in confidence to God and his promises, lay aside sinful behavior and the customs of the world, and live a new life by faith (see Jer 31:33-34; Rom 8:1-17; Gal 5:16–6:10).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 17:9-14, 23-27; 21:4; 34:1-26; Exod 4:24-26; 12:48; Lev 12:3; Josh 5:2-8; Jer 9:25-26; Ezek 44:7-9; Luke 1:59; 2:21; Acts 15:1-31; 16:1-5; Rom 2:25-29; 1 Cor 7:17-19; Gal 5:1-6, 11-12; 6:12-16; Eph 2:11-18; Phil 3:2-7; Col 2:11; 3:11<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Circumcision<\/h3>\n<p>Circumcision, the removal of the male foreskin, was practiced by a number of cultures in the ancient world (see Jer 9:25-26).<\/p>\n<p>God chose circumcision as the sign of a covenant that focuses on descendants. God had promised to make Abraham and his descendants into a great nation (Gen 12:2; 17:3-6) and to use them to redeem the Gentile nations (12:3; see Gal 3:8-9). Circumcision was God’s signature in flesh; it would identify Abraham and his descendants as God’s own people (Gen 17:9-14) and remind them to live in faithfulness to the covenant.<\/p>\n<p>Although circumcision was applied to adult males when they joined the covenant community (Gen 17:23-27; Exod 12:48; Josh 5:3-7), it was usually performed on infants (Gen 21:4; Lev 12:3), who received God’s promises and membership in the covenant community through their parents. Faith was required in order to receive God’s blessings, however, as can be seen in the differentiation between Ishmael and Isaac, Esau and Jacob, and Joseph and his brothers. Non-Israelites could also obligate themselves to Israel’s covenant (Exod 12:48; cp. Gen 34:15-24), and circumcision marked their inclusion into the worshiping community (e.g., Exod 12:44).<\/p>\n<p>Circumcision would help Israel recognize and remember that they must lay aside natural impurity. God’s people had to be loyal to the covenant, to the family, and to their own marriages. Intermarriage with uncircumcised people who were not of the covenant was a violation of the covenant. Any man who refused to be circumcised (physically <em>cut<\/em> in this symbolic way) would be <em>cut<\/em> off from the covenant people because of his disobedience to God’s command (Gen 17:14).<\/p>\n<p>Circumcision is a symbol of separation from the world, of purity, and of loyalty to the covenant. It provides the powerful metaphor of “circumcision of the heart,” which designates a heart that is committed to God and is inwardly set apart to God, rather than being stubbornly resistant (Lev 26:41; Deut 30:6; Jer 4:4; 9:26; Eph 2:11). Circumcision of the heart evidences salvation and fellowship with God (see Ezek 18:31-32; 36:25-27; Rom 2:28-29; 4:11).<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus Christ established God’s new covenant, he fulfilled the requirements of the old covenant. It is not necessary for Gentile believers to be circumcised, since they are incorporated into the people of God through faith in Christ (Acts 15:1-29; Rom 2:25-29; Gal 2:1-10; 6:15; Col 2:11-12). One must turn in confidence to God and his promises, lay aside sinful behavior and the customs of the world, and live a new life by faith (see Jer 31:33-34; Rom 8:1-17; Gal 5:16–6:10).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 17:9-14, 23-27; 21:4; 34:1-26; Exod 4:24-26; 12:48; Lev 12:3; Josh 5:2-8; Jer 9:25-26; Ezek 44:7-9; Luke 1:59; 2:21; Acts 15:1-31; 16:1-5; Rom 2:25-29; 1 Cor 7:17-19; Gal 5:1-6, 11-12; 6:12-16; Eph 2:11-18; Phil 3:2-7; Col 2:11; 3:11<\/p>","summary_ro":"Circumcision Circumcision, the removal of the male foreskin, was practiced by a number of cultures in the ancient world (see Jer 9:25-26). God chose circumcision as the sign of a covenant that focuses on descendants. God had promised to make Abraham and his descendants into a great nation (Gen 12:2; 17:3-6) and to use them to redeem the Gentile nations (12:3; see Gal 3:8-9). Circumcision was God’s signature in flesh; it would identify Abraham and his descendants as God’s own people (Gen 17:9-...","summary_en":"Circumcision Circumcision, the removal of the male foreskin, was practiced by a number of cultures in the ancient world (see Jer 9:25-26). God chose circumcision as the sign of a covenant that focuses on descendants. God had promised to make Abraham and his descendants into a great nation (Gen 12:2; 17:3-6) and to use them to redeem the Gentile nations (12:3; see Gal 3:8-9). Circumcision was God’s signature in flesh; it would identify Abraham and his descendants as God’s own people (Gen 17:9-...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"18":[{"id":43366,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 34:18","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 34:18","content_ro":"<p><strong>34:18-24<\/strong> The Canaanites accepted the stipulation and <em>every male in the town was circumcised<\/em>. This was not just to allow Shechem to marry Dinah, but to give them the opportunity to acquire everything that Jacob possessed (34:23).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>34:18-24<\/strong> The Canaanites accepted the stipulation and <em>every male in the town was circumcised<\/em>. This was not just to allow Shechem to marry Dinah, but to give them the opportunity to acquire everything that Jacob possessed (34:23).<\/p>","summary_ro":"34:18-24 The Canaanites accepted the stipulation and every male in the town was circumcised. This was not just to allow Shechem to marry Dinah, but to give them the opportunity to acquire everything that Jacob possessed (34:23).","summary_en":"34:18-24 The Canaanites accepted the stipulation and every male in the town was circumcised. This was not just to allow Shechem to marry Dinah, but to give them the opportunity to acquire everything that Jacob possessed (34:23).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":70992,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 34:18","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 34:18","content_ro":"<p><strong>34:18-24<\/strong> The Canaanites accepted the stipulation and <em>every male in the town was circumcised<\/em>. This was not just to allow Shechem to marry Dinah, but to give them the opportunity to acquire everything that Jacob possessed (34:23).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>34:18-24<\/strong> The Canaanites accepted the stipulation and <em>every male in the town was circumcised<\/em>. This was not just to allow Shechem to marry Dinah, but to give them the opportunity to acquire everything that Jacob possessed (34:23).<\/p>","summary_ro":"34:18-24 The Canaanites accepted the stipulation and every male in the town was circumcised. This was not just to allow Shechem to marry Dinah, but to give them the opportunity to acquire everything that Jacob possessed (34:23).","summary_en":"34:18-24 The Canaanites accepted the stipulation and every male in the town was circumcised. This was not just to allow Shechem to marry Dinah, but to give them the opportunity to acquire everything that Jacob possessed (34:23).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":98618,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 34:18","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 34:18","content_ro":"<p><strong>34:18-24<\/strong> The Canaanites accepted the stipulation and <em>every male in the town was circumcised<\/em>. This was not just to allow Shechem to marry Dinah, but to give them the opportunity to acquire everything that Jacob possessed (34:23).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>34:18-24<\/strong> The Canaanites accepted the stipulation and <em>every male in the town was circumcised<\/em>. This was not just to allow Shechem to marry Dinah, but to give them the opportunity to acquire everything that Jacob possessed (34:23).<\/p>","summary_ro":"34:18-24 The Canaanites accepted the stipulation and every male in the town was circumcised. This was not just to allow Shechem to marry Dinah, but to give them the opportunity to acquire everything that Jacob possessed (34:23).","summary_en":"34:18-24 The Canaanites accepted the stipulation and every male in the town was circumcised. This was not just to allow Shechem to marry Dinah, but to give them the opportunity to acquire everything that Jacob possessed (34:23).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":126244,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 34:18","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 34:18","content_ro":"<p><strong>34:18-24<\/strong> The Canaanites accepted the stipulation and <em>every male in the town was circumcised<\/em>. This was not just to allow Shechem to marry Dinah, but to give them the opportunity to acquire everything that Jacob possessed (34:23).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>34:18-24<\/strong> The Canaanites accepted the stipulation and <em>every male in the town was circumcised<\/em>. This was not just to allow Shechem to marry Dinah, but to give them the opportunity to acquire everything that Jacob possessed (34:23).<\/p>","summary_ro":"34:18-24 The Canaanites accepted the stipulation and every male in the town was circumcised. This was not just to allow Shechem to marry Dinah, but to give them the opportunity to acquire everything that Jacob possessed (34:23).","summary_en":"34:18-24 The Canaanites accepted the stipulation and every male in the town was circumcised. This was not just to allow Shechem to marry Dinah, but to give them the opportunity to acquire everything that Jacob possessed (34:23).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"20":[{"id":34759,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Shechem (Place)","title_en":"Shechem (Place)","content_ro":"<h3>SHECHEM (P<span>lace<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<p>Town in the center of western Palestine, near the watershed that separates the waters that flow to the Jordan from those that descend to the Mediterranean. The site is 40 miles (64.4 kilometers) north of Jerusalem at the eastern entrance to the pass between Mt Ebal and Mt Gerizim. The ancient town stood on the lower southeastern slope or shoulder of Mt Ebal, hence the meaning of the name (Shechem = shoulder). Samaria, later capital of Israel, was about eight miles (12.9 kilometers) northwest. Although strategically located—the town controlled all roads through the central hill country of Palestine—it was without natural defenses and required extensive fortifications.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"BiblicalReferences\">Biblical References<\/p>\n<p>Shechem first appears in the Bible as the initial campsite of Abram after he entered Canaan from Mesopotamia. There God promised him the land of Canaan, and there Abram built his first altar in the land (Gn 12:6-7). After Jacob’s 20-year sojourn in northern Mesopotamia at Paddan-aram, he returned to Shechem and bought a piece of land. By this time, the place was already a walled city with a gate (34:20, 24). After the defilement of their sister Dinah, Simeon and Levi massacred Shechem’s male population in revenge. Years later, when the patriarchal family was living in the Hebron area, Joseph went to Shechem to look for his brothers (37:12-14).<\/p>\n<p>After the Conquest, the ceremony of antiphonal blessing and cursing on Mt Gerizim and Mt Ebal, respectively, was fulfilled in the vicinity of Shechem (Jos 8:30-35). In the division and settlement of the land, Shechem became one of the cities of refuge (20:7; 21:21) and one of the 48 Levitical cities (21:21). There Joshua delivered his farewell address (24:1, 25), and the bones of Joseph were buried on the land Jacob had bought there (v 32).<\/p>\n<p>During the unsettled days of the judges, Gideon’s son Abimelech set himself up as king of Israel there, at first with the support of the inhabitants. But a later revolt against him resulted in destruction of the city (Jgs 9:1-7, 23-57). Rehoboam was crowned there just before the split of the kingdom (1 Kgs 12:1), and Jeroboam, first king of the northern kingdom, rebuilt the city and made it the first capital of the kingdom.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"History\">History<\/p>\n<p>Excavations reveal that the earliest settlement at the site dates back to the fourth millennium <span>BC<\/span>, but the first significant settlement occurred during the first half of the second millennium and was the work of Amorites or Hyksos. The Hyksos surrounded the city with an immense sloping embankment about 80 feet (24.4 meters) wide and 20 feet (6.1 meters) high, upon which they built a brick wall. There was a two-entry gate on the east side and a three-entry gate on the northwest side. On the acropolis they built what has been interpreted as a fortress temple, which was rebuilt several times and finally destroyed by the Egyptians in about 1550 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>About a century later, the Canaanites rebuilt Shechem on a smaller scale. A new fortress temple was built on the ruins of the old one and measured 53 feet (16.2 meters) wide and 41 feet (12.5 meters) deep, with an entrance on the long side. It had three sacred standing stones next to an altar in the open court. This temple is believed to be the house of Baal-berith destroyed by Abimelech about 1150 <span>BC<\/span> (Jgs 9:3-4, 46), and its sacred area was never rebuilt. Before that, however, there is no archaeological evidence of destruction for some 300 years, confirming the biblical indication that the Hebrews did not take the city at the time of the Conquest and that the inhabitants lived peaceably among the Hebrews.<\/p>\n<p>Evidently, Solomon rebuilt Shechem as a provincial capital, but it suffered great destruction late in the 10th century, probably at the hands of Shishak of Egypt when he invaded Palestine in 926 <span>BC<\/span> (1 Kgs 14:25). Shortly thereafter, Jeroboam I refortified the city and made it the capital of the kingdom of Israel. Either he or a successor built a government warehouse on the ruins of the temple. Israelite Shechem met its end at the hands of the Assyrian king Shalmaneser V in 724 <span>BC<\/span>, just before the destruction of Samaria, and the town was virtually uninhabited for about 400 years.<\/p>\n<p>In the fourth century, Alexander the Great established a camp on the site for his soldiers, and subsequently the Samaritans moved from Samaria and settled there. They built their temple on Mt Gerizim. John Hyrcanus probably destroyed Shechem for the last time in 128 <span>BC<\/span>. His violent opposition to the Samaritans involved destruction of their temple on Mt Gerizim and of Samaria at the same time.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SHECHEM (P<span>lace<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<p>Town in the center of western Palestine, near the watershed that separates the waters that flow to the Jordan from those that descend to the Mediterranean. The site is 40 miles (64.4 kilometers) north of Jerusalem at the eastern entrance to the pass between Mt Ebal and Mt Gerizim. The ancient town stood on the lower southeastern slope or shoulder of Mt Ebal, hence the meaning of the name (Shechem = shoulder). Samaria, later capital of Israel, was about eight miles (12.9 kilometers) northwest. Although strategically located—the town controlled all roads through the central hill country of Palestine—it was without natural defenses and required extensive fortifications.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"BiblicalReferences\">Biblical References<\/p>\n<p>Shechem first appears in the Bible as the initial campsite of Abram after he entered Canaan from Mesopotamia. There God promised him the land of Canaan, and there Abram built his first altar in the land (Gn 12:6-7). After Jacob’s 20-year sojourn in northern Mesopotamia at Paddan-aram, he returned to Shechem and bought a piece of land. By this time, the place was already a walled city with a gate (34:20, 24). After the defilement of their sister Dinah, Simeon and Levi massacred Shechem’s male population in revenge. Years later, when the patriarchal family was living in the Hebron area, Joseph went to Shechem to look for his brothers (37:12-14).<\/p>\n<p>After the Conquest, the ceremony of antiphonal blessing and cursing on Mt Gerizim and Mt Ebal, respectively, was fulfilled in the vicinity of Shechem (Jos 8:30-35). In the division and settlement of the land, Shechem became one of the cities of refuge (20:7; 21:21) and one of the 48 Levitical cities (21:21). There Joshua delivered his farewell address (24:1, 25), and the bones of Joseph were buried on the land Jacob had bought there (v 32).<\/p>\n<p>During the unsettled days of the judges, Gideon’s son Abimelech set himself up as king of Israel there, at first with the support of the inhabitants. But a later revolt against him resulted in destruction of the city (Jgs 9:1-7, 23-57). Rehoboam was crowned there just before the split of the kingdom (1 Kgs 12:1), and Jeroboam, first king of the northern kingdom, rebuilt the city and made it the first capital of the kingdom.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"History\">History<\/p>\n<p>Excavations reveal that the earliest settlement at the site dates back to the fourth millennium <span>BC<\/span>, but the first significant settlement occurred during the first half of the second millennium and was the work of Amorites or Hyksos. The Hyksos surrounded the city with an immense sloping embankment about 80 feet (24.4 meters) wide and 20 feet (6.1 meters) high, upon which they built a brick wall. There was a two-entry gate on the east side and a three-entry gate on the northwest side. On the acropolis they built what has been interpreted as a fortress temple, which was rebuilt several times and finally destroyed by the Egyptians in about 1550 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>About a century later, the Canaanites rebuilt Shechem on a smaller scale. A new fortress temple was built on the ruins of the old one and measured 53 feet (16.2 meters) wide and 41 feet (12.5 meters) deep, with an entrance on the long side. It had three sacred standing stones next to an altar in the open court. This temple is believed to be the house of Baal-berith destroyed by Abimelech about 1150 <span>BC<\/span> (Jgs 9:3-4, 46), and its sacred area was never rebuilt. Before that, however, there is no archaeological evidence of destruction for some 300 years, confirming the biblical indication that the Hebrews did not take the city at the time of the Conquest and that the inhabitants lived peaceably among the Hebrews.<\/p>\n<p>Evidently, Solomon rebuilt Shechem as a provincial capital, but it suffered great destruction late in the 10th century, probably at the hands of Shishak of Egypt when he invaded Palestine in 926 <span>BC<\/span> (1 Kgs 14:25). Shortly thereafter, Jeroboam I refortified the city and made it the capital of the kingdom of Israel. Either he or a successor built a government warehouse on the ruins of the temple. Israelite Shechem met its end at the hands of the Assyrian king Shalmaneser V in 724 <span>BC<\/span>, just before the destruction of Samaria, and the town was virtually uninhabited for about 400 years.<\/p>\n<p>In the fourth century, Alexander the Great established a camp on the site for his soldiers, and subsequently the Samaritans moved from Samaria and settled there. They built their temple on Mt Gerizim. John Hyrcanus probably destroyed Shechem for the last time in 128 <span>BC<\/span>. His violent opposition to the Samaritans involved destruction of their temple on Mt Gerizim and of Samaria at the same time.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SHECHEM (Place) Town in the center of western Palestine, near the watershed that separates the waters that flow to the Jordan from those that descend to the Mediterranean. The site is 40 miles (64.4 kilometers) north of Jerusalem at the eastern entrance to the pass between Mt Ebal and Mt Gerizim. The ancient town stood on the lower southeastern slope or shoulder of Mt Ebal, hence the meaning of the name (Shechem = shoulder). Samaria, later capital of Israel, was about eight miles (12.9 kilome...","summary_en":"SHECHEM (Place) Town in the center of western Palestine, near the watershed that separates the waters that flow to the Jordan from those that descend to the Mediterranean. The site is 40 miles (64.4 kilometers) north of Jerusalem at the eastern entrance to the pass between Mt Ebal and Mt Gerizim. The ancient town stood on the lower southeastern slope or shoulder of Mt Ebal, hence the meaning of the name (Shechem = shoulder). Samaria, later capital of Israel, was about eight miles (12.9 kilome...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"21":[{"id":29328,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Peace","title_en":"Peace","content_ro":"<h3>PEACE<\/h3>\n<p>Total well-being, prosperity, and security associated with God’s presence among his people. Linked in the OT with the covenant, the presence of peace was conditional, based on Israel’s obedience. In the prophetic writings, true peace is part of the end-time hope of God’s salvation. In the NT, this longed-for peace is understood as having come in Christ and can be experienced by the believers.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheOldTestament\">In the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Shalom<\/span><em>,<\/em> the most prominent OT term for “peace,” held a wide range of connotations (wholeness, health, security, well-being, and salvation) and could apply to an equally wide range of contexts: the state of the individual (Ps 37:37; Prv 3:2; Is 32:17), the relationship of person to person (Gn 34:21; Jos 9:15) or nation to nation (e.g., absence of conflict—Dt 2:26; Jos 10:21; 1 Kgs 5:12; Ps 122:6-7), and the relationship of God and people (Ps 85:8; Jer 16:5).<\/p>\n<p>The presence of <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">shalom<\/span> in any of these contexts was not considered ultimately as the outcome of human endeavor but as a gift or blessing of God (Lv 26:6; 1 Kgs 2:33; Jb 25:2; Pss 29:11; 85:8; Is 45:7). It is not surprising, therefore, to find “peace” tied closely to the OT notion of covenant. <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Shalom<\/span> was the desired state of harmony and communion between the two covenant partners—God and his people (Nm 6:26; cf. Is 54:10). Its presence signified God’s blessing in the covenant relationship (Mal 2:5; cf. Nm 25:12), and its absence signified the breakdown of that relationship due to Israel’s disobedience and unrighteousness (Jer 16:5, 10-13; cf. Ps 85:9-11; Is 32:17).<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Shalom<\/span> becomes a pivotal term in the prophetic writings. It was the “false” prophets who, forgetting the conditions for national well-being within the covenant relationship, assumed God’s loyalty to Israel (Ps 89) would guarantee political peace forever (Jer 6:14; 8:15; Ez 13:10, 16; Mi 3:5). Against such popular but false security, the preexilic prophets proclaimed the coming judgment precisely as a loss of this <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">shalom<\/span> due to Israel’s persistent disobedience and unrighteousness (Is 48:18; Jer 14:13-16; 16:5, 10-13; 28; Mi 3:4, 9-12).<\/p>\n<p>The prophets did, however, point beyond the crises of exile and subsequent setbacks to a time when <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">shalom<\/span><em>,<\/em> characterized by prosperity and well-being (Is 45:7; Ez 34:25-26), absence of conflict (Is 2:2-4; 32:15-20; Ez 34:28-31), right relations (Is 11:1-5; Mi 4:1-4; Zec 8:9-13), restoration of harmony in nature (Is 11:6-9; Ez 47:1-12), and salvation (Is 52:7; 60:17; Ez 34:30-31; 37:26-28) would again return. Often this eschatological (or end-time) expectation of peace in the OT was associated with a messianic figure, as in Isaiah 9:6, where the future Messiah is termed the “Prince of Peace.” Moreover, his reign would be one of “peace” not only for Israel but throughout the whole earth (Zec 9:9-10). The OT ends with this hope of peace still unrealized in its full sense.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheNewTestament\">In the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>The Greek term for “peace” used predominantly in the NT is <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">eirene<\/span><em>,<\/em> a word expanded from its classical Greek connotation of “rest” to include the various connotations of <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">shalom<\/span> discussed above. As with <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">shalom<\/span><em>,<\/em> <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">eirene<\/span> could be used as a greeting or farewell (as in “peace be with you”—Lk 10:5; Gal 6:16; Jas 2:16; cf. Jn 20:19), or could signify the cessation of conflict (national—Lk 14:32; Acts 12:20; or interpersonal—Rom 14:19; Eph 4:3), or the presence of domestic tranquillity (cf. 1 Cor 7:15).<\/p>\n<p>The chief issue concerns how Jesus incorporated the OT hope for the eschatological peace of God into his ministry. In the “benedictus” of Zechariah (Lk 1:67-79), the coming of Jesus as the Messiah is expected to “guide our feet into the way of peace” (v 79). So also the angelic testimony to the shepherds proclaims Jesus as the bringer of God’s peace to people (2:14). That is, Jesus as the Messiah would usher in God’s reign of peace. Jesus’ self-understanding as expressed in the fourth Gospel corresponds to this association. This long-expected peace of God is Jesus’ farewell gift to the disciples (Jn 14:27); it is given to them when he breathed his Spirit into them (20:19-22).<\/p>\n<p>The nature of this gift of peace brought by Jesus may be easier to explain by stating what it is not. It is not an end to tension or the absence of warfare. It is not domestic tranquillity nor anything like the worldly estimation of peace (Lk 12:51-53; Jn 14:27; 16:32-33). Its presence may, on the contrary, actually disturb existing relations, being a dividing “sword” in familial relations (Mt 10:34-37). Jesus’ gift of peace is, in reality, the character and mood of the new covenant of his blood that reconciles God to people (Rom 5:1; Col 1:20) and forms the basis of subsequent reconciliation between divergent people (Eph 2:14-22).<\/p>\n<p>The early church understood “peace” to be the final, end-time salvation of God given already through Jesus Christ (cf. Phil 4:7-9). This understanding of “peace” altered the content of the common greeting “go in peace” as it was taken up in the Christian community. In Paul’s common “grace and peace” greeting (1 Cor 1:3; 2 Cor 1:2; Gal 1:3; Eph 1:2, etc.; cf. also 1 Pt 1:2; 2 Jn 1:3; Jude 1:2; Rv 1:4), it is no longer a mere wish for peace that Paul extends to his readers but is a reminder of the messianic gifts available in the present time through Christ to the man of faith. In accord with this, Jesus is described as “peace” itself (Eph 2:14), while God, too, because of his act of reconciliation through Christ, is known as a “God of peace” (Phil 4:9; Col 3:15).<\/p>\n<p>This gift of peace or reconciliation with God, made available through Christ, places an ethical demand on the Christian; it calls for the exercises of “peace” (as reconciliation between persons) within the church. Peace, as a fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22), is to be the goal of the Christian’s dealings with others (Rom 12:18; 14:19; Heb 12:14).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>PEACE<\/h3>\n<p>Total well-being, prosperity, and security associated with God’s presence among his people. Linked in the OT with the covenant, the presence of peace was conditional, based on Israel’s obedience. In the prophetic writings, true peace is part of the end-time hope of God’s salvation. In the NT, this longed-for peace is understood as having come in Christ and can be experienced by the believers.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheOldTestament\">In the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Shalom<\/span><em>,<\/em> the most prominent OT term for “peace,” held a wide range of connotations (wholeness, health, security, well-being, and salvation) and could apply to an equally wide range of contexts: the state of the individual (Ps 37:37; Prv 3:2; Is 32:17), the relationship of person to person (Gn 34:21; Jos 9:15) or nation to nation (e.g., absence of conflict—Dt 2:26; Jos 10:21; 1 Kgs 5:12; Ps 122:6-7), and the relationship of God and people (Ps 85:8; Jer 16:5).<\/p>\n<p>The presence of <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">shalom<\/span> in any of these contexts was not considered ultimately as the outcome of human endeavor but as a gift or blessing of God (Lv 26:6; 1 Kgs 2:33; Jb 25:2; Pss 29:11; 85:8; Is 45:7). It is not surprising, therefore, to find “peace” tied closely to the OT notion of covenant. <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Shalom<\/span> was the desired state of harmony and communion between the two covenant partners—God and his people (Nm 6:26; cf. Is 54:10). Its presence signified God’s blessing in the covenant relationship (Mal 2:5; cf. Nm 25:12), and its absence signified the breakdown of that relationship due to Israel’s disobedience and unrighteousness (Jer 16:5, 10-13; cf. Ps 85:9-11; Is 32:17).<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Shalom<\/span> becomes a pivotal term in the prophetic writings. It was the “false” prophets who, forgetting the conditions for national well-being within the covenant relationship, assumed God’s loyalty to Israel (Ps 89) would guarantee political peace forever (Jer 6:14; 8:15; Ez 13:10, 16; Mi 3:5). Against such popular but false security, the preexilic prophets proclaimed the coming judgment precisely as a loss of this <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">shalom<\/span> due to Israel’s persistent disobedience and unrighteousness (Is 48:18; Jer 14:13-16; 16:5, 10-13; 28; Mi 3:4, 9-12).<\/p>\n<p>The prophets did, however, point beyond the crises of exile and subsequent setbacks to a time when <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">shalom<\/span><em>,<\/em> characterized by prosperity and well-being (Is 45:7; Ez 34:25-26), absence of conflict (Is 2:2-4; 32:15-20; Ez 34:28-31), right relations (Is 11:1-5; Mi 4:1-4; Zec 8:9-13), restoration of harmony in nature (Is 11:6-9; Ez 47:1-12), and salvation (Is 52:7; 60:17; Ez 34:30-31; 37:26-28) would again return. Often this eschatological (or end-time) expectation of peace in the OT was associated with a messianic figure, as in Isaiah 9:6, where the future Messiah is termed the “Prince of Peace.” Moreover, his reign would be one of “peace” not only for Israel but throughout the whole earth (Zec 9:9-10). The OT ends with this hope of peace still unrealized in its full sense.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheNewTestament\">In the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>The Greek term for “peace” used predominantly in the NT is <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">eirene<\/span><em>,<\/em> a word expanded from its classical Greek connotation of “rest” to include the various connotations of <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">shalom<\/span> discussed above. As with <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">shalom<\/span><em>,<\/em> <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">eirene<\/span> could be used as a greeting or farewell (as in “peace be with you”—Lk 10:5; Gal 6:16; Jas 2:16; cf. Jn 20:19), or could signify the cessation of conflict (national—Lk 14:32; Acts 12:20; or interpersonal—Rom 14:19; Eph 4:3), or the presence of domestic tranquillity (cf. 1 Cor 7:15).<\/p>\n<p>The chief issue concerns how Jesus incorporated the OT hope for the eschatological peace of God into his ministry. In the “benedictus” of Zechariah (Lk 1:67-79), the coming of Jesus as the Messiah is expected to “guide our feet into the way of peace” (v 79). So also the angelic testimony to the shepherds proclaims Jesus as the bringer of God’s peace to people (2:14). That is, Jesus as the Messiah would usher in God’s reign of peace. Jesus’ self-understanding as expressed in the fourth Gospel corresponds to this association. This long-expected peace of God is Jesus’ farewell gift to the disciples (Jn 14:27); it is given to them when he breathed his Spirit into them (20:19-22).<\/p>\n<p>The nature of this gift of peace brought by Jesus may be easier to explain by stating what it is not. It is not an end to tension or the absence of warfare. It is not domestic tranquillity nor anything like the worldly estimation of peace (Lk 12:51-53; Jn 14:27; 16:32-33). Its presence may, on the contrary, actually disturb existing relations, being a dividing “sword” in familial relations (Mt 10:34-37). Jesus’ gift of peace is, in reality, the character and mood of the new covenant of his blood that reconciles God to people (Rom 5:1; Col 1:20) and forms the basis of subsequent reconciliation between divergent people (Eph 2:14-22).<\/p>\n<p>The early church understood “peace” to be the final, end-time salvation of God given already through Jesus Christ (cf. Phil 4:7-9). This understanding of “peace” altered the content of the common greeting “go in peace” as it was taken up in the Christian community. In Paul’s common “grace and peace” greeting (1 Cor 1:3; 2 Cor 1:2; Gal 1:3; Eph 1:2, etc.; cf. also 1 Pt 1:2; 2 Jn 1:3; Jude 1:2; Rv 1:4), it is no longer a mere wish for peace that Paul extends to his readers but is a reminder of the messianic gifts available in the present time through Christ to the man of faith. In accord with this, Jesus is described as “peace” itself (Eph 2:14), while God, too, because of his act of reconciliation through Christ, is known as a “God of peace” (Phil 4:9; Col 3:15).<\/p>\n<p>This gift of peace or reconciliation with God, made available through Christ, places an ethical demand on the Christian; it calls for the exercises of “peace” (as reconciliation between persons) within the church. Peace, as a fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22), is to be the goal of the Christian’s dealings with others (Rom 12:18; 14:19; Heb 12:14).<\/p>","summary_ro":"PEACE Total well-being, prosperity, and security associated with God’s presence among his people. Linked in the OT with the covenant, the presence of peace was conditional, based on Israel’s obedience. In the prophetic writings, true peace is part of the end-time hope of God’s salvation. In the NT, this longed-for peace is understood as having come in Christ and can be experienced by the believers. In the Old Testament Shalom, the most prominent OT term for “peace,” held a wide range of conno...","summary_en":"PEACE Total well-being, prosperity, and security associated with God’s presence among his people. Linked in the OT with the covenant, the presence of peace was conditional, based on Israel’s obedience. In the prophetic writings, true peace is part of the end-time hope of God’s salvation. In the NT, this longed-for peace is understood as having come in Christ and can be experienced by the believers. In the Old Testament Shalom, the most prominent OT term for “peace,” held a wide range of conno...","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"25":[{"id":22999,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Tribe of Levi","title_en":"Tribe of Levi","content_ro":"<h3>LEVI, Tribe of<\/h3>\n<p>Israelite tribe taking its name from the third son of Leah and Jacob (Gn 29:34). The meaning of the name (“attached”) is a pun on Leah’s position as an unloved wife: now that she has borne three sons to Jacob, surely he will be “attached” to her. Elsewhere, by a similar pun, the tribe of Levi is described as “attached” to Aaron (Nm 18:2).<\/p>\n<p>Levi appears with Simeon at the treacherous slaughter of the inhabitants of Canaanite Shechem (Gn 34:25-29). This brings Jacob’s rebuke at the time (v 30) and his deathbed curse (49:5-7), foretelling that the descendants of Levi and Simeon will be scattered throughout Israel. This does not seem a likely background for God’s priestly tribe, but so it proved to be, for it was as a priestly tribe that Levi was scattered through Israel, while Simeon merely melted into the desert south of Judah.<\/p>\n<p>At first Levi was apparently a “secular” tribe like any other. True, Moses and Aaron were of Levi (Ex 2:1), but no stress is laid on this. Levi’s later position was God’s reward for its costly faithfulness when Israel rebelled against God (32:25-29); this inaugurated the “covenant with Levi” (Nm 18:19). Henceforth the tribe of Levi would be accepted by God instead of Israel’s firstborn sons, who belonged to him by the law of “firstfruits” (3:11-13). Levi, as a tribe, could therefore own no tribal territory: God himself was their inheritance (18:20). However, they were given 48 villages, with their pasturelands, in which to live (Jos 21:1-42). These included the six cities of refuge (ch 20).<\/p>\n<p>Since Levi could not amass wealth, the tribe was to be supported by gifts and tithes (Nm 18:21); like the widow, orphan, and stranger, they were commended to the care of God’s people (Dt 14:29). Since they were God’s tribe, Joab was unwilling to include Levi in David’s census (1 Chr 21:6; cf. Nm 1:49). Naturally, Levi did not serve in war except in a religious capacity (2 Chr 20:21). Their service pertained to the meeting tent (Nm 1:50-53) and later the temple (1 Chr 23:25-32). Within Levi the Bible makes a clear distinction between (1) the high priest (sometimes merely called “the priest,” 1 Sm 1:9), who came from one branch of Aaron’s family; (2) the rest of the priests, also of particular families; and (3) a mass of subordinate Levites, who had lesser tasks. In early days they packed and moved the portable tent of meeting (Nm 1:50-51), as well as did other duties; in later days they served as porters and choristers (1 Chr 16:42). The duties of Levi are summarized in Deuteronomy 33:8-11, where oracular guidance and theological instruction are just as important as their priestly duties. It is therefore no surprise that Jehoshaphat later used them as teachers of law (2 Chr 17:7-9). Nevertheless, the ordinary Israelite thought of them primarily as priestly (Jgs 17:13).<\/p>\n<p>Later references to the lasting covenant with Levi are found in Jeremiah 33:20-26 and Malachi 3:3-4. Members of the tribe returned from the exile (Ezr 2:36-42), apparently more coming from the priestly than the wider Levitical section. Barnabas, in NT days, belonged to the tribe of Levi (Acts 4:36). Indeed, among modern Jews, wherever the surname Levy is found, a member of the tribe probably lives on.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Priests and Levites.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>LEVI, Tribe of<\/h3>\n<p>Israelite tribe taking its name from the third son of Leah and Jacob (Gn 29:34). The meaning of the name (“attached”) is a pun on Leah’s position as an unloved wife: now that she has borne three sons to Jacob, surely he will be “attached” to her. Elsewhere, by a similar pun, the tribe of Levi is described as “attached” to Aaron (Nm 18:2).<\/p>\n<p>Levi appears with Simeon at the treacherous slaughter of the inhabitants of Canaanite Shechem (Gn 34:25-29). This brings Jacob’s rebuke at the time (v 30) and his deathbed curse (49:5-7), foretelling that the descendants of Levi and Simeon will be scattered throughout Israel. This does not seem a likely background for God’s priestly tribe, but so it proved to be, for it was as a priestly tribe that Levi was scattered through Israel, while Simeon merely melted into the desert south of Judah.<\/p>\n<p>At first Levi was apparently a “secular” tribe like any other. True, Moses and Aaron were of Levi (Ex 2:1), but no stress is laid on this. Levi’s later position was God’s reward for its costly faithfulness when Israel rebelled against God (32:25-29); this inaugurated the “covenant with Levi” (Nm 18:19). Henceforth the tribe of Levi would be accepted by God instead of Israel’s firstborn sons, who belonged to him by the law of “firstfruits” (3:11-13). Levi, as a tribe, could therefore own no tribal territory: God himself was their inheritance (18:20). However, they were given 48 villages, with their pasturelands, in which to live (Jos 21:1-42). These included the six cities of refuge (ch 20).<\/p>\n<p>Since Levi could not amass wealth, the tribe was to be supported by gifts and tithes (Nm 18:21); like the widow, orphan, and stranger, they were commended to the care of God’s people (Dt 14:29). Since they were God’s tribe, Joab was unwilling to include Levi in David’s census (1 Chr 21:6; cf. Nm 1:49). Naturally, Levi did not serve in war except in a religious capacity (2 Chr 20:21). Their service pertained to the meeting tent (Nm 1:50-53) and later the temple (1 Chr 23:25-32). Within Levi the Bible makes a clear distinction between (1) the high priest (sometimes merely called “the priest,” 1 Sm 1:9), who came from one branch of Aaron’s family; (2) the rest of the priests, also of particular families; and (3) a mass of subordinate Levites, who had lesser tasks. In early days they packed and moved the portable tent of meeting (Nm 1:50-51), as well as did other duties; in later days they served as porters and choristers (1 Chr 16:42). The duties of Levi are summarized in Deuteronomy 33:8-11, where oracular guidance and theological instruction are just as important as their priestly duties. It is therefore no surprise that Jehoshaphat later used them as teachers of law (2 Chr 17:7-9). Nevertheless, the ordinary Israelite thought of them primarily as priestly (Jgs 17:13).<\/p>\n<p>Later references to the lasting covenant with Levi are found in Jeremiah 33:20-26 and Malachi 3:3-4. Members of the tribe returned from the exile (Ezr 2:36-42), apparently more coming from the priestly than the wider Levitical section. Barnabas, in NT days, belonged to the tribe of Levi (Acts 4:36). Indeed, among modern Jews, wherever the surname Levy is found, a member of the tribe probably lives on.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Priests and Levites.<\/p>","summary_ro":"LEVI, Tribe of Israelite tribe taking its name from the third son of Leah and Jacob (Gn 29:34). The meaning of the name (“attached”) is a pun on Leah’s position as an unloved wife: now that she has borne three sons to Jacob, surely he will be “attached” to her. Elsewhere, by a similar pun, the tribe of Levi is described as “attached” to Aaron (Nm 18:2). Levi appears with Simeon at the treacherous slaughter of the inhabitants of Canaanite Shechem (Gn 34:25-29). This brings Jacob’s rebuke at th...","summary_en":"LEVI, Tribe of Israelite tribe taking its name from the third son of Leah and Jacob (Gn 29:34). The meaning of the name (“attached”) is a pun on Leah’s position as an unloved wife: now that she has borne three sons to Jacob, surely he will be “attached” to her. Elsewhere, by a similar pun, the tribe of Levi is described as “attached” to Aaron (Nm 18:2). Levi appears with Simeon at the treacherous slaughter of the inhabitants of Canaanite Shechem (Gn 34:25-29). This brings Jacob’s rebuke at th...","source":"Articles\/L.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":35409,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Simeon (Person)","title_en":"Simeon (Person)","content_ro":"<h3>SIMEON (P<span>erson<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<li>1. Second of the 12 sons of Jacob (Gn 35:23; 1 Chr 2:1) and the second son borne to him by Leah (Gn 29:33). Simeon fathered six sons (Ex 6:15) and settled his family in Egypt with Jacob and his brothers (1:2). He was the founder of the Simeonites (Nm 26:12-14) and one of the 12 tribes of Israel (1:23). He is remembered most for his vengeance on the men of Shechem because of Dinah’s rape (Gn 34:25).<\/li>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Simeon, Tribe of.<\/p>\n<li>2. Pious Jew living in Jerusalem who was assured that he would not die before he saw the promised Messiah. Led by the Holy Spirit to the temple, Simeon met Mary and Joseph there, held Jesus in his arms, and prophesied about the Messiah’s coming mission (Lk 2:25-35).<\/li>\n<li>3. Ancestor of Jesus in Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:30). <em>See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/li>\n<li>4. One of five prophets and teachers mentioned in Acts 13:1 who was serving in the church of Antioch. Simeon was surnamed Niger and was perhaps from Africa. Symeon is a better reading of the Greek in this text.<\/li>\n<li>5. Reference to Simon Peter in Acts 15:14. <em>See<\/em> Peter, The Apostle.<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>SIMEON (P<span>erson<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<li>1. Second of the 12 sons of Jacob (Gn 35:23; 1 Chr 2:1) and the second son borne to him by Leah (Gn 29:33). Simeon fathered six sons (Ex 6:15) and settled his family in Egypt with Jacob and his brothers (1:2). He was the founder of the Simeonites (Nm 26:12-14) and one of the 12 tribes of Israel (1:23). He is remembered most for his vengeance on the men of Shechem because of Dinah’s rape (Gn 34:25).<\/li>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Simeon, Tribe of.<\/p>\n<li>2. Pious Jew living in Jerusalem who was assured that he would not die before he saw the promised Messiah. Led by the Holy Spirit to the temple, Simeon met Mary and Joseph there, held Jesus in his arms, and prophesied about the Messiah’s coming mission (Lk 2:25-35).<\/li>\n<li>3. Ancestor of Jesus in Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:30). <em>See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/li>\n<li>4. One of five prophets and teachers mentioned in Acts 13:1 who was serving in the church of Antioch. Simeon was surnamed Niger and was perhaps from Africa. Symeon is a better reading of the Greek in this text.<\/li>\n<li>5. Reference to Simon Peter in Acts 15:14. <em>See<\/em> Peter, The Apostle.<\/li>","summary_ro":"SIMEON (Person) 1. Second of the 12 sons of Jacob (Gn 35:23; 1 Chr 2:1) and the second son borne to him by Leah (Gn 29:33). Simeon fathered six sons (Ex 6:15) and settled his family in Egypt with Jacob and his brothers (1:2). He was the founder of the Simeonites (Nm 26:12-14) and one of the 12 tribes of Israel (1:23). He is remembered most for his vengeance on the men of Shechem because of Dinah’s rape (Gn 34:25). See also Simeon, Tribe of. 2. Pious Jew living in Jerusalem who was assured tha...","summary_en":"SIMEON (Person) 1. Second of the 12 sons of Jacob (Gn 35:23; 1 Chr 2:1) and the second son borne to him by Leah (Gn 29:33). Simeon fathered six sons (Ex 6:15) and settled his family in Egypt with Jacob and his brothers (1:2). He was the founder of the Simeonites (Nm 26:12-14) and one of the 12 tribes of Israel (1:23). He is remembered most for his vengeance on the men of Shechem because of Dinah’s rape (Gn 34:25). See also Simeon, Tribe of. 2. Pious Jew living in Jerusalem who was assured tha...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":43367,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 34:25","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 34:25","content_ro":"<p><strong>34:25-29<\/strong> When <em>Simeon and Levi<\/em> used circumcision to deceive and slaughter the Canaanites, they showed disdain for the sign of the covenant. Their slaughter of all the males and their plunder of the city was not justice, but brutal and excessive revenge. In their moral outrage and desire to right the wrong, they should have demanded compensation (see Exod 22:16-17; Deut 22:28-29). Instead, their passionate act of rage cost them their birthright blessing (Gen 49:5-7).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>34:25-29<\/strong> When <em>Simeon and Levi<\/em> used circumcision to deceive and slaughter the Canaanites, they showed disdain for the sign of the covenant. Their slaughter of all the males and their plunder of the city was not justice, but brutal and excessive revenge. In their moral outrage and desire to right the wrong, they should have demanded compensation (see Exod 22:16-17; Deut 22:28-29). Instead, their passionate act of rage cost them their birthright blessing (Gen 49:5-7).<\/p>","summary_ro":"34:25-29 When Simeon and Levi used circumcision to deceive and slaughter the Canaanites, they showed disdain for the sign of the covenant. Their slaughter of all the males and their plunder of the city was not justice, but brutal and excessive revenge. In their moral outrage and desire to right the wrong, they should have demanded compensation (see Exod 22:16-17; Deut 22:28-29). Instead, their passionate act of rage cost them their birthright blessing (Gen 49:5-7).","summary_en":"34:25-29 When Simeon and Levi used circumcision to deceive and slaughter the Canaanites, they showed disdain for the sign of the covenant. Their slaughter of all the males and their plunder of the city was not justice, but brutal and excessive revenge. In their moral outrage and desire to right the wrong, they should have demanded compensation (see Exod 22:16-17; Deut 22:28-29). Instead, their passionate act of rage cost them their birthright blessing (Gen 49:5-7).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":70993,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 34:25","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 34:25","content_ro":"<p><strong>34:25-29<\/strong> When <em>Simeon and Levi<\/em> used circumcision to deceive and slaughter the Canaanites, they showed disdain for the sign of the covenant. Their slaughter of all the males and their plunder of the city was not justice, but brutal and excessive revenge. In their moral outrage and desire to right the wrong, they should have demanded compensation (see Exod 22:16-17; Deut 22:28-29). Instead, their passionate act of rage cost them their birthright blessing (Gen 49:5-7).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>34:25-29<\/strong> When <em>Simeon and Levi<\/em> used circumcision to deceive and slaughter the Canaanites, they showed disdain for the sign of the covenant. Their slaughter of all the males and their plunder of the city was not justice, but brutal and excessive revenge. In their moral outrage and desire to right the wrong, they should have demanded compensation (see Exod 22:16-17; Deut 22:28-29). Instead, their passionate act of rage cost them their birthright blessing (Gen 49:5-7).<\/p>","summary_ro":"34:25-29 When Simeon and Levi used circumcision to deceive and slaughter the Canaanites, they showed disdain for the sign of the covenant. Their slaughter of all the males and their plunder of the city was not justice, but brutal and excessive revenge. In their moral outrage and desire to right the wrong, they should have demanded compensation (see Exod 22:16-17; Deut 22:28-29). Instead, their passionate act of rage cost them their birthright blessing (Gen 49:5-7).","summary_en":"34:25-29 When Simeon and Levi used circumcision to deceive and slaughter the Canaanites, they showed disdain for the sign of the covenant. Their slaughter of all the males and their plunder of the city was not justice, but brutal and excessive revenge. In their moral outrage and desire to right the wrong, they should have demanded compensation (see Exod 22:16-17; Deut 22:28-29). Instead, their passionate act of rage cost them their birthright blessing (Gen 49:5-7).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":98619,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 34:25","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 34:25","content_ro":"<p><strong>34:25-29<\/strong> When <em>Simeon and Levi<\/em> used circumcision to deceive and slaughter the Canaanites, they showed disdain for the sign of the covenant. Their slaughter of all the males and their plunder of the city was not justice, but brutal and excessive revenge. In their moral outrage and desire to right the wrong, they should have demanded compensation (see Exod 22:16-17; Deut 22:28-29). Instead, their passionate act of rage cost them their birthright blessing (Gen 49:5-7).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>34:25-29<\/strong> When <em>Simeon and Levi<\/em> used circumcision to deceive and slaughter the Canaanites, they showed disdain for the sign of the covenant. Their slaughter of all the males and their plunder of the city was not justice, but brutal and excessive revenge. In their moral outrage and desire to right the wrong, they should have demanded compensation (see Exod 22:16-17; Deut 22:28-29). Instead, their passionate act of rage cost them their birthright blessing (Gen 49:5-7).<\/p>","summary_ro":"34:25-29 When Simeon and Levi used circumcision to deceive and slaughter the Canaanites, they showed disdain for the sign of the covenant. Their slaughter of all the males and their plunder of the city was not justice, but brutal and excessive revenge. In their moral outrage and desire to right the wrong, they should have demanded compensation (see Exod 22:16-17; Deut 22:28-29). Instead, their passionate act of rage cost them their birthright blessing (Gen 49:5-7).","summary_en":"34:25-29 When Simeon and Levi used circumcision to deceive and slaughter the Canaanites, they showed disdain for the sign of the covenant. Their slaughter of all the males and their plunder of the city was not justice, but brutal and excessive revenge. In their moral outrage and desire to right the wrong, they should have demanded compensation (see Exod 22:16-17; Deut 22:28-29). Instead, their passionate act of rage cost them their birthright blessing (Gen 49:5-7).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":126245,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 34:25","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 34:25","content_ro":"<p><strong>34:25-29<\/strong> When <em>Simeon and Levi<\/em> used circumcision to deceive and slaughter the Canaanites, they showed disdain for the sign of the covenant. Their slaughter of all the males and their plunder of the city was not justice, but brutal and excessive revenge. In their moral outrage and desire to right the wrong, they should have demanded compensation (see Exod 22:16-17; Deut 22:28-29). Instead, their passionate act of rage cost them their birthright blessing (Gen 49:5-7).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>34:25-29<\/strong> When <em>Simeon and Levi<\/em> used circumcision to deceive and slaughter the Canaanites, they showed disdain for the sign of the covenant. Their slaughter of all the males and their plunder of the city was not justice, but brutal and excessive revenge. In their moral outrage and desire to right the wrong, they should have demanded compensation (see Exod 22:16-17; Deut 22:28-29). Instead, their passionate act of rage cost them their birthright blessing (Gen 49:5-7).<\/p>","summary_ro":"34:25-29 When Simeon and Levi used circumcision to deceive and slaughter the Canaanites, they showed disdain for the sign of the covenant. Their slaughter of all the males and their plunder of the city was not justice, but brutal and excessive revenge. In their moral outrage and desire to right the wrong, they should have demanded compensation (see Exod 22:16-17; Deut 22:28-29). Instead, their passionate act of rage cost them their birthright blessing (Gen 49:5-7).","summary_en":"34:25-29 When Simeon and Levi used circumcision to deceive and slaughter the Canaanites, they showed disdain for the sign of the covenant. Their slaughter of all the males and their plunder of the city was not justice, but brutal and excessive revenge. In their moral outrage and desire to right the wrong, they should have demanded compensation (see Exod 22:16-17; Deut 22:28-29). Instead, their passionate act of rage cost them their birthright blessing (Gen 49:5-7).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"27":[{"id":9630,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Dinah","title_en":"Dinah","content_ro":"<h3>DINAH<\/h3>\n<p>Daughter born to Jacob and Leah (Gn 30:21), whose name means “judgment.” Living with her family at Shechem, a Canaanite city (33:18), Dinah went in to visit some neighboring pagan women (34:1). Shechem, the Hivite prince of the area, saw her and, while Dinah’s brothers were away in the fields tending their herds, he raped her. Shechem then requested Dinah from Jacob as a wife.<\/p>\n<p>Jacob’s sons, enraged at the dishonor done to their sister, plotted revenge. They agreed to the marriage on the terms that all the Hivite males be circumcised. Hamor, Shechem’s father, consented. While the Canaanite men were still incapacitated from their surgery, Dinah’s brothers Levi and Simeon led a massacre in the city and killed every male. Dinah was retrieved and the city plundered. The brothers excused their action as a just retribution for one of the Canaanites having treated their sister as a harlot (Gn 34:27-31). For their use of weapons of violence (49:5), Simeon and Levi were later cursed by Jacob.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>DINAH<\/h3>\n<p>Daughter born to Jacob and Leah (Gn 30:21), whose name means “judgment.” Living with her family at Shechem, a Canaanite city (33:18), Dinah went in to visit some neighboring pagan women (34:1). Shechem, the Hivite prince of the area, saw her and, while Dinah’s brothers were away in the fields tending their herds, he raped her. Shechem then requested Dinah from Jacob as a wife.<\/p>\n<p>Jacob’s sons, enraged at the dishonor done to their sister, plotted revenge. They agreed to the marriage on the terms that all the Hivite males be circumcised. Hamor, Shechem’s father, consented. While the Canaanite men were still incapacitated from their surgery, Dinah’s brothers Levi and Simeon led a massacre in the city and killed every male. Dinah was retrieved and the city plundered. The brothers excused their action as a just retribution for one of the Canaanites having treated their sister as a harlot (Gn 34:27-31). For their use of weapons of violence (49:5), Simeon and Levi were later cursed by Jacob.<\/p>","summary_ro":"DINAH Daughter born to Jacob and Leah (Gn 30:21), whose name means “judgment.” Living with her family at Shechem, a Canaanite city (33:18), Dinah went in to visit some neighboring pagan women (34:1). Shechem, the Hivite prince of the area, saw her and, while Dinah’s brothers were away in the fields tending their herds, he raped her. Shechem then requested Dinah from Jacob as a wife. Jacob’s sons, enraged at the dishonor done to their sister, plotted revenge. They agreed to the marriage on the...","summary_en":"DINAH Daughter born to Jacob and Leah (Gn 30:21), whose name means “judgment.” Living with her family at Shechem, a Canaanite city (33:18), Dinah went in to visit some neighboring pagan women (34:1). Shechem, the Hivite prince of the area, saw her and, while Dinah’s brothers were away in the fields tending their herds, he raped her. Shechem then requested Dinah from Jacob as a wife. Jacob’s sons, enraged at the dishonor done to their sister, plotted revenge. They agreed to the marriage on the...","source":"Articles\/D.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"30":[{"id":23000,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Tribe of Levi","title_en":"Tribe of Levi","content_ro":"<h3>LEVI, Tribe of<\/h3>\n<p>Israelite tribe taking its name from the third son of Leah and Jacob (Gn 29:34). The meaning of the name (“attached”) is a pun on Leah’s position as an unloved wife: now that she has borne three sons to Jacob, surely he will be “attached” to her. Elsewhere, by a similar pun, the tribe of Levi is described as “attached” to Aaron (Nm 18:2).<\/p>\n<p>Levi appears with Simeon at the treacherous slaughter of the inhabitants of Canaanite Shechem (Gn 34:25-29). This brings Jacob’s rebuke at the time (v 30) and his deathbed curse (49:5-7), foretelling that the descendants of Levi and Simeon will be scattered throughout Israel. This does not seem a likely background for God’s priestly tribe, but so it proved to be, for it was as a priestly tribe that Levi was scattered through Israel, while Simeon merely melted into the desert south of Judah.<\/p>\n<p>At first Levi was apparently a “secular” tribe like any other. True, Moses and Aaron were of Levi (Ex 2:1), but no stress is laid on this. Levi’s later position was God’s reward for its costly faithfulness when Israel rebelled against God (32:25-29); this inaugurated the “covenant with Levi” (Nm 18:19). Henceforth the tribe of Levi would be accepted by God instead of Israel’s firstborn sons, who belonged to him by the law of “firstfruits” (3:11-13). Levi, as a tribe, could therefore own no tribal territory: God himself was their inheritance (18:20). However, they were given 48 villages, with their pasturelands, in which to live (Jos 21:1-42). These included the six cities of refuge (ch 20).<\/p>\n<p>Since Levi could not amass wealth, the tribe was to be supported by gifts and tithes (Nm 18:21); like the widow, orphan, and stranger, they were commended to the care of God’s people (Dt 14:29). Since they were God’s tribe, Joab was unwilling to include Levi in David’s census (1 Chr 21:6; cf. Nm 1:49). Naturally, Levi did not serve in war except in a religious capacity (2 Chr 20:21). Their service pertained to the meeting tent (Nm 1:50-53) and later the temple (1 Chr 23:25-32). Within Levi the Bible makes a clear distinction between (1) the high priest (sometimes merely called “the priest,” 1 Sm 1:9), who came from one branch of Aaron’s family; (2) the rest of the priests, also of particular families; and (3) a mass of subordinate Levites, who had lesser tasks. In early days they packed and moved the portable tent of meeting (Nm 1:50-51), as well as did other duties; in later days they served as porters and choristers (1 Chr 16:42). The duties of Levi are summarized in Deuteronomy 33:8-11, where oracular guidance and theological instruction are just as important as their priestly duties. It is therefore no surprise that Jehoshaphat later used them as teachers of law (2 Chr 17:7-9). Nevertheless, the ordinary Israelite thought of them primarily as priestly (Jgs 17:13).<\/p>\n<p>Later references to the lasting covenant with Levi are found in Jeremiah 33:20-26 and Malachi 3:3-4. Members of the tribe returned from the exile (Ezr 2:36-42), apparently more coming from the priestly than the wider Levitical section. Barnabas, in NT days, belonged to the tribe of Levi (Acts 4:36). Indeed, among modern Jews, wherever the surname Levy is found, a member of the tribe probably lives on.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Priests and Levites.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>LEVI, Tribe of<\/h3>\n<p>Israelite tribe taking its name from the third son of Leah and Jacob (Gn 29:34). The meaning of the name (“attached”) is a pun on Leah’s position as an unloved wife: now that she has borne three sons to Jacob, surely he will be “attached” to her. Elsewhere, by a similar pun, the tribe of Levi is described as “attached” to Aaron (Nm 18:2).<\/p>\n<p>Levi appears with Simeon at the treacherous slaughter of the inhabitants of Canaanite Shechem (Gn 34:25-29). This brings Jacob’s rebuke at the time (v 30) and his deathbed curse (49:5-7), foretelling that the descendants of Levi and Simeon will be scattered throughout Israel. This does not seem a likely background for God’s priestly tribe, but so it proved to be, for it was as a priestly tribe that Levi was scattered through Israel, while Simeon merely melted into the desert south of Judah.<\/p>\n<p>At first Levi was apparently a “secular” tribe like any other. True, Moses and Aaron were of Levi (Ex 2:1), but no stress is laid on this. Levi’s later position was God’s reward for its costly faithfulness when Israel rebelled against God (32:25-29); this inaugurated the “covenant with Levi” (Nm 18:19). Henceforth the tribe of Levi would be accepted by God instead of Israel’s firstborn sons, who belonged to him by the law of “firstfruits” (3:11-13). Levi, as a tribe, could therefore own no tribal territory: God himself was their inheritance (18:20). However, they were given 48 villages, with their pasturelands, in which to live (Jos 21:1-42). These included the six cities of refuge (ch 20).<\/p>\n<p>Since Levi could not amass wealth, the tribe was to be supported by gifts and tithes (Nm 18:21); like the widow, orphan, and stranger, they were commended to the care of God’s people (Dt 14:29). Since they were God’s tribe, Joab was unwilling to include Levi in David’s census (1 Chr 21:6; cf. Nm 1:49). Naturally, Levi did not serve in war except in a religious capacity (2 Chr 20:21). Their service pertained to the meeting tent (Nm 1:50-53) and later the temple (1 Chr 23:25-32). Within Levi the Bible makes a clear distinction between (1) the high priest (sometimes merely called “the priest,” 1 Sm 1:9), who came from one branch of Aaron’s family; (2) the rest of the priests, also of particular families; and (3) a mass of subordinate Levites, who had lesser tasks. In early days they packed and moved the portable tent of meeting (Nm 1:50-51), as well as did other duties; in later days they served as porters and choristers (1 Chr 16:42). The duties of Levi are summarized in Deuteronomy 33:8-11, where oracular guidance and theological instruction are just as important as their priestly duties. It is therefore no surprise that Jehoshaphat later used them as teachers of law (2 Chr 17:7-9). Nevertheless, the ordinary Israelite thought of them primarily as priestly (Jgs 17:13).<\/p>\n<p>Later references to the lasting covenant with Levi are found in Jeremiah 33:20-26 and Malachi 3:3-4. Members of the tribe returned from the exile (Ezr 2:36-42), apparently more coming from the priestly than the wider Levitical section. Barnabas, in NT days, belonged to the tribe of Levi (Acts 4:36). Indeed, among modern Jews, wherever the surname Levy is found, a member of the tribe probably lives on.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Priests and Levites.<\/p>","summary_ro":"LEVI, Tribe of Israelite tribe taking its name from the third son of Leah and Jacob (Gn 29:34). The meaning of the name (“attached”) is a pun on Leah’s position as an unloved wife: now that she has borne three sons to Jacob, surely he will be “attached” to her. Elsewhere, by a similar pun, the tribe of Levi is described as “attached” to Aaron (Nm 18:2). Levi appears with Simeon at the treacherous slaughter of the inhabitants of Canaanite Shechem (Gn 34:25-29). This brings Jacob’s rebuke at th...","summary_en":"LEVI, Tribe of Israelite tribe taking its name from the third son of Leah and Jacob (Gn 29:34). The meaning of the name (“attached”) is a pun on Leah’s position as an unloved wife: now that she has borne three sons to Jacob, surely he will be “attached” to her. Elsewhere, by a similar pun, the tribe of Levi is described as “attached” to Aaron (Nm 18:2). Levi appears with Simeon at the treacherous slaughter of the inhabitants of Canaanite Shechem (Gn 34:25-29). This brings Jacob’s rebuke at th...","source":"Articles\/L.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":29669,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Perizzite","title_en":"Perizzite","content_ro":"<h3>PERIZZITE<\/h3>\n<p>One of several population segments occupying the land of Palestine prior to and subsequent to the Israelite conquest (Gn 15:20; Ex 3:8, 17; 23:23; 33:2; 34:11; Dt 7:1; 20:17; Jos 3:10; 9:1; 11:3; 12:8; 24:11; 1 Kgs 9:20; 2 Chr 8:7; Ezr 9:1; Neh 9:8). The enumeration of these peoples throughout the OT serves a variety of purposes, none of which is strictly historical or geographical. It serves to inform the reader that, no matter how numerous, the doom of these people is sure when God’s time has come (Gn 15:20; Ex 3:8). At other times, they are mentioned to illustrate the hostility of the enemies of God against Israel’s onward march into the land promised to them by the Lord (Jos 9:1; 11:3; 24:11). But they are also portrayed as conquered and reduced to servile labor (Jos 12:8; 1 Kgs 9:20). In the postexilic period, they continue to be a threat to the purity of life of the covenant community recently settled in the land of their fathers (Ezr 9:1).<\/p>\n<p>There are a few instances where the word “Perizzites” occurs in conjunction with “Canaanites” (Gn 13:7; 34:30; Jgs 1:4-5), and in one instance it is combined with “Rephaites” (Jos 17:15). The name “Pirizzi” also occurs once in the tablets of El Amarna.<\/p>\n<p>The exact identity of the Perizzites has thus far remained obscure. In a few instances in which the name occurs in conjunction with “Canaanites,” it seems to refer to one of the major components of Canaan’s population. Some have even suggested that the Perizzites were the pre-Canaanite population of Palestine, in view of the omission of them in the list of Genesis 10. But this cannot be proven. Others have attempted to read this name as an appellative meaning “inhabitants of unwalled villages.” This view finds some support in another Hebrew word, <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">perazoth<\/span><em>,<\/em> “unwalled villages” (Est 9:19; Ez 38:11; Zec 2:4; cf. also <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">perazi<\/span><em>,<\/em> “open country,” Dt 3:5; 1 Sm 6:18). But the fact that the name occurs so frequently among other peoples whose identity is known should caution against such an approach.<\/p>\n<p>Several commentators, instead of regarding the Perizzites as one of the major components of Canaan’s population, have sought to localize them, either in the vicinity of Bethel (cf. Gn 13:7) or of Shechem (34:30), or in the territory of Judah (Jgs 1:4-5). But these locales are by no means contiguous. The reference to the Rephaim (<span>nlt<\/span>, <span>niv<\/span> “Rephaites”) in Joshua 17:15 has prompted the suggestion that the Perizzites belonged to the Transjordan region, but this does not follow either from the immediate context or from the use of the word “Rephaim” elsewhere.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Canaan, Canaanite.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>PERIZZITE<\/h3>\n<p>One of several population segments occupying the land of Palestine prior to and subsequent to the Israelite conquest (Gn 15:20; Ex 3:8, 17; 23:23; 33:2; 34:11; Dt 7:1; 20:17; Jos 3:10; 9:1; 11:3; 12:8; 24:11; 1 Kgs 9:20; 2 Chr 8:7; Ezr 9:1; Neh 9:8). The enumeration of these peoples throughout the OT serves a variety of purposes, none of which is strictly historical or geographical. It serves to inform the reader that, no matter how numerous, the doom of these people is sure when God’s time has come (Gn 15:20; Ex 3:8). At other times, they are mentioned to illustrate the hostility of the enemies of God against Israel’s onward march into the land promised to them by the Lord (Jos 9:1; 11:3; 24:11). But they are also portrayed as conquered and reduced to servile labor (Jos 12:8; 1 Kgs 9:20). In the postexilic period, they continue to be a threat to the purity of life of the covenant community recently settled in the land of their fathers (Ezr 9:1).<\/p>\n<p>There are a few instances where the word “Perizzites” occurs in conjunction with “Canaanites” (Gn 13:7; 34:30; Jgs 1:4-5), and in one instance it is combined with “Rephaites” (Jos 17:15). The name “Pirizzi” also occurs once in the tablets of El Amarna.<\/p>\n<p>The exact identity of the Perizzites has thus far remained obscure. In a few instances in which the name occurs in conjunction with “Canaanites,” it seems to refer to one of the major components of Canaan’s population. Some have even suggested that the Perizzites were the pre-Canaanite population of Palestine, in view of the omission of them in the list of Genesis 10. But this cannot be proven. Others have attempted to read this name as an appellative meaning “inhabitants of unwalled villages.” This view finds some support in another Hebrew word, <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">perazoth<\/span><em>,<\/em> “unwalled villages” (Est 9:19; Ez 38:11; Zec 2:4; cf. also <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">perazi<\/span><em>,<\/em> “open country,” Dt 3:5; 1 Sm 6:18). But the fact that the name occurs so frequently among other peoples whose identity is known should caution against such an approach.<\/p>\n<p>Several commentators, instead of regarding the Perizzites as one of the major components of Canaan’s population, have sought to localize them, either in the vicinity of Bethel (cf. Gn 13:7) or of Shechem (34:30), or in the territory of Judah (Jgs 1:4-5). But these locales are by no means contiguous. The reference to the Rephaim (<span>nlt<\/span>, <span>niv<\/span> “Rephaites”) in Joshua 17:15 has prompted the suggestion that the Perizzites belonged to the Transjordan region, but this does not follow either from the immediate context or from the use of the word “Rephaim” elsewhere.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Canaan, Canaanite.<\/p>","summary_ro":"PERIZZITE One of several population segments occupying the land of Palestine prior to and subsequent to the Israelite conquest (Gn 15:20; Ex 3:8, 17; 23:23; 33:2; 34:11; Dt 7:1; 20:17; Jos 3:10; 9:1; 11:3; 12:8; 24:11; 1 Kgs 9:20; 2 Chr 8:7; Ezr 9:1; Neh 9:8). The enumeration of these peoples throughout the OT serves a variety of purposes, none of which is strictly historical or geographical. It serves to inform the reader that, no matter how numerous, the doom of these people is sure when Go...","summary_en":"PERIZZITE One of several population segments occupying the land of Palestine prior to and subsequent to the Israelite conquest (Gn 15:20; Ex 3:8, 17; 23:23; 33:2; 34:11; Dt 7:1; 20:17; Jos 3:10; 9:1; 11:3; 12:8; 24:11; 1 Kgs 9:20; 2 Chr 8:7; Ezr 9:1; Neh 9:8). The enumeration of these peoples throughout the OT serves a variety of purposes, none of which is strictly historical or geographical. It serves to inform the reader that, no matter how numerous, the doom of these people is sure when Go...","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":43368,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 34:30","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 34:30","content_ro":"<p><strong>34:30<\/strong> <em>Jacob<\/em> responded again out of fear of what would happen to him, but God caused <em>the people of this land<\/em> to fear him instead (35:5).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>34:30<\/strong> <em>Jacob<\/em> responded again out of fear of what would happen to him, but God caused <em>the people of this land<\/em> to fear him instead (35:5).<\/p>","summary_ro":"34:30 Jacob responded again out of fear of what would happen to him, but God caused the people of this land to fear him instead (35:5).","summary_en":"34:30 Jacob responded again out of fear of what would happen to him, but God caused the people of this land to fear him instead (35:5).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":70994,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 34:30","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 34:30","content_ro":"<p><strong>34:30<\/strong> <em>Jacob<\/em> responded again out of fear of what would happen to him, but God caused <em>the people of this land<\/em> to fear him instead (35:5).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>34:30<\/strong> <em>Jacob<\/em> responded again out of fear of what would happen to him, but God caused <em>the people of this land<\/em> to fear him instead (35:5).<\/p>","summary_ro":"34:30 Jacob responded again out of fear of what would happen to him, but God caused the people of this land to fear him instead (35:5).","summary_en":"34:30 Jacob responded again out of fear of what would happen to him, but God caused the people of this land to fear him instead (35:5).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":98620,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 34:30","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 34:30","content_ro":"<p><strong>34:30<\/strong> <em>Jacob<\/em> responded again out of fear of what would happen to him, but God caused <em>the people of this land<\/em> to fear him instead (35:5).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>34:30<\/strong> <em>Jacob<\/em> responded again out of fear of what would happen to him, but God caused <em>the people of this land<\/em> to fear him instead (35:5).<\/p>","summary_ro":"34:30 Jacob responded again out of fear of what would happen to him, but God caused the people of this land to fear him instead (35:5).","summary_en":"34:30 Jacob responded again out of fear of what would happen to him, but God caused the people of this land to fear him instead (35:5).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":126246,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Geneza 34:30","title_en":"Study Note: Geneza 34:30","content_ro":"<p><strong>34:30<\/strong> <em>Jacob<\/em> responded again out of fear of what would happen to him, but God caused <em>the people of this land<\/em> to fear him instead (35:5).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>34:30<\/strong> <em>Jacob<\/em> responded again out of fear of what would happen to him, but God caused <em>the people of this land<\/em> to fear him instead (35:5).<\/p>","summary_ro":"34:30 Jacob responded again out of fear of what would happen to him, but God caused the people of this land to fear him instead (35:5).","summary_en":"34:30 Jacob responded again out of fear of what would happen to him, but God caused the people of this land to fear him instead (35:5).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"31":[{"id":31759,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Prostitution Prostitute","title_en":"Prostitution Prostitute","content_ro":"<h3>PROSTITUTE, PROSTITUTION<\/h3>\n<p>Person guilty of illicit sexual relationships; figuratively, one who worships an idol. The term “prostitute” translates four different words found in the Bible. One type of prostitute was the man or woman, married or unmarried, who committed immoral acts (Gn 34:31; Jgs 19:2; Prv 23:27). A different kind of prostitute was the temple prostitute of heathen religions in which fornication was part of the worship (Gn 38:21-22; Dt 23:17; Hos 4:14). Such prostitution was forbidden by the law of Moses (Lv 19:29; 21:9). The “strange woman” was another kind of prostitute (1 Kgs 11:1; Prv 5:20; 6:24; 7:5; 23:27). There are different opinions for why that name was given to prostitutes. One explanation is that it referred to a man leaving his own wife for another, who ought to be a stranger to him (Prv 5:17-20). It may also have referred to a foreign woman (Nm 25:1; Jos 23:13). “Prostitute” also refers to any woman, married or single, who practices unlawful sexual indulgence, whether for lust or monetary gain (Mt 21:31-32; Lk 15:30; 1 Cor 6:15-16; Heb 11:31; Jas 2:25).<\/p>\n<p>Prostitution appeared early in Israel’s life and continued throughout biblical history. Most biblical passages strongly condemn the practice of prostitution in any form. The priestly law of Leviticus 21:9 provided that a priest’s daughter who practiced prostitution was to be burned to death. A priest could not marry a prostitute (Lv 19:29), and the wages of prostitution could not be used to pay vows in the temple (Dt 23:18). These prohibitions served to keep the worship of the Lord free from the practice of cult prostitution.<\/p>\n<p>The sons of Jacob killed Hamor and his son Shechem, justifying their act by saying: “Should he treat our sister like a prostitute?” (Gn 34:31, <span>nlt<\/span>). Amaziah’s wife was to become a prostitute (Am 7:17) as punishment for his treatment of the prophet Amos.<\/p>\n<p>In the first century, prostitutes and tax collectors were equally detested by the Jews (Mt 21:32). According to Paul, the body of a Christian belongs to Christ and should not be joined to a prostitute’s body (1 Cor 6:15-16). Proverbs is replete with warnings to those who would go in to prostitutes.<\/p>\n<p>A few biblical passages do, however, seem to accept the prostitute as a member of the community. Tamar temporarily served as a prostitute to remind her father-in-law of his promise to her (Gn 38:14-15). Rahab the prostitute had a special place in Hebrew history because she had befriended the Hebrew spies (Jos 2:4-16; Heb 11:31).<\/p>\n<p>The words “prostitute” and “prostitution” were used figuratively for idolatry, especially in the prophetic books (Jer 2:20; Rv 17:1, 5, 15-16; 19:2). This figurative use was based on the marriagelike relationship of the Lord and his people (Jer 3:20). When the people gave their allegiance to idols rather than to God, he charged that they were prostitutes for other gods (Jgs 8:33). The same idea is found in the NT (Rv 17).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>PROSTITUTE, PROSTITUTION<\/h3>\n<p>Person guilty of illicit sexual relationships; figuratively, one who worships an idol. The term “prostitute” translates four different words found in the Bible. One type of prostitute was the man or woman, married or unmarried, who committed immoral acts (Gn 34:31; Jgs 19:2; Prv 23:27). A different kind of prostitute was the temple prostitute of heathen religions in which fornication was part of the worship (Gn 38:21-22; Dt 23:17; Hos 4:14). Such prostitution was forbidden by the law of Moses (Lv 19:29; 21:9). The “strange woman” was another kind of prostitute (1 Kgs 11:1; Prv 5:20; 6:24; 7:5; 23:27). There are different opinions for why that name was given to prostitutes. One explanation is that it referred to a man leaving his own wife for another, who ought to be a stranger to him (Prv 5:17-20). It may also have referred to a foreign woman (Nm 25:1; Jos 23:13). “Prostitute” also refers to any woman, married or single, who practices unlawful sexual indulgence, whether for lust or monetary gain (Mt 21:31-32; Lk 15:30; 1 Cor 6:15-16; Heb 11:31; Jas 2:25).<\/p>\n<p>Prostitution appeared early in Israel’s life and continued throughout biblical history. Most biblical passages strongly condemn the practice of prostitution in any form. The priestly law of Leviticus 21:9 provided that a priest’s daughter who practiced prostitution was to be burned to death. A priest could not marry a prostitute (Lv 19:29), and the wages of prostitution could not be used to pay vows in the temple (Dt 23:18). These prohibitions served to keep the worship of the Lord free from the practice of cult prostitution.<\/p>\n<p>The sons of Jacob killed Hamor and his son Shechem, justifying their act by saying: “Should he treat our sister like a prostitute?” (Gn 34:31, <span>nlt<\/span>). Amaziah’s wife was to become a prostitute (Am 7:17) as punishment for his treatment of the prophet Amos.<\/p>\n<p>In the first century, prostitutes and tax collectors were equally detested by the Jews (Mt 21:32). According to Paul, the body of a Christian belongs to Christ and should not be joined to a prostitute’s body (1 Cor 6:15-16). Proverbs is replete with warnings to those who would go in to prostitutes.<\/p>\n<p>A few biblical passages do, however, seem to accept the prostitute as a member of the community. Tamar temporarily served as a prostitute to remind her father-in-law of his promise to her (Gn 38:14-15). Rahab the prostitute had a special place in Hebrew history because she had befriended the Hebrew spies (Jos 2:4-16; Heb 11:31).<\/p>\n<p>The words “prostitute” and “prostitution” were used figuratively for idolatry, especially in the prophetic books (Jer 2:20; Rv 17:1, 5, 15-16; 19:2). This figurative use was based on the marriagelike relationship of the Lord and his people (Jer 3:20). When the people gave their allegiance to idols rather than to God, he charged that they were prostitutes for other gods (Jgs 8:33). The same idea is found in the NT (Rv 17).<\/p>","summary_ro":"PROSTITUTE, PROSTITUTION Person guilty of illicit sexual relationships; figuratively, one who worships an idol. The term “prostitute” translates four different words found in the Bible. One type of prostitute was the man or woman, married or unmarried, who committed immoral acts (Gn 34:31; Jgs 19:2; Prv 23:27). A different kind of prostitute was the temple prostitute of heathen religions in which fornication was part of the worship (Gn 38:21-22; Dt 23:17; Hos 4:14). Such prostitution was forb...","summary_en":"PROSTITUTE, PROSTITUTION Person guilty of illicit sexual relationships; figuratively, one who worships an idol. The term “prostitute” translates four different words found in the Bible. One type of prostitute was the man or woman, married or unmarried, who committed immoral acts (Gn 34:31; Jgs 19:2; Prv 23:27). A different kind of prostitute was the temple prostitute of heathen religions in which fornication was part of the worship (Gn 38:21-22; Dt 23:17; Hos 4:14). Such prostitution was forb...","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}]},"labels":{"article":"Articol","map":"Hartă","chart":"Diagramă","textbox":"Notă explicativă","picture":"Imagine","profile":"Profil","study_note":"Notă de studiu","theme_note":"Temă biblică"},"icons":{"article":"📖","map":"🗺️","chart":"📊","textbox":"💡","picture":"🖼️","profile":"👤","study_note":"📝","theme_note":"🎯"},"typeColors":{"article":"#d4af37","map":"#2d7d46","chart":"#3b82f6","textbox":"#8b5cf6","picture":"#ec4899","profile":"#f59e0b","study_note":"#06b6d4","theme_note":"#ef4444"}}
🔍
Niciun rezultat
Nu am găsit versete care să conțină textul căutat.
Geneza 34
📘 Info carte
Se încarcă...
📖 Resurse
Muzică de relaxareSelectează o piesă
0:00
Redare audio
0 piese
🍪 Folosim cookie-uri
Folosim cookie-uri esențiale pentru funcționarea platformei și cookie-uri de analiză pentru a îmbunătăți experiența ta.
Află mai multe
✝️
Logosasistentul Biserica Online
✝️
Bine ai venit! 👋
Sunt Logos, prietenul tău spiritual. Începe conversația — te ascult cu drag! ✨