📖 Biblia online

Citește Biblia

Biblia audio Planuri audio structurate — ascultă Biblia zilnică

Ieremia 7

¹ Iată cuvântul vorbit lui Ieremia din partea Domnului:

² ,,Şezi la poarta Casei Domnului, vesteşte acolo cuvântul acesta, şi spune: ,Ascultaţi Cuvântul Domnului, toţi bărbaţii lui Iuda, cari intraţi pe aceste porţi, ca să vă închinaţi înaintea Domnului!``

³ ,,Aşa vorbeşte Domnul oştirilor, Dumnezeul lui Israel: ,Îndreptaţi-vă căile şi faptele, şi vă voi lăsa să locuiţi în locul acesta.

⁴ Nu vă hrăniţi cu nădejdi înşelătoare, zicând: ,Acesta este Templul Domnului, Templul Domnului, Templul Domnului!`

⁵ ,Căci numai dacă vă veţi îndrepta căile şi faptele, dacă veţi înfăptui dreptatea unii faţă de alţii,

⁶ dacă nu veţi asupri pe străin, pe orfan şi pe văduvă, dacă nu veţi vărsa sânge nevinovat în locul acesta, şi dacă nu veţi merge după alţi dumnezei, spre nenorocirea voastră,

⁷ numai aşa vă voi lăsa să locuiţi în locul acesta, în ţara pe care am dat-o părinţilor voştri, din vecinicie în vecinicie.

⁸ Dar iată că voi vă hrăniţi cu nădejdi înşelătoare, cari nu slujesc la nimic.

⁹ Cum? Furaţi, ucideţi, preacurviţi, juraţi strâmb, aduceţi tămâie lui Baal, mergeţi după alţi dumnezei pe cari nu-i cunoaşteţi!...

¹⁰ Şi apoi veniţi să vă înfăţişaţi înaintea Mea, în Casa aceasta peste care este chemat Numele Meu şi ziceţi: ,Sântem izbăviţi!`... ca iarăş să faceţi toate aceste urâciuni!

¹¹ ,Este Casa aceasta peste care este chemat Numele Meu, o peşteră de tâlhari înaintea voastră?` ,Eu însumi văd lucrul acesta, zice Domnul!``

¹² ,,Duceţi-vă dar la locul care-Mi fusese închinat la Silo, unde pusesem să locuiască odinioară Numele Meu, şi vedeţi ce i-am făcut, din pricina răutăţii poporului Meu Israel!

¹³ ,,Şi acum, fiindcă aţi făcut toate aceste fapte, zice Domnul, fiindcă v-am vorbit dis de dimineaţă, şi n-aţi ascultat, fiindcă v-am chemat şi n-aţi răspuns,

¹⁴ voi face Casei peste care este chemat Numele Meu, în care vă puneţi încrederea, şi locului pe care vi l-am dat vouă şi părinţilor voştri, le voi face întocmai cum am făcut lui Silo.

¹⁵ Şi vă voi lepăda dela Faţa Mea, cum am lepădat pe toţi fraţii voştri, pe toată sămânţa lui Efraim!``

¹⁶ ,,Tu însă nu mijloci pentru poporul acesta, nu înălţa nici cereri, nici rugăciuni pentru ei, şi nu stărui pe lângă Mine; căci nu te voi asculta!

¹⁷ Nu vezi ce fac ei în cetăţile lui Iuda şi pe uliţele Ierusalimului?

¹⁸ Copiii strâng lemne, părinţii aprind focul, şi femeile frământă plămădeala, ca să pregătească turte împărătesei cerului, şi să toarne jertfe de băutură altor dumnezei, ca să Mă mânie.``

¹⁹ ,,Pe Mine Mă mânie ei oare? zice Domnul; nu pe ei înşişi, spre ruşinea lor?``

²⁰ ,,De aceea, aşa vorbeşte Domnul, Dumnezeu: ,Iată, mânia şi urgia Mea se vor vărsa peste locul acesta, peste oameni şi dobitoace, peste copacii de pe câmp şi peste roadele pământului; şi va arde, şi nu se va stinge.``

²¹ ,,Aşa vorbeşte Domnul oştirilor, Dumnezeul lui Israel: ,Adăugaţi arderile voastre de tot la jertfele voastre, şi mâncaţi-le carnea!

²² Căci n-am vorbit nimic cu părinţii voştri şi nu le-am dat nici o poruncă, cu privire la arderi de tot şi jertfe, în ziua când i-am scos din ţara Egiptului.

²³ Ci iată porunca pe care le-am dat-o: ,Ascultaţi glasul Meu, şi Eu voi fi Dumnezeul vostru, iar voi veţi fi poporul Meu; umblaţi pe toate căile pe cari vi le-am poruncit, ca să fiţi fericiţi.`

²⁴ Dar ei n-au ascultat, şi n-au luat aminte, ci au urmat sfaturile şi pornirile inimii lor rele, au dat înapoi şi n-au mers înainte.

²⁵ Din ziua când au ieşit părinţii voştri din Egipt, până în ziua de azi, v-am trimes pe toţi slujitorii Mei, proorocii, i-am trimes în fiecare zi, de dimineaţă.

²⁶ Dar ei nu M-au ascultat, n-au luat aminte; şi-au înţepenit gâtul, şi au făcut mai rău de cât părinţii lor.

²⁷ Şi chiar dacă le vei spune toate aceste lucruri, tot nu te vor asculta; şi dacă vei striga la ei, nu-ţi vor răspunde.

²⁸ De aceea, spune-le: ,Acesta este poporul care n-ascultă glasul Domnului, Dumnezeului său, şi care nu vrea să ia învăţătură; s-a dus adevărul, a fugit din gura lor.`

²⁹ ,Acum, tunde-ţi părul, Ierusalime, şi aruncă-l departe; suie-te pe înălţimi, şi fă o cântare de jale! Căci Domnul lapădă şi îndepărtează neamul de oameni, care I-a aţîţat urgia.

³⁰ Căci copiii lui Iuda au făcut ce este rău înaintea Mea, zice Domnul; şi-au aşezat urâciunile lor în Casa peste care este chemat Numele Meu, ca s-o spurce.

³¹ Au zidit şi locuri înalte la Tofet, în valea Ben-Hinom, ca să-şi ardă în foc pe fiii şi fiicele lor: lucru pe care Eu nu-l poruncisem, şi nici nu-Mi trecuse prin minte.``

³² ,,De aceea iată, vin zile, zice Domnul, când nu se va mai zice Tofet şi valea Ben-Hinom, ci se va zice valea măcelului, şi se vor îngropa morţii la Tofet, din lipsă de loc.

³³ Trupurile moarte ale acestui popor vor fi hrana păsărilor cerului şi a fiarelor pământului; şi nimeni nu le va speria.

³⁴ Voi face astfel să înceteze în cetăţile lui Iuda şi pe uliţele Ierusalimului, strigătele de bucurie şi strigătele de veselie, cântecele mirelui şi cântecele miresei, căci ţara va ajunge un pustiu!``

{"verseMap":{"1":[{"id":4705,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"and Text of the (Old Testament) Bible*, Manuscripts","title_en":"and Text of the (Old Testament) Bible*, Manuscripts","content_ro":"<h3>BIBLE*, Manuscripts and Text of the (Old Testament)<\/span><\/h3>\nCopies of the OT books produced by scribes and editions made from these copies. The ancient manuscripts of the OT are the basic working material used to seek out the original text of the Bible with as great a degree of accuracy as possible. This process is called textual criticism, sometimes designated “lower criticism” to distinguish it from “higher criticism,” which is analysis of the date, unity, and authorship of the biblical writings.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Important Old Testament Manuscripts<\/p>\n• Significant Old Testament Versions<\/p>\n• The Text of the Old Testament<\/p>\nImportant Old Testament Manuscripts<\/p>\nMost medieval manuscripts of the OT exhibit a fairly standardized form of the Hebrew text. This standardization reflects the work of the medieval scribes known as Masoretes (AD<\/span> 500–900); the text that resulted from their work is called the Masoretic Text. Most of the important manuscripts dated from the 11th century AD<\/span> or later all reflect this same basic textual tradition. But since the Masoretic Text did not stabilize until well after AD<\/span> 500, many questions about its development in the preceding centuries could not be answered. So the primary task for OT textual critics has been to compare earlier witnesses in order to discover how the Masoretic Text came to be, and how it and earlier witnesses of the Hebrew Bible are related. This leads us to the initial task of textual criticism: the collection of all possible records of the biblical writings.<\/p>\nAll the primary sources of the Hebrew Scriptures are handwritten manuscripts, usually written on animal skins, papyrus, or sometimes metal. The fact that they are handwritten is the source of many difficulties for the textual critic. Human error and editorial tampering are often to blame for the many variant readings in OT and NT manuscripts. The fact that the ancient manuscripts are written on skins or papyrus is another source of difficulty. Due to natural decay, most of the surviving ancient manuscripts are fragmentary and difficult to read.<\/p>\nThere are many secondary witnesses to the ancient OT text, including translations into other languages, quotations used by both friends and enemies of biblical religion, and evidence from early printed texts. Most of the secondary witnesses have suffered in ways similar to the primary ones. They, too, contain numerous variants due to both intentional and accidental scribal errors and are fragmentary as a result of natural decay. Since variant readings do exist in the surviving ancient manuscripts, these must be collected and compared. The task of comparing and listing the variant readings is known as collation.<\/p>\n<h5>Manuscripts with the Masoretic Text<\/h5>\nThe textual history of the Masoretic Text is a significant story in its own right. This text of the Hebrew Bible is the most complete in existence. It forms the basis for our modern Hebrew Bibles and is the prototype against which all comparisons are made in OT textual studies. It is called Masoretic because in its present form it is based on the Masora,<\/em> the textual tradition of the Jewish scholars known as the Masoretes of Tiberias. (Tiberias was the location of their community on the Sea of Galilee.) The Masoretes, whose school flourished between AD<\/span> 500 and 1000, standardized the traditional consonantal text by adding vowel pointing and marginal notes. (The ancient Hebrew alphabet had no vowels.)<\/p>\nThe Masoretic Text, as it exists today, owes much to the Ben Asher family. For five or six generations, from the second half of the eighth century to the middle of the tenth century AD<\/span>, this family played a leading role in the Masoretic work at Tiberias. A faithful record of their work can be found in the oldest existing Masoretic manuscripts, which go back to the final two members of that family. The oldest dated Masoretic manuscript is Codex Cairensis (AD<\/span> 895), which is attributed to Moses ben Asher. This manuscript contained both the Former Prophets (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings) and the Latter Prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the 12 Minor Prophets). The rest of the OT is missing from this manuscript.<\/p>\nThe other major surviving manuscript attributed to the Ben Asher family is the Aleppo Codex. According to the manuscript’s concluding note, Aaron ben Moses ben Asher was responsible for writing the Masoretic notes and pointing the text. This manuscript contained the entire OT and dates from the first half of the 10th century AD<\/span>. It was reportedly destroyed in anti-Jewish riots in 1947, but this proved to be only partly true. A majority of the manuscript survived and will be used as the base for a new critical edition of the Hebrew Bible to be published by the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.<\/p>\nThe manuscript known as Codex Leningradensis, presently stored in the Leningrad Public Library, is of special importance as a witness to the Ben Asher text. According to a note on the manuscript, it was copied in AD<\/span> 1008 from texts written by Aaron ben Moses ben Asher. Since the oldest complete Hebrew text of the OT (the Aleppo Codex) was not available to scholars earlier in this century, Codex Leningradensis was used as the textual base for the popular Hebrew texts of today: Biblia Hebraica,<\/em> edited by R. Kittel, and its revision, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia,<\/em> edited by K. Elliger and W. Rudolf.<\/p>\nThere are quite a number of less important manuscript codices that reflect the Masoretic tradition: the Petersburg Codex of the Prophets and the Erfurt Codices. There are also a number of manuscripts that no longer exist but which were used by scholars in the Masoretic period. One of the most prominent is Codex Hillel, traditionally attributed to Rabbi Hillel ben Moses ben Hillel about AD<\/span> 600. This codex was said to be very accurate and was used for the revision of other manuscripts. Readings of this codex are cited repeatedly by the early medieval Masoretes. Codex Muga, Codex Jericho, and Codex Jerushalmi, also no longer extant, were also cited by the Masoretes. These manuscripts were likely prominent examples of unpointed texts that had become part of a standardizing consensus in the first centuries AD<\/span>. These laid the groundwork for the work of the Masoretes of Tiberias.<\/p>\nDespite the completeness of the Masoretic manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible, a major problem still remains for OT textual critics. The Masoretic manuscripts, as old as they are, were written between 1,000 and 2,000 years after the original autographs. Earlier witnesses to the ancient Hebrew text were needed to testify to the accuracy of the Masoretic Text.<\/p>\n<h5>The Dead Sea Scrolls<\/h5>\nThe most important ancient witnesses to the Hebrew Bible are the texts discovered at Wadi Qumran in the 1940s and 1950s. (Wadi<\/em> is an Arabic word for a riverbed that is dry except in the rainy season.) Before the Qumran discoveries, the oldest existing Hebrew manuscripts of the OT dated from about AD<\/span> 900. The greatest importance of the Dead Sea Scrolls, therefore, lies in the discovery of biblical manuscripts dating back to only about 300 years after the close of the OT canon. That makes them 1,000 years earlier than the oldest manuscripts previously known to biblical scholars. The texts found at Wadi Qumran were all completed before the Roman conquest of Palestine in AD<\/span> 70, and many predate this event by quite some time. Among the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Isaiah Scroll has received the most publicity, although the collection contains fragments of all the books in the Hebrew Bible with the exception of Esther.<\/p>\nBecause the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls is so important for OT textual criticism, a short history and description of these recent discoveries is appropriate. The manuscripts now known as the Dead Sea Scrolls are a collection of biblical and extrabiblical manuscripts from Qumran, an ancient Jewish religious community near the Dead Sea.<\/p>\nBefore the Qumran find, few manuscripts had been discovered in the Holy Land. The early church father Origen (third century AD<\/span>) mentioned using Hebrew and Greek manuscripts that had been stored in jars in caves near Jericho. In the ninth century AD<\/span> a patriarch of the eastern church, Timothy I, wrote a letter to Sergius, metropolitan (archbishop) of Elam, in which he, too, referred to a large number of Hebrew manuscripts found in a cave near Jericho. For more than 1,000 years since then, however, no other significant manuscript discoveries were forthcoming from caves in that region near the Dead Sea.<\/p>\n<h5>Scroll Discoveries at Wadi Qumran<\/h5>\nThe history of the Dead Sea manuscripts, both of their hiding and of their finding, reads like a mystery adventure story. It began with a telephone call on Wednesday afternoon, February 18, 1948, in the troubled city of Jerusalem. Butrus Sowmy, librarian and monk of St Mark’s Monastery in the Armenian quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem, was calling John C. Trever, acting director of the American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR). Sowmy had been preparing a catalog of the monastery’s collection of rare books. Among them he found some scrolls in ancient Hebrew that, he said, had been in the monastery for about 40 years. Could ASOR supply him with some information for the catalog?<\/p>\nThe following day Sowmy and his brother brought a suitcase containing five scrolls or parts of scrolls wrapped in an Arabic newspaper. Pulling back the end of one of the scrolls Trever discovered that it was written in a clear, square Hebrew script. He copied several lines from that scroll, carefully examined three others, but was unable to unroll the fifth because it was too brittle. After the Syrians left, Trever told the story of the scrolls to William H. Brownlee, an ASOR fellow. Trever further noted in the lines he had copied from the first scroll the double occurrence of an unusual negative construction in Hebrew. In addition, the Hebrew script of the scrolls was more archaic than anything he had ever seen.<\/p>\nTrever then visited St Mark’s Monastery. There he was introduced to the Syrian archbishop Athanasius Samuel, who gave him permission to photograph the scrolls. Trever and Brownlee compared the style of handwriting on the scrolls with a photograph of the Nash Papyrus, a scroll inscribed with the Ten Commandments and Deuteronomy 6:4 and dated by scholars in the first or second century BC<\/span>. The two ASOR scholars concluded that the script on the newly found manuscripts belonged to the same period. When ASOR director Millar Burrows returned to Jerusalem from Baghdad a few days later, he was shown the scrolls, and the three men continued their investigation. Only then did the Syrians reveal that the scrolls had been purchased the year before, in 1947, and had not been in the monastery for 40 years as was first reported.<\/p>\nHow had the Syrians come to possess the scrolls? Before that question could be answered, many fragmentary accounts had to be pieced together. Sometime during the winter of 1946–47 three Bedouin were tending their sheep and goats near a spring in the vicinity of Wadi Qumran. One of the herdsmen, throwing a rock through a small opening in the cliff, heard the sound of the rock evidently shattering an earthenware jar inside. Another Bedouin later lowered himself into the cave and found ten tall jars lining the walls. Three manuscripts (one of them in four pieces) stored in two of the jars were removed from the cave and offered to an antiquities dealer in Bethlehem.<\/p>\nSeveral months later the Bedouin secured four more scrolls (one of them in two pieces) from the cave and sold them to another dealer in Bethlehem. During Holy Week in 1947, St Mark’s Syrian Orthodox Monastery in Jerusalem was informed of the four scrolls, and Metropolitan Athanasius Samuel offered to buy them. The sale was not completed, however, until July 1947, when the four scrolls were bought by the monastery. They included a complete Isaiah scroll, a commentary on Habakkuk, a scroll containing a Manual of Discipline of the religious community at Qumran, and the Genesis Apocryphon (originally thought to be the aprocryphal book of Lamech but actually an Aramaic paraphrase of Genesis).<\/p>\nIn November and December of 1947 an Armenian antiquities dealer in Jerusalem informed the late E. L. Sukenik, professor of archaeology at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, of the first three scrolls found in the cave by the Bedouin. Sukenik then secured the three scrolls and two jars from the antiquities dealer in Bethlehem. They included an incomplete scroll of Isaiah, the Hymns of Thanksgiving (containing 12 columns of original psalms), and the War Scroll. (That scroll describes a war, actual or spiritual, of the tribes of Levi, Judah, and Benjamin against the Moabites and Edomites. See<\/em> War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness.)<\/p>\nOn April 1, 1948, the first news release appeared in newspapers around the world, followed by another news release on April 26 by Sukenik about the manuscripts he had already acquired at Hebrew University. In 1949 Athanasius Samuel brought the four scrolls from St Mark’s Monastery to the United States. They were exhibited in various places and finally were purchased on July 1, 1954, in New York for $250,000 by Sukenik’s son for the nation of Israel and sent to Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Today they are on display in the Shrine of the Book museum in West Jerusalem.<\/p>\nBecause of the importance of the initial discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, both archaeologists and Bedouin continued their search for more manuscripts. Early in 1949, G. Lankester Harding, director of antiquities for the kingdom of Jordan, and Roland G. de Vaux, of the Dominic Ecole Biblique in Jerusalem, excavated the cave (designated Cave One, or 1Q) where the initial discovery was made. Several hundred caves were explored the same year. So far, 11 caves in the Wadi Qumran have yielded treasures. Almost 600 manuscripts have been recovered, about 200 of which are biblical material. The fragments number between 50,000 and 60,000 pieces. About 85 percent of the fragments are leather; the other 15 percent are papyrus. The fact that most of the manuscripts are leather contributed to the problem of their preservation.<\/p>\nProbably the cave next most important to Cave One is Cave Four (4Q), which has yielded about 40,000 fragments of 400 different manuscripts, 100 of which are biblical. Every book of the OT except Esther is represented.<\/p>\n\nIn addition to the biblical manuscripts the discoveries have included apocryphal works such as Hebrew and Aramaic fragments of Tobit, Ecclesiasticus, and the Letter of Jeremiah. Fragments were also found of pseudepigraphal books such as 1 Enoch, the book of Jubilees, and the Testament of Levi.<\/p>\nMany sectarian scrolls peculiar to the religious community that lived at Qumran were also found. They furnish historical background on the nature of pre-Christian Judaism and help fill in the gaps of intertestamental history. One of the scrolls, the Damascus Document, had originally turned up in Cairo, but manuscripts of it have now been found at Qumran. The Manual of Discipline was one of the seven scrolls from Cave One. Fragmentary manuscripts of it have been found in other caves. The document gives the group’s entrance requirements, plus regulations governing life in the Qumran community. The Thanksgiving Hymns include some 30 hymns, probably composed by one individual.<\/p>\nThere were also many commentaries on different books of the OT. The Habakkuk Commentary was a copy of the first two chapters of Habakkuk in Hebrew accompanied by a verse-by-verse commentary. The commentary gives many details about an apocalyptic figure called the “Teacher of Righteousness” who is persecuted by a wicked priest.<\/p>\nA unique discovery was made in Cave Three (3Q) in 1952. It was a scroll of copper, measuring about eight feet (2.4 meters) long and a foot (30.5 centimeters) wide. Because it was brittle, it was not opened until 1966, and then only by cutting it into strips. It contained an inventory of some 60 locations where treasures of gold, silver, and incense were hidden. Archaeologists have not been able to find any of it. That list of treasures, perhaps from the Jerusalem temple, may have been stored in the cave by Zealots (a revolutionary Jewish political party) during their struggle with the Romans in AD<\/span> 66–70.<\/p>\nDuring the Six-Day War in June 1967, Sukenik’s son, Yigael Yadin of the Hebrew University, acquired a Qumran document called the Temple Scroll. That tightly rolled scroll measures 28 feet (8.5 meters) and is the longest scroll found so far in the Qumran area. A major portion of it is devoted to statutes of the kings and matters of defense. It also describes sacrificial feasts and rules of cleanliness. Almost half of the scroll gives detailed instructions for building a future temple, supposedly revealed by God to the scroll’s author.<\/p>\n<h5>Important Dead Sea Scroll Manuscripts<\/h5>\nAmong the hundreds of biblical manuscripts discovered in the 11 caves around the Dead Sea, there are some very significant ones—especially for textual studies. These are listed below. (The first number signifies the cave, Q indicates Qumran, the abbreviation for the biblical book follows, often followed by a superscipt letter for successive manuscripts containing the same book.)<\/p>\n<h6>1QIsaa<\/span><\/h6>\nThis is the first Dead Sea Scroll to receive widespread attention. It is dated to c. 100 BC<\/span>. The text, which includes most of Isaiah, is proto-Masoretic with some significant variants.<\/p>\n<h6>1QIsab<\/span><\/h6>\nThe text, which includes most of Isaiah, is proto-Masoretic. It is dated to a period from 25 BC<\/span> to AD<\/span> 50.<\/p>\n<h6>2QJer<\/h6>\nThis manuscript is dated to a period from 25 BC<\/span> to AD<\/span> 50 and has portions of Jeremiah chapters 42–49. It has some readings that follow the Septuagint (LXX), while it follows the order of chapters found in proto-Masoretic texts. For the book of Jeremiah, the Septuagint and Masoretic Text are quite different: the Septuagint is one-eighth shorter and has a different arrangement of chapters.<\/p>\n<h6>4QPaleoExodm<\/span><\/h6>\nThis manuscript, containing most of Exodus, is dated quite early: 200–175 BC<\/span>. As such, it has provided scholars with some interesting insights into the early history of textual transmission of Exodus and the Pentateuch. The manuscript shows many similarities with the Samaritan Pentateuch.<\/p>\n<h6>4QNumb<\/span><\/h6>\nThis manuscript, dated 30 BC<\/span>–AD<\/span> 20, contains most of Numbers. The book of Numbers existed in three distinguishable textual traditions: the Masoretic Text, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Septuagint. This manuscript, 4QNumb<\/span>, shows similarities with the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint, while having its own unique readings.<\/p>\n\n<h6>4QSama<\/span><\/h6>\nThis manuscript, containing about one tenth of 1 and 2 Samuel, is dated c. 50–25 BC<\/span>. This manuscript, showing some similarities with the Septuagint, is believed to have several readings that are superior to the Masoretic Text.<\/p>\n<h6>4QJera<\/span><\/h6>\nThis manuscript, containing portions of Jeremiah 7–22, dates c. 200 BC<\/span>. It generally concurs with the Masoretic Text.<\/p>\n<h6>4QJerb<\/span><\/h6>\nThis manuscript, dated c. 150–125 BC<\/span>, follows the arrangement of the Septuagint, as well as its brevity. The significance of this is that two different texts of Jeremiah were used in the pre-Christian era—one that was proto-Masoretic (as with 4QJera<\/span>) and one that was like the Septuagint.<\/p>\n<h6>11QPsa<\/span><\/h6>\nThis manuscript, dated c. AD<\/span> 25–50, preserves many psalms. However, these are not in the traditional sequence found in the Hebrew Bible. Furthermore, the manuscript has several other psalms, some of which were known from other ancient versions and others that were unknown until they surfaced in this manuscript.<\/p>\n<h5>Scroll Discoveries at Wadi Murabba’at<\/h5>\nIn 1951 Bedouin discovered more manuscripts in caves in the Wadi Murabba’at, which extends southeast from Bethlehem toward the Dead Sea, about 11 miles (17.7 kilometers) south of Qumran. Four caves were excavated there in 1952 under Harding and de Vaux. They yielded biblical documents and important materials, such as letters and coins, from the time of the second Jewish revolt under Bar-Kochba in AD<\/span> 132–135. Among the biblical manuscripts was a scroll containing a Hebrew text of the Minor Prophets, dating from the second century AD<\/span>. This manuscript corresponds almost perfectly to the Masoretic Text, hinting that by the second century a standard consonantal text was already taking shape. Also found in Wadi Murabba’at were fragments of the Pentateuch (the five books of Moses) and Isaiah.<\/p>\nApart from the Dead Sea Scrolls, ancient witnesses to the Hebrew OT that are actually written in the Hebrew language are almost nonexistent. Because of this, the Dead Sea Scrolls may easily be one of the greatest archaeological finds of all time. They take us 1,000 years deeper into the history of the Hebrew OT, giving us the ability to assess all the other ancient witnesses with greater understanding.<\/p>\nThe most frequently represented OT books among the Dead Sea Scrolls are Genesis, Exodus, Deuteronomy, Psalms, and Isaiah. The oldest text is a fragment of Exodus dating from about 250 BC<\/span>. The Isaiah Scroll dates from about 100 BC<\/span>. These ancient witnesses only confirm the accuracy of the Masoretic Text and the care with which the Jewish scribes handled the Scriptures. Except for a few instances where spelling and grammar differ between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic Text, the two are amazingly similar. The differences do not warrant any major changes in the substance of the OT. Yet these discoveries are helping biblical scholars gain a clearer understanding of the text at an earlier time in its history and development.<\/p>\nEarly conclusions about the antiquity of the first Dead Sea Scrolls were not accepted by everyone. Some scholars were convinced that the scrolls were of medieval origin. A series of questions relate to the dating problem. When were the texts at Qumran composed? When were they deposited in the caves? Most scholars believe the manuscripts were placed in the caves by members of the Qumran community when Roman legions were besieging Jewish strongholds. That was shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem in AD<\/span> 70.<\/p>\n\nCareful study of the contents of a document sometimes reveals its authorship and the date when it was written. An example of using such internal evidence for dating a nonbiblical work is found in the Habakkuk Commentary. It gives hints about the people and events in the days of the commentary’s author, not in the days of the prophet Habakkuk. The commentator described the enemies of God’s people as the Kittim<\/span>.<\/em> Originally that word denoted Cyprus but later came to be more generally the Greek islands and the coasts of the eastern Mediterranean. In Daniel 11:30 the term is used prophetically, and most scholars identify the Kittim<\/span> with the Romans. Thus, the Habakkuk Commentary was probably written about the time of the Roman capture of Palestine under Pompey in 63 BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n\nAnother important item to consider when dating a manuscript is its copy date. Although the vast majority of manuscripts are undated, it is often possible to determine when a manuscript was written by paleography, the study of ancient handwriting. That was the method initially employed by Trever when he compared the script of the Isaiah Scroll with the Nash Papyrus, thus dating it to the pre-Christian era. His conclusions were confirmed by the late William F. Albright, then the foremost American archaeologist. During the time of the Babylonian captivity, the square script became the normal style of writing in Hebrew (as well as in Aramaic, a cousin of Hebrew). The evidence of paleography clearly dates the majority of the Qumran scrolls in the period between 200 BC<\/span> and AD<\/span> 200.<\/p>\nArchaeology provides another kind of external evidence. The pottery discovered at Qumran dates from the late Hellenistic and early Roman periods (200 BC<\/span>–AD<\/span> 100). Earthenware articles and ornaments point to the same period. Several hundred coins were found in jars dating from the Graeco-Roman period. A crack in one of the buildings is attributed to an earthquake that, according to Josephus (a Jewish historian who wrote during the first century AD<\/span>), occurred in 31 BC<\/span>. The excavations at Khirbet Qumran indicate that the general period of their occupation was from about 135 BC<\/span> to AD<\/span> 68, the year the Zealot revolt was crushed by Rome.<\/p>\nFinally, radiocarbon analysis has contributed to dating the finds. Radiocarbon analysis is a method of dating material from the amount of radioactive carbon remaining in it. The process is also known as carbon-14 dating. Applied to the linen cloth in which the scrolls were wrapped, the analysis gave a date of AD<\/span> 33 plus or minus 200 years. A later test bracketed the date between 250 BC<\/span> and AD<\/span> 50. Although there may be questions concerning the relation of the linen wrappings to the date of the scrolls themselves, the carbon-14 test agrees with the conclusions of both paleography and archaeology. The general period, then, in which the Dead Sea Scrolls can be safely dated is between about 150 BC<\/span> and AD<\/span> 68.<\/p>\n<h5>The Nash Papyrus<\/h5>\nPrior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the oldest Hebrew witness to the OT was the Nash Papyrus. This manuscript was acquired in Egypt by W. L. Nash in 1902 and was donated to the Cambridge University Library. This manuscript contains a damaged copy of the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:2-17), part of Deuteronomy 5:6-21, and also the Shema<\/span> (Dt 6:4ff.). This is clearly a collection of devotional and liturgical passages, and has been dated to the same period as the Dead Sea Scrolls, between 150 BC<\/span> and AD<\/span> 68.<\/p>\n<h5>The Cairo Geniza Fragments<\/h5>\nNear the end of the 19th century, many fragments from the 6th to the 8th centuries were found in an old synagogue in Cairo, Egypt, which had been St Michael’s Church until AD<\/span> 882. They were found there in a geniza, a storage room where worn or faulty manuscripts were hidden until they could be disposed of properly. This geniza had apparently been walled off and forgotten until its recent discovery. In this small room, as many as 200,000 fragments were preserved, including biblical texts in Hebrew and Aramaic. The fact that the biblical fragments date from the 5th century AD<\/span> makes them invaluable for shedding light on the development of the Masoretic work prior to the standardization instituted by the great Masoretes of Tiberias.<\/p>\nSignificant Old Testament Versions<\/p>\n<h5>The Samaritan Pentateuch<\/h5>\nExactly when the Samaritan community separated from the larger Jewish community is a matter of dispute. But at some point during the postexilic period (c. 540–100 BC<\/span>), a clear division between Samaritans and Jews was marked off. At this point, the Samaritans, who accepted only the Pentateuch as canonical, apparently canonized their own particular version of the Scriptures.<\/p>\nA copy of the Samaritan Pentateuch came to the attention of scholars in 1616. Initially, it caused a great deal of excitement, but most of the early assessments of its value to textual criticism were negative. It differed from the Masoretic Text in some 6,000 instances, and many judged this to be the result of sectarian differences between Samaritans and Jews. By some, it was simply viewed as a sectarian revision of the Masoretic Text.<\/p>\nAfter further assessment, however, it became clear that the Samaritan Pentateuch represented a text of much earlier origin than the Masoretic Text. And although a few of the distinctions of the Samaritan Pentateuch were clearly the result of sectarian concerns, most of the differences were neutral in this respect. Many of them had more to do with popularizing the text, rather than altering its meaning in any way. The fact that the Samaritan Pentateuch had much in common with the Septuagint, some of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the NT, revealed that most of its differences with the Masoretic Text were not due to sectarian differences. More likely, they were due to the use of a different textual base, which was probably in wide use in the ancient Near East until well after the time of Christ. This realization, though not solving any real problems, did much to illustrate the complexity of the OT textual tradition that existed before the Masoretic standard was completed.<\/p>\n<h5>The Septuagint (LXX)<\/h5>\n\nThe Septuagint is the oldest Greek translation of the OT, its witness being significantly older than that of the Masoretic Text. According to tradition, the Septuagint Pentateuch was translated by a team of 70 scholars in Alexandria, Egypt. (Hence its common designation LXX, the Roman numerals for 70.) The Jewish community in Egypt spoke Greek, not Hebrew, so a Greek translation of the OT was sincerely needed by that community of Jews. The exact date of translation is not known, but evidence indicates that the Septuagint Pentateuch was completed in the third century BC<\/span>. The rest of the OT was probably translated over a long period of time, as it clearly represents the work of many different scholars.<\/p>\nThe value of the Septuagint to textual criticism varies widely from book to book. It might be said that the Septuagint is not a single version but a collection of versions made by various authors, who differed greatly in their methods and their knowledge of Hebrew. The translations of the individual books are in no way uniform. Many books are translated almost literally, while others like Job and Daniel are quite dynamic. So the value of each book for textual criticism must be assessed on a book-by-book basis. The books translated literally are clearly more helpful in making comparisons with the Masoretic Text than the more dynamic ones.<\/p>\nThe content of some books is significantly different when comparing the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text. For example, the Septuagint’s Jeremiah is missing significant portions found in the Masoretic Text, and the order of the text is significantly different as well. What these differences actually mean is difficult to know with certainty. It has been conjectured that the Septuagint is simply a poor translation and is therefore missing portions of the original Hebrew. But these same differences could also indicate that editorial additions and changes worked their way into the Masoretic Text during its long history of development. It is also possible that there were a number of valid textual traditions at that time, one followed by the Septuagint, and another followed by the Masoretic Text. This illustrates some of the difficulties that arise while doing OT textual criticism.<\/p>\nThe Septuagint was the standard OT text used by the early Christian church. The expanding Gentile church needed a translation in the common language of the time—Greek. By the time of Christ, even among the Jews, a majority of the people spoke Aramaic and Greek, not Hebrew. The NT writers evidence their inclination to the Septuagint by using it when quoting the OT.<\/p>\n<h5>Other Greek Versions<\/h5>\nBecause of the broad acceptance and use of the Septuagint among Christians, the Jews renounced it in favor of a number of other Greek versions. Aquila, a proselyte and disciple of Rabbi Akiba, produced a new translation around AD<\/span> 130. In the spirit of his teacher, Aquila wrote an extremely literal translation, often to the point of communicating poorly in Greek. This literal approach, however, gained this version wide acceptance among Jews. Only fragments of this version have survived, but its literal nature reveals much about its Hebrew textual base.<\/p>\nSymmachus produced a new version around AD<\/span> 170 designed not only for accuracy but also to communicate well in the Greek language. His version has survived only in a few Hexapla<\/em> fragments. A third Greek version came from Theodotion, a Jewish proselyte from the end of the second century AD<\/span>. His version was apparently a revision of an earlier Greek version, possibly the Septuagint. This version has survived only in a few early Christian quotations, though it was once widely used.<\/p>\nThe Christian theologian Origen (c. AD<\/span> 185–255) arranged the OT with six parallel versions for comparison in his Hexapla.<\/em> In his effort to find the best text of the Septuagint, Origen wrote out six parallel columns containing first the Hebrew, second the Hebrew transliterated into Greek characters, third the text of Aquila, fourth the text of Symmachus, fifth his own corrected Septuagint text, sixth the text of Theodotion. Jerome used this great Bible at Caesarea in his work on the Vulgate (after 382—see below). Almost four centuries after Origen’s death, a Mesopotamian bishop, Paul of Tella, also used the Hexapla<\/em> in the library at Caesarea (616–17) to make a translation into Syriac of Origen’s fifth column, the corrected Septuagint. Then in 638 the Islamic hordes swept through Caesarea and the Hexapla<\/em> disappeared. Other than a few fragments, only Bishop Paul’s Syriac translation of Origen’s fifth column remains.<\/p>\nAn eighth-century copy of Bishop Paul’s Syriac Hexapla<\/em> Septuagint is extant in a Milan museum. Other famous uncial manuscripts of the Septuagint are the codices: Vaticanus, early fourth century, now in the Vatican Library; Sinaiticus, mid-fourth century; and Alexandrinus, probably from the fifth century—both of the latter are in London’s British Museum. These copies are intensely studied because they bear a Greek witness to Hebrew texts far earlier than the Masoretic or “received text.”<\/p>\n<h5>The Aramaic Targums<\/h5>\nThe Aramaic Targums were Aramaic translations of the Hebrew OT. Since the common language of the Jews during the postexilic period was Aramaic and not Hebrew, a need for Aramaic translations of the Hebrew Bible arose. Hebrew remained the language of scholarly religious circles, and translations for the common people were often spurned by the religious leadership. But over time, the reading of the Scriptures and commentaries in Aramaic became an accepted practice in the synagogues.<\/p>\nThe purpose of these translations was to get the message across and to edify the people. Thus, the translations were extremely interpretive. The translators paraphrased, added explanatory glosses, and often boldly reinterpreted the text according to the theological biases of their time. They sought to relate the Bible text to contemporary life and political circumstances. Because of the dynamic approach evident in these translations, their use in textual criticism is limited, but they do add to the welter of evidence to be collected and collated in order to reconstruct the text of the OT.<\/p>\n<h5>The Syriac Version<\/h5>\nAnother version worthy of note is the Syriac version. This version was in common use in the Syriac (eastern Aramaic) church, which designated it the Peshitta,<\/em> meaning “the simple or plain.” What they intended by this designation is difficult to discern. It may indicate that it was intended for popular consumption, or that it avoided adding explanatory glosses and other additions, or perhaps that it was not an annotated text, as was the annotated Syro-Hexapla<\/em> then in use by the same community.<\/p>\nThe literary history of the Syriac version is not known, though it is clearly complex. Some have identified it as the recasting of an Aramaic Targum in Syriac, while others claim it has a more independent origin. Some connect it to the conversion of the leaders of Adiabene (east of the Tigris River) to the Jewish faith during the first century AD<\/span>. Their need for an OT could have brought about the development of a version in their common tongue—Syriac. Still others connect it to Christian origins. Obvious later revisions to the Peshitta<\/em> complicate matters even more. More study needs to be done to assess the nature of this version before it can lend much insight into the history of the Hebrew text.<\/p>\n<h5>The Latin Versions<\/h5>\nLatin was a dominant language in western regions of the Roman Empire from well before the time of Christ. It was in the western regions of southern Gaul and North Africa that the first Latin translations of the Bible appeared. Around AD<\/span> 160 Tertullian apparently used a Latin version of the Scriptures. Not long after this, the Old Latin text seems to have been in circulation, evidenced by Cyprian’s use of it before his death in AD<\/span> 258. The Old Latin version was translated from the Septuagint. Due to its early date, it is valuable as a witness to the early Septuagint text, before later editors obscured the nature of the original. It also indirectly gives clues to the nature of the Hebrew text at the time of the Septuagint’s translation. Complete manuscripts of the Old Latin text have not survived. After the completion of Jerome’s Latin version, the Vulgate, the older text fell into disuse. Enough fragmentary manuscripts of this version do exist, however, to lend significant information to the early OT text.<\/p>\nAround the third century AD<\/span>, Latin began to replace Greek as the language of learning in the larger Roman world. A uniform, reliable text was badly needed for theological and liturgical uses. To fill this need, Pope Damasus I (AD<\/span> 336–84) commissioned Jerome, an eminent scholar in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, to undertake the translation. Jerome began this work as a translation from the Greek Septuagint, considered inspired by many church authorities, including Augustine. But later, and at the risk of great criticism, he turned to the Hebrew text being used in Palestine at that time as the base text for his translation. During the years between AD<\/span> 390 and 405 Jerome wrote his Latin translation of the Hebrew OT. Yet, despite Jerome’s return to the original Hebrew, he was heavily dependent on the various Greek versions as aids in translation. As a result the Vulgate reflects the other Greek and Latin translations as much as the underlying Hebrew text. The value of the Vulgate for textual criticism is its pre-Masoretic witness to the Hebrew Bible, though this was compromised to a great extent by the influence of already existing Greek translations.<\/p>\nThe Text of the Old Testament<\/p>\nThe task of the textual critic can be divided into a number of general stages: (1) the collection and collation of existing manuscripts, translations, and quotations; (2) the development of theory and methodology that will enable the critic to use the gathered information to reconstruct the most accurate text of the biblical materials; (3) the reconstruction of the history of the transmission of the text in order to identify the various influences affecting the text; (4) the evaluation of specific variant readings in light of textual evidence, theology, and history.<\/p>\nBoth OT and NT textual critics undertake a similar task and face similar obstacles. They both seek to unearth a hypothetical “original” text with limited resources that are at varying degrees of deterioration. But the OT textual critic faces a more complex textual history than does his NT counterpart. The NT was written primarily in the first century AD<\/span>, and complete NT manuscripts exist that were written only a few hundred years later. The OT, however, is made up of literature written over a 1,000-year period, the oldest parts dating to the 12th century BC<\/span>, or possibly even earlier. To make matters even more difficult, until recently, the earliest known Hebrew manuscripts of the OT were medieval. This left scholars with little witness as to the OT’s textual development from ancient times to the Middle Ages, a period of over 2,000 years.<\/p>\nUntil the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the 1940s and 1950s, secondary Aramaic, Greek, and Latin translations served as the earliest significant witnesses to the early Hebrew Scriptures. Since these are translations, and subject to sectarian and contextual alterations and interpolations, their value to the textual critic, though significant, is limited. The recent discoveries of the Dead Sea Scrolls and other early manuscripts, however, have provided primary witnesses to the Hebrew OT in earlier times. The scholarly assessment of these discoveries is, at present, far from complete, and the discipline of OT textual criticism anxiously awaits a more complete assessment of their significance. In a general sense, however, the Dead Sea Scrolls have affirmed the accuracy of the Masoretic Text that we use today.<\/p>\nReconstruction of the history of the transmission of the text is an important element in evaluating variant readings. Material from a wide variety of sources must be combined in order to arrive at even a tentative reconstruction of the text. A brief sketch of scholarly opinion follows.<\/p>\nThe early history of the OT text as reflected in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Septuagint, and the ancient Hebrew text shows a remarkable fluidity and diversity. Evidently the standardizing process did not begin at the earliest stages. For example, the materials from the Qumran community, where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, do not reflect any frustration with varying texts within that community.<\/p>\nSome scholars have attempted to account for such diversity by theories of local texts. They theorize that various localities in the Near East (e.g., Babylon, Palestine, Egypt) had differing text types that are reflected in the various surviving Hebrew texts and versions. Other scholars account for the diversity by recognizing a precanonical fluidity. They feel that until the process of canonization was complete, accurate reproduction of the manuscripts was not viewed as very important. It should be noted, however, that the basic text that modern scholarship has identified as closest to the original was among the Dead Sea texts (for example, the large Isaiah Scroll).<\/p>\nDestruction of the temple in AD<\/span> 70 provided an impetus for standardization of the consonantal text. The texts found at Wadi Murabba’at, copied during the first centuries AD<\/span>, reflect the new stage. The scholars initially reporting on the discovery were disappointed to find in these texts so few variations from the standard Masoretic Text. To scholars, the very early texts from the Dead Sea Scroll discoveries had become the standard consonantal text to the exclusion of other variants. Scholars have now gone so far as to identify the only slightly later Wadi Murabba’at texts as a “proto-Masoretic” standard. This seems to indicate that the Hebrew consonantal text was already approaching a standard in Palestine by the first centuries AD<\/span>.<\/p>\nStandardization as practiced by the Masoretes meant identifying one text as normative and copying carefully from that text. It also meant correcting existing texts by the normative text. The Hebrew text, of course, was written with consonants alone, not with consonants and<\/em> vowels, as we write English.<\/p>\nThe next stage in the transmission of the OT text was standardization of punctuation and vowel patterns. That process, which began fairly early in the NT period, extended over a period of 1,000 years. A long series of Masoretes provided annotations known as Masora,<\/em> which, in Hebrew, means “tradition.” Two different motivations are evident in their work. One was their concern for accurate reproduction of the consonantal text. For that purpose a collection of annotations (on irregular forms, abnormal patterns, the number of times a form or word was used, and other matters) was gathered and inserted in the margins or at the end of the text.<\/p>\nA second concern of the Masoretes was to record and standardize the vocalization of the consonantal text for reading purposes. Up until this point, scribes had been prohibited against inserting vowels to make the vocalization of the text clear. Because of this, a proper reading of the text depended on the oral tradition passed down from generation to generation. The origins of vocalization reflect differences between Babylon and Palestine. The Tiberian Masoretes (scholars working in Tiberias in Palestine) provided the most complete and exact system of vocalization. The earliest dated manuscript from that tradition is a codex of the Prophets from the Karaite synagogue of Cairo dated AD<\/span> 896. Today the standard Hebrew text of the OT, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia,<\/em> an updated version of Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica,<\/em> is constructed on the basis of the Tiberian Masoretic tradition.<\/p>\nStandardization of both the consonantal text and vocalization succeeded so well that the manuscripts that have survived display a remarkable agreement. Most of the variants, being minor and attributable to scribal error, do not affect interpretation.<\/p>\n<h5>Methodology of Old Testament Textual Criticism<\/h5>\nThe search for an adequate methodology to handle the many variant readings found in manuscripts is inseparably intertwined with our understanding of the history of transmission. The basic issue in textual criticism is the method used to decide the relative value of those variant readings. Many factors must be evaluated in order to arrive at a valid decision.<\/p>\nModern science has provided a number of aids for deciphering a manuscript. Scientific dating procedures help to determine the age of the writing material. Chemical techniques help clarify writing that has deteriorated. Ultraviolet light enables a scholar to see traces of ink (carbon) in a manuscript even after the surface writing has been effaced.<\/p>\nEach manuscript must be studied as a whole, for each has a “personality.” It is important to identify the characteristic errors, characteristic carelessness or carefulness, and other peculiarities of the scribe(s) who copied the material. Then the manuscript must be compared with other manuscripts to identify the “family” tradition with which it agrees. Preservation of common errors or insertions in the text is a clue to relationships. All possible details of date, place of origin, and authorship must be ascertained.<\/p>\nScribal errors fall into several distinct categories. The first large category is that of unintentional errors:<\/em> (1) Confusion of similar consonants and the transposition of two consonants are frequent errors. (2) Corruptions also resulted from an incorrect division of words (many early manuscripts omitted spaces between words in order to save space). (3) Confusion of sounds occurred particularly when one scribe read to a group of scribes making multiple copies. (4) In the OT, the method of vocalization (addition of vowels to the consonantal text) created some errors. (5) Omissions of a letter, word, or phrase created new readings. (6) Repetition of a letter, word, or even a whole phrase was also common. (7) Omission (called haplography) or repetition (called dittography) could be caused by the eye of a scribe slipping from one word to a similar word or ending. (8) Omissions by homoioteleuton<\/em> (Greek meaning “similar endings”) were also quite common. This occurred when two words that were identical, similar, or had identical endings were found close to each other, and the eye of the copyist moved from the first to the second, omitting the words between them. (9) In the OT, errors were at times caused by the use of consonants as vowel letters in some ancient texts. Copyists unaware of this usage of vowel letters would copy them in as aberrant consonants. Normally unintentional errors are fairly easy to identify because they create nonsense readings.<\/p>\nIntentional errors<\/em> are much more difficult to identify and evaluate. Harmonizations from similar materials occurred with regularity. Difficult readings were subject to “improvement” by a thinking scribe. Objectionable expressions were sometimes eliminated or smoothed out. Occasionally synonyms were employed. Conflation (resolving a discrepancy between two variant readings by including both of them) often appears.<\/p>\nAwareness of these common problems is the first step in detecting and eliminating the more obvious errors and identifying and eliminating the peculiarities of a particular scribe. Then more subtle criteria for identifying the reading most likely to be the original must be employed. Procedures for applying such criteria are similar in both OT and NT work.<\/p>\n<h5>General Methodological Principles<\/h5>\nThrough the work of textual critics in the last several centuries, certain basic principles have evolved. The primary principles for the OT can be briefly summarized.<\/p>\n1. The basic text for primary consideration is the Masoretic Text because of the careful standardization it represents. That text is compared with the testimony of the ancient versions. The Septuagint, by reason of age and basic faithfulness to the Hebrew text, carries significant weight in all decisions. The Targums (Aramaic translations) also reflect the Hebrew base but exhibit a tendency to expansion and paraphrase. The Syriac (Peshitta<\/em>), Vulgate (Latin), Old Latin, and Coptic versions add indirect evidence, although translations are not always clear witnesses in technical details. Use of such versions does enable scholars to use comparative philology in textual decisions and thus expose early errors for which the original reading probably has not survived.<\/p>\n<li>2. The reading that best explains the origin of other variants is preferable. Information from reconstruction of the history of transmission often provides additional insight. Knowledge of typical scribal errors enables the critic to make an educated decision on the sequence of variants.<\/li>\n<li>3. The shorter reading is preferable. The scribes frequently added material in order to solve style or syntax problems and seldom abridged or condensed material.<\/li>\n<li>4. The more difficult reading is more likely to be the original one. This principle is closely related to the third. Scribes did not intentionally create more complex readings. Unintentional errors are usually easy to identify. Thus the easier reading is normally suspect as a scribal alteration.<\/li>\n<li>5. Readings that are not harmonized or assimilated to similar passages are preferable. Copyists had a tendency to correct material on the basis of similar material elsewhere (sometimes even unconsciously).<\/li>\n<li>6. When all else fails, the textual critic must resort to conjectural emendation. To make an “educated guess” requires intimate acquaintance with the Hebrew language, familiarity with the author’s style, and an understanding of culture, customs, and theology that might color the passage. Use of conjecture must be limited to those passages in which the original reading has definitely not been transmitted to us.<\/li>\n<h5>Conclusion<\/h5>\nIt should be remembered that textual criticism operates only when two or more readings are possible for a specific word or phrase. For most of the biblical text, a single reading has been transmitted. Elimination of scribal errors and intentional changes leaves only a small percentage of the text about which any questions occur.<\/p>\nThe field of textual criticism is complex, requiring the gathering and skillful use of a wide variety of information. Because it deals with the authoritative source of revelation for all Christians, textual argumentation has often been accompanied by emotion. Yet in spite of controversy, great progress has been made, particularly in the last century. Refinement of methodology has greatly aided our understanding of the accumulated materials. Additional aid has come from accumulations of information in related fields of study such as church history, biblical theology, and the history of Christian thought.<\/p>\nCollection and organization of all variant readings have enabled modern textual critics to give strong assurance that the Word of God has been transmitted in accurate and dependable form. Although variant readings have become obvious through the publication of so many manuscripts, inadequate, inferior, and secondary readings have been largely eliminated. In relatively few places is conjectural emendation necessary. In matters pertaining to the Christian’s salvation, clear and unmistakable transmission provides authoritative answers. Christians are thus in debt to the textual critics who have worked, and are working, to provide a dependable biblical text.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BIBLE*, Manuscripts and Text of the (Old Testament)<\/span><\/h3>\nCopies of the OT books produced by scribes and editions made from these copies. The ancient manuscripts of the OT are the basic working material used to seek out the original text of the Bible with as great a degree of accuracy as possible. This process is called textual criticism, sometimes designated “lower criticism” to distinguish it from “higher criticism,” which is analysis of the date, unity, and authorship of the biblical writings.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Important Old Testament Manuscripts<\/p>\n• Significant Old Testament Versions<\/p>\n• The Text of the Old Testament<\/p>\nImportant Old Testament Manuscripts<\/p>\nMost medieval manuscripts of the OT exhibit a fairly standardized form of the Hebrew text. This standardization reflects the work of the medieval scribes known as Masoretes (AD<\/span> 500–900); the text that resulted from their work is called the Masoretic Text. Most of the important manuscripts dated from the 11th century AD<\/span> or later all reflect this same basic textual tradition. But since the Masoretic Text did not stabilize until well after AD<\/span> 500, many questions about its development in the preceding centuries could not be answered. So the primary task for OT textual critics has been to compare earlier witnesses in order to discover how the Masoretic Text came to be, and how it and earlier witnesses of the Hebrew Bible are related. This leads us to the initial task of textual criticism: the collection of all possible records of the biblical writings.<\/p>\nAll the primary sources of the Hebrew Scriptures are handwritten manuscripts, usually written on animal skins, papyrus, or sometimes metal. The fact that they are handwritten is the source of many difficulties for the textual critic. Human error and editorial tampering are often to blame for the many variant readings in OT and NT manuscripts. The fact that the ancient manuscripts are written on skins or papyrus is another source of difficulty. Due to natural decay, most of the surviving ancient manuscripts are fragmentary and difficult to read.<\/p>\nThere are many secondary witnesses to the ancient OT text, including translations into other languages, quotations used by both friends and enemies of biblical religion, and evidence from early printed texts. Most of the secondary witnesses have suffered in ways similar to the primary ones. They, too, contain numerous variants due to both intentional and accidental scribal errors and are fragmentary as a result of natural decay. Since variant readings do exist in the surviving ancient manuscripts, these must be collected and compared. The task of comparing and listing the variant readings is known as collation.<\/p>\n<h5>Manuscripts with the Masoretic Text<\/h5>\nThe textual history of the Masoretic Text is a significant story in its own right. This text of the Hebrew Bible is the most complete in existence. It forms the basis for our modern Hebrew Bibles and is the prototype against which all comparisons are made in OT textual studies. It is called Masoretic because in its present form it is based on the Masora,<\/em> the textual tradition of the Jewish scholars known as the Masoretes of Tiberias. (Tiberias was the location of their community on the Sea of Galilee.) The Masoretes, whose school flourished between AD<\/span> 500 and 1000, standardized the traditional consonantal text by adding vowel pointing and marginal notes. (The ancient Hebrew alphabet had no vowels.)<\/p>\nThe Masoretic Text, as it exists today, owes much to the Ben Asher family. For five or six generations, from the second half of the eighth century to the middle of the tenth century AD<\/span>, this family played a leading role in the Masoretic work at Tiberias. A faithful record of their work can be found in the oldest existing Masoretic manuscripts, which go back to the final two members of that family. The oldest dated Masoretic manuscript is Codex Cairensis (AD<\/span> 895), which is attributed to Moses ben Asher. This manuscript contained both the Former Prophets (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings) and the Latter Prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the 12 Minor Prophets). The rest of the OT is missing from this manuscript.<\/p>\nThe other major surviving manuscript attributed to the Ben Asher family is the Aleppo Codex. According to the manuscript’s concluding note, Aaron ben Moses ben Asher was responsible for writing the Masoretic notes and pointing the text. This manuscript contained the entire OT and dates from the first half of the 10th century AD<\/span>. It was reportedly destroyed in anti-Jewish riots in 1947, but this proved to be only partly true. A majority of the manuscript survived and will be used as the base for a new critical edition of the Hebrew Bible to be published by the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.<\/p>\nThe manuscript known as Codex Leningradensis, presently stored in the Leningrad Public Library, is of special importance as a witness to the Ben Asher text. According to a note on the manuscript, it was copied in AD<\/span> 1008 from texts written by Aaron ben Moses ben Asher. Since the oldest complete Hebrew text of the OT (the Aleppo Codex) was not available to scholars earlier in this century, Codex Leningradensis was used as the textual base for the popular Hebrew texts of today: Biblia Hebraica,<\/em> edited by R. Kittel, and its revision, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia,<\/em> edited by K. Elliger and W. Rudolf.<\/p>\nThere are quite a number of less important manuscript codices that reflect the Masoretic tradition: the Petersburg Codex of the Prophets and the Erfurt Codices. There are also a number of manuscripts that no longer exist but which were used by scholars in the Masoretic period. One of the most prominent is Codex Hillel, traditionally attributed to Rabbi Hillel ben Moses ben Hillel about AD<\/span> 600. This codex was said to be very accurate and was used for the revision of other manuscripts. Readings of this codex are cited repeatedly by the early medieval Masoretes. Codex Muga, Codex Jericho, and Codex Jerushalmi, also no longer extant, were also cited by the Masoretes. These manuscripts were likely prominent examples of unpointed texts that had become part of a standardizing consensus in the first centuries AD<\/span>. These laid the groundwork for the work of the Masoretes of Tiberias.<\/p>\nDespite the completeness of the Masoretic manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible, a major problem still remains for OT textual critics. The Masoretic manuscripts, as old as they are, were written between 1,000 and 2,000 years after the original autographs. Earlier witnesses to the ancient Hebrew text were needed to testify to the accuracy of the Masoretic Text.<\/p>\n<h5>The Dead Sea Scrolls<\/h5>\nThe most important ancient witnesses to the Hebrew Bible are the texts discovered at Wadi Qumran in the 1940s and 1950s. (Wadi<\/em> is an Arabic word for a riverbed that is dry except in the rainy season.) Before the Qumran discoveries, the oldest existing Hebrew manuscripts of the OT dated from about AD<\/span> 900. The greatest importance of the Dead Sea Scrolls, therefore, lies in the discovery of biblical manuscripts dating back to only about 300 years after the close of the OT canon. That makes them 1,000 years earlier than the oldest manuscripts previously known to biblical scholars. The texts found at Wadi Qumran were all completed before the Roman conquest of Palestine in AD<\/span> 70, and many predate this event by quite some time. Among the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Isaiah Scroll has received the most publicity, although the collection contains fragments of all the books in the Hebrew Bible with the exception of Esther.<\/p>\nBecause the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls is so important for OT textual criticism, a short history and description of these recent discoveries is appropriate. The manuscripts now known as the Dead Sea Scrolls are a collection of biblical and extrabiblical manuscripts from Qumran, an ancient Jewish religious community near the Dead Sea.<\/p>\nBefore the Qumran find, few manuscripts had been discovered in the Holy Land. The early church father Origen (third century AD<\/span>) mentioned using Hebrew and Greek manuscripts that had been stored in jars in caves near Jericho. In the ninth century AD<\/span> a patriarch of the eastern church, Timothy I, wrote a letter to Sergius, metropolitan (archbishop) of Elam, in which he, too, referred to a large number of Hebrew manuscripts found in a cave near Jericho. For more than 1,000 years since then, however, no other significant manuscript discoveries were forthcoming from caves in that region near the Dead Sea.<\/p>\n<h5>Scroll Discoveries at Wadi Qumran<\/h5>\nThe history of the Dead Sea manuscripts, both of their hiding and of their finding, reads like a mystery adventure story. It began with a telephone call on Wednesday afternoon, February 18, 1948, in the troubled city of Jerusalem. Butrus Sowmy, librarian and monk of St Mark’s Monastery in the Armenian quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem, was calling John C. Trever, acting director of the American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR). Sowmy had been preparing a catalog of the monastery’s collection of rare books. Among them he found some scrolls in ancient Hebrew that, he said, had been in the monastery for about 40 years. Could ASOR supply him with some information for the catalog?<\/p>\nThe following day Sowmy and his brother brought a suitcase containing five scrolls or parts of scrolls wrapped in an Arabic newspaper. Pulling back the end of one of the scrolls Trever discovered that it was written in a clear, square Hebrew script. He copied several lines from that scroll, carefully examined three others, but was unable to unroll the fifth because it was too brittle. After the Syrians left, Trever told the story of the scrolls to William H. Brownlee, an ASOR fellow. Trever further noted in the lines he had copied from the first scroll the double occurrence of an unusual negative construction in Hebrew. In addition, the Hebrew script of the scrolls was more archaic than anything he had ever seen.<\/p>\nTrever then visited St Mark’s Monastery. There he was introduced to the Syrian archbishop Athanasius Samuel, who gave him permission to photograph the scrolls. Trever and Brownlee compared the style of handwriting on the scrolls with a photograph of the Nash Papyrus, a scroll inscribed with the Ten Commandments and Deuteronomy 6:4 and dated by scholars in the first or second century BC<\/span>. The two ASOR scholars concluded that the script on the newly found manuscripts belonged to the same period. When ASOR director Millar Burrows returned to Jerusalem from Baghdad a few days later, he was shown the scrolls, and the three men continued their investigation. Only then did the Syrians reveal that the scrolls had been purchased the year before, in 1947, and had not been in the monastery for 40 years as was first reported.<\/p>\nHow had the Syrians come to possess the scrolls? Before that question could be answered, many fragmentary accounts had to be pieced together. Sometime during the winter of 1946–47 three Bedouin were tending their sheep and goats near a spring in the vicinity of Wadi Qumran. One of the herdsmen, throwing a rock through a small opening in the cliff, heard the sound of the rock evidently shattering an earthenware jar inside. Another Bedouin later lowered himself into the cave and found ten tall jars lining the walls. Three manuscripts (one of them in four pieces) stored in two of the jars were removed from the cave and offered to an antiquities dealer in Bethlehem.<\/p>\nSeveral months later the Bedouin secured four more scrolls (one of them in two pieces) from the cave and sold them to another dealer in Bethlehem. During Holy Week in 1947, St Mark’s Syrian Orthodox Monastery in Jerusalem was informed of the four scrolls, and Metropolitan Athanasius Samuel offered to buy them. The sale was not completed, however, until July 1947, when the four scrolls were bought by the monastery. They included a complete Isaiah scroll, a commentary on Habakkuk, a scroll containing a Manual of Discipline of the religious community at Qumran, and the Genesis Apocryphon (originally thought to be the aprocryphal book of Lamech but actually an Aramaic paraphrase of Genesis).<\/p>\nIn November and December of 1947 an Armenian antiquities dealer in Jerusalem informed the late E. L. Sukenik, professor of archaeology at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, of the first three scrolls found in the cave by the Bedouin. Sukenik then secured the three scrolls and two jars from the antiquities dealer in Bethlehem. They included an incomplete scroll of Isaiah, the Hymns of Thanksgiving (containing 12 columns of original psalms), and the War Scroll. (That scroll describes a war, actual or spiritual, of the tribes of Levi, Judah, and Benjamin against the Moabites and Edomites. See<\/em> War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness.)<\/p>\nOn April 1, 1948, the first news release appeared in newspapers around the world, followed by another news release on April 26 by Sukenik about the manuscripts he had already acquired at Hebrew University. In 1949 Athanasius Samuel brought the four scrolls from St Mark’s Monastery to the United States. They were exhibited in various places and finally were purchased on July 1, 1954, in New York for $250,000 by Sukenik’s son for the nation of Israel and sent to Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Today they are on display in the Shrine of the Book museum in West Jerusalem.<\/p>\nBecause of the importance of the initial discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, both archaeologists and Bedouin continued their search for more manuscripts. Early in 1949, G. Lankester Harding, director of antiquities for the kingdom of Jordan, and Roland G. de Vaux, of the Dominic Ecole Biblique in Jerusalem, excavated the cave (designated Cave One, or 1Q) where the initial discovery was made. Several hundred caves were explored the same year. So far, 11 caves in the Wadi Qumran have yielded treasures. Almost 600 manuscripts have been recovered, about 200 of which are biblical material. The fragments number between 50,000 and 60,000 pieces. About 85 percent of the fragments are leather; the other 15 percent are papyrus. The fact that most of the manuscripts are leather contributed to the problem of their preservation.<\/p>\nProbably the cave next most important to Cave One is Cave Four (4Q), which has yielded about 40,000 fragments of 400 different manuscripts, 100 of which are biblical. Every book of the OT except Esther is represented.<\/p>\n\nIn addition to the biblical manuscripts the discoveries have included apocryphal works such as Hebrew and Aramaic fragments of Tobit, Ecclesiasticus, and the Letter of Jeremiah. Fragments were also found of pseudepigraphal books such as 1 Enoch, the book of Jubilees, and the Testament of Levi.<\/p>\nMany sectarian scrolls peculiar to the religious community that lived at Qumran were also found. They furnish historical background on the nature of pre-Christian Judaism and help fill in the gaps of intertestamental history. One of the scrolls, the Damascus Document, had originally turned up in Cairo, but manuscripts of it have now been found at Qumran. The Manual of Discipline was one of the seven scrolls from Cave One. Fragmentary manuscripts of it have been found in other caves. The document gives the group’s entrance requirements, plus regulations governing life in the Qumran community. The Thanksgiving Hymns include some 30 hymns, probably composed by one individual.<\/p>\nThere were also many commentaries on different books of the OT. The Habakkuk Commentary was a copy of the first two chapters of Habakkuk in Hebrew accompanied by a verse-by-verse commentary. The commentary gives many details about an apocalyptic figure called the “Teacher of Righteousness” who is persecuted by a wicked priest.<\/p>\nA unique discovery was made in Cave Three (3Q) in 1952. It was a scroll of copper, measuring about eight feet (2.4 meters) long and a foot (30.5 centimeters) wide. Because it was brittle, it was not opened until 1966, and then only by cutting it into strips. It contained an inventory of some 60 locations where treasures of gold, silver, and incense were hidden. Archaeologists have not been able to find any of it. That list of treasures, perhaps from the Jerusalem temple, may have been stored in the cave by Zealots (a revolutionary Jewish political party) during their struggle with the Romans in AD<\/span> 66–70.<\/p>\nDuring the Six-Day War in June 1967, Sukenik’s son, Yigael Yadin of the Hebrew University, acquired a Qumran document called the Temple Scroll. That tightly rolled scroll measures 28 feet (8.5 meters) and is the longest scroll found so far in the Qumran area. A major portion of it is devoted to statutes of the kings and matters of defense. It also describes sacrificial feasts and rules of cleanliness. Almost half of the scroll gives detailed instructions for building a future temple, supposedly revealed by God to the scroll’s author.<\/p>\n<h5>Important Dead Sea Scroll Manuscripts<\/h5>\nAmong the hundreds of biblical manuscripts discovered in the 11 caves around the Dead Sea, there are some very significant ones—especially for textual studies. These are listed below. (The first number signifies the cave, Q indicates Qumran, the abbreviation for the biblical book follows, often followed by a superscipt letter for successive manuscripts containing the same book.)<\/p>\n<h6>1QIsaa<\/span><\/h6>\nThis is the first Dead Sea Scroll to receive widespread attention. It is dated to c. 100 BC<\/span>. The text, which includes most of Isaiah, is proto-Masoretic with some significant variants.<\/p>\n<h6>1QIsab<\/span><\/h6>\nThe text, which includes most of Isaiah, is proto-Masoretic. It is dated to a period from 25 BC<\/span> to AD<\/span> 50.<\/p>\n<h6>2QJer<\/h6>\nThis manuscript is dated to a period from 25 BC<\/span> to AD<\/span> 50 and has portions of Jeremiah chapters 42–49. It has some readings that follow the Septuagint (LXX), while it follows the order of chapters found in proto-Masoretic texts. For the book of Jeremiah, the Septuagint and Masoretic Text are quite different: the Septuagint is one-eighth shorter and has a different arrangement of chapters.<\/p>\n<h6>4QPaleoExodm<\/span><\/h6>\nThis manuscript, containing most of Exodus, is dated quite early: 200–175 BC<\/span>. As such, it has provided scholars with some interesting insights into the early history of textual transmission of Exodus and the Pentateuch. The manuscript shows many similarities with the Samaritan Pentateuch.<\/p>\n<h6>4QNumb<\/span><\/h6>\nThis manuscript, dated 30 BC<\/span>–AD<\/span> 20, contains most of Numbers. The book of Numbers existed in three distinguishable textual traditions: the Masoretic Text, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Septuagint. This manuscript, 4QNumb<\/span>, shows similarities with the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint, while having its own unique readings.<\/p>\n\n<h6>4QSama<\/span><\/h6>\nThis manuscript, containing about one tenth of 1 and 2 Samuel, is dated c. 50–25 BC<\/span>. This manuscript, showing some similarities with the Septuagint, is believed to have several readings that are superior to the Masoretic Text.<\/p>\n<h6>4QJera<\/span><\/h6>\nThis manuscript, containing portions of Jeremiah 7–22, dates c. 200 BC<\/span>. It generally concurs with the Masoretic Text.<\/p>\n<h6>4QJerb<\/span><\/h6>\nThis manuscript, dated c. 150–125 BC<\/span>, follows the arrangement of the Septuagint, as well as its brevity. The significance of this is that two different texts of Jeremiah were used in the pre-Christian era—one that was proto-Masoretic (as with 4QJera<\/span>) and one that was like the Septuagint.<\/p>\n<h6>11QPsa<\/span><\/h6>\nThis manuscript, dated c. AD<\/span> 25–50, preserves many psalms. However, these are not in the traditional sequence found in the Hebrew Bible. Furthermore, the manuscript has several other psalms, some of which were known from other ancient versions and others that were unknown until they surfaced in this manuscript.<\/p>\n<h5>Scroll Discoveries at Wadi Murabba’at<\/h5>\nIn 1951 Bedouin discovered more manuscripts in caves in the Wadi Murabba’at, which extends southeast from Bethlehem toward the Dead Sea, about 11 miles (17.7 kilometers) south of Qumran. Four caves were excavated there in 1952 under Harding and de Vaux. They yielded biblical documents and important materials, such as letters and coins, from the time of the second Jewish revolt under Bar-Kochba in AD<\/span> 132–135. Among the biblical manuscripts was a scroll containing a Hebrew text of the Minor Prophets, dating from the second century AD<\/span>. This manuscript corresponds almost perfectly to the Masoretic Text, hinting that by the second century a standard consonantal text was already taking shape. Also found in Wadi Murabba’at were fragments of the Pentateuch (the five books of Moses) and Isaiah.<\/p>\nApart from the Dead Sea Scrolls, ancient witnesses to the Hebrew OT that are actually written in the Hebrew language are almost nonexistent. Because of this, the Dead Sea Scrolls may easily be one of the greatest archaeological finds of all time. They take us 1,000 years deeper into the history of the Hebrew OT, giving us the ability to assess all the other ancient witnesses with greater understanding.<\/p>\nThe most frequently represented OT books among the Dead Sea Scrolls are Genesis, Exodus, Deuteronomy, Psalms, and Isaiah. The oldest text is a fragment of Exodus dating from about 250 BC<\/span>. The Isaiah Scroll dates from about 100 BC<\/span>. These ancient witnesses only confirm the accuracy of the Masoretic Text and the care with which the Jewish scribes handled the Scriptures. Except for a few instances where spelling and grammar differ between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic Text, the two are amazingly similar. The differences do not warrant any major changes in the substance of the OT. Yet these discoveries are helping biblical scholars gain a clearer understanding of the text at an earlier time in its history and development.<\/p>\nEarly conclusions about the antiquity of the first Dead Sea Scrolls were not accepted by everyone. Some scholars were convinced that the scrolls were of medieval origin. A series of questions relate to the dating problem. When were the texts at Qumran composed? When were they deposited in the caves? Most scholars believe the manuscripts were placed in the caves by members of the Qumran community when Roman legions were besieging Jewish strongholds. That was shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem in AD<\/span> 70.<\/p>\n\nCareful study of the contents of a document sometimes reveals its authorship and the date when it was written. An example of using such internal evidence for dating a nonbiblical work is found in the Habakkuk Commentary. It gives hints about the people and events in the days of the commentary’s author, not in the days of the prophet Habakkuk. The commentator described the enemies of God’s people as the Kittim<\/span>.<\/em> Originally that word denoted Cyprus but later came to be more generally the Greek islands and the coasts of the eastern Mediterranean. In Daniel 11:30 the term is used prophetically, and most scholars identify the Kittim<\/span> with the Romans. Thus, the Habakkuk Commentary was probably written about the time of the Roman capture of Palestine under Pompey in 63 BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n\nAnother important item to consider when dating a manuscript is its copy date. Although the vast majority of manuscripts are undated, it is often possible to determine when a manuscript was written by paleography, the study of ancient handwriting. That was the method initially employed by Trever when he compared the script of the Isaiah Scroll with the Nash Papyrus, thus dating it to the pre-Christian era. His conclusions were confirmed by the late William F. Albright, then the foremost American archaeologist. During the time of the Babylonian captivity, the square script became the normal style of writing in Hebrew (as well as in Aramaic, a cousin of Hebrew). The evidence of paleography clearly dates the majority of the Qumran scrolls in the period between 200 BC<\/span> and AD<\/span> 200.<\/p>\nArchaeology provides another kind of external evidence. The pottery discovered at Qumran dates from the late Hellenistic and early Roman periods (200 BC<\/span>–AD<\/span> 100). Earthenware articles and ornaments point to the same period. Several hundred coins were found in jars dating from the Graeco-Roman period. A crack in one of the buildings is attributed to an earthquake that, according to Josephus (a Jewish historian who wrote during the first century AD<\/span>), occurred in 31 BC<\/span>. The excavations at Khirbet Qumran indicate that the general period of their occupation was from about 135 BC<\/span> to AD<\/span> 68, the year the Zealot revolt was crushed by Rome.<\/p>\nFinally, radiocarbon analysis has contributed to dating the finds. Radiocarbon analysis is a method of dating material from the amount of radioactive carbon remaining in it. The process is also known as carbon-14 dating. Applied to the linen cloth in which the scrolls were wrapped, the analysis gave a date of AD<\/span> 33 plus or minus 200 years. A later test bracketed the date between 250 BC<\/span> and AD<\/span> 50. Although there may be questions concerning the relation of the linen wrappings to the date of the scrolls themselves, the carbon-14 test agrees with the conclusions of both paleography and archaeology. The general period, then, in which the Dead Sea Scrolls can be safely dated is between about 150 BC<\/span> and AD<\/span> 68.<\/p>\n<h5>The Nash Papyrus<\/h5>\nPrior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the oldest Hebrew witness to the OT was the Nash Papyrus. This manuscript was acquired in Egypt by W. L. Nash in 1902 and was donated to the Cambridge University Library. This manuscript contains a damaged copy of the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:2-17), part of Deuteronomy 5:6-21, and also the Shema<\/span> (Dt 6:4ff.). This is clearly a collection of devotional and liturgical passages, and has been dated to the same period as the Dead Sea Scrolls, between 150 BC<\/span> and AD<\/span> 68.<\/p>\n<h5>The Cairo Geniza Fragments<\/h5>\nNear the end of the 19th century, many fragments from the 6th to the 8th centuries were found in an old synagogue in Cairo, Egypt, which had been St Michael’s Church until AD<\/span> 882. They were found there in a geniza, a storage room where worn or faulty manuscripts were hidden until they could be disposed of properly. This geniza had apparently been walled off and forgotten until its recent discovery. In this small room, as many as 200,000 fragments were preserved, including biblical texts in Hebrew and Aramaic. The fact that the biblical fragments date from the 5th century AD<\/span> makes them invaluable for shedding light on the development of the Masoretic work prior to the standardization instituted by the great Masoretes of Tiberias.<\/p>\nSignificant Old Testament Versions<\/p>\n<h5>The Samaritan Pentateuch<\/h5>\nExactly when the Samaritan community separated from the larger Jewish community is a matter of dispute. But at some point during the postexilic period (c. 540–100 BC<\/span>), a clear division between Samaritans and Jews was marked off. At this point, the Samaritans, who accepted only the Pentateuch as canonical, apparently canonized their own particular version of the Scriptures.<\/p>\nA copy of the Samaritan Pentateuch came to the attention of scholars in 1616. Initially, it caused a great deal of excitement, but most of the early assessments of its value to textual criticism were negative. It differed from the Masoretic Text in some 6,000 instances, and many judged this to be the result of sectarian differences between Samaritans and Jews. By some, it was simply viewed as a sectarian revision of the Masoretic Text.<\/p>\nAfter further assessment, however, it became clear that the Samaritan Pentateuch represented a text of much earlier origin than the Masoretic Text. And although a few of the distinctions of the Samaritan Pentateuch were clearly the result of sectarian concerns, most of the differences were neutral in this respect. Many of them had more to do with popularizing the text, rather than altering its meaning in any way. The fact that the Samaritan Pentateuch had much in common with the Septuagint, some of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the NT, revealed that most of its differences with the Masoretic Text were not due to sectarian differences. More likely, they were due to the use of a different textual base, which was probably in wide use in the ancient Near East until well after the time of Christ. This realization, though not solving any real problems, did much to illustrate the complexity of the OT textual tradition that existed before the Masoretic standard was completed.<\/p>\n<h5>The Septuagint (LXX)<\/h5>\n\nThe Septuagint is the oldest Greek translation of the OT, its witness being significantly older than that of the Masoretic Text. According to tradition, the Septuagint Pentateuch was translated by a team of 70 scholars in Alexandria, Egypt. (Hence its common designation LXX, the Roman numerals for 70.) The Jewish community in Egypt spoke Greek, not Hebrew, so a Greek translation of the OT was sincerely needed by that community of Jews. The exact date of translation is not known, but evidence indicates that the Septuagint Pentateuch was completed in the third century BC<\/span>. The rest of the OT was probably translated over a long period of time, as it clearly represents the work of many different scholars.<\/p>\nThe value of the Septuagint to textual criticism varies widely from book to book. It might be said that the Septuagint is not a single version but a collection of versions made by various authors, who differed greatly in their methods and their knowledge of Hebrew. The translations of the individual books are in no way uniform. Many books are translated almost literally, while others like Job and Daniel are quite dynamic. So the value of each book for textual criticism must be assessed on a book-by-book basis. The books translated literally are clearly more helpful in making comparisons with the Masoretic Text than the more dynamic ones.<\/p>\nThe content of some books is significantly different when comparing the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text. For example, the Septuagint’s Jeremiah is missing significant portions found in the Masoretic Text, and the order of the text is significantly different as well. What these differences actually mean is difficult to know with certainty. It has been conjectured that the Septuagint is simply a poor translation and is therefore missing portions of the original Hebrew. But these same differences could also indicate that editorial additions and changes worked their way into the Masoretic Text during its long history of development. It is also possible that there were a number of valid textual traditions at that time, one followed by the Septuagint, and another followed by the Masoretic Text. This illustrates some of the difficulties that arise while doing OT textual criticism.<\/p>\nThe Septuagint was the standard OT text used by the early Christian church. The expanding Gentile church needed a translation in the common language of the time—Greek. By the time of Christ, even among the Jews, a majority of the people spoke Aramaic and Greek, not Hebrew. The NT writers evidence their inclination to the Septuagint by using it when quoting the OT.<\/p>\n<h5>Other Greek Versions<\/h5>\nBecause of the broad acceptance and use of the Septuagint among Christians, the Jews renounced it in favor of a number of other Greek versions. Aquila, a proselyte and disciple of Rabbi Akiba, produced a new translation around AD<\/span> 130. In the spirit of his teacher, Aquila wrote an extremely literal translation, often to the point of communicating poorly in Greek. This literal approach, however, gained this version wide acceptance among Jews. Only fragments of this version have survived, but its literal nature reveals much about its Hebrew textual base.<\/p>\nSymmachus produced a new version around AD<\/span> 170 designed not only for accuracy but also to communicate well in the Greek language. His version has survived only in a few Hexapla<\/em> fragments. A third Greek version came from Theodotion, a Jewish proselyte from the end of the second century AD<\/span>. His version was apparently a revision of an earlier Greek version, possibly the Septuagint. This version has survived only in a few early Christian quotations, though it was once widely used.<\/p>\nThe Christian theologian Origen (c. AD<\/span> 185–255) arranged the OT with six parallel versions for comparison in his Hexapla.<\/em> In his effort to find the best text of the Septuagint, Origen wrote out six parallel columns containing first the Hebrew, second the Hebrew transliterated into Greek characters, third the text of Aquila, fourth the text of Symmachus, fifth his own corrected Septuagint text, sixth the text of Theodotion. Jerome used this great Bible at Caesarea in his work on the Vulgate (after 382—see below). Almost four centuries after Origen’s death, a Mesopotamian bishop, Paul of Tella, also used the Hexapla<\/em> in the library at Caesarea (616–17) to make a translation into Syriac of Origen’s fifth column, the corrected Septuagint. Then in 638 the Islamic hordes swept through Caesarea and the Hexapla<\/em> disappeared. Other than a few fragments, only Bishop Paul’s Syriac translation of Origen’s fifth column remains.<\/p>\nAn eighth-century copy of Bishop Paul’s Syriac Hexapla<\/em> Septuagint is extant in a Milan museum. Other famous uncial manuscripts of the Septuagint are the codices: Vaticanus, early fourth century, now in the Vatican Library; Sinaiticus, mid-fourth century; and Alexandrinus, probably from the fifth century—both of the latter are in London’s British Museum. These copies are intensely studied because they bear a Greek witness to Hebrew texts far earlier than the Masoretic or “received text.”<\/p>\n<h5>The Aramaic Targums<\/h5>\nThe Aramaic Targums were Aramaic translations of the Hebrew OT. Since the common language of the Jews during the postexilic period was Aramaic and not Hebrew, a need for Aramaic translations of the Hebrew Bible arose. Hebrew remained the language of scholarly religious circles, and translations for the common people were often spurned by the religious leadership. But over time, the reading of the Scriptures and commentaries in Aramaic became an accepted practice in the synagogues.<\/p>\nThe purpose of these translations was to get the message across and to edify the people. Thus, the translations were extremely interpretive. The translators paraphrased, added explanatory glosses, and often boldly reinterpreted the text according to the theological biases of their time. They sought to relate the Bible text to contemporary life and political circumstances. Because of the dynamic approach evident in these translations, their use in textual criticism is limited, but they do add to the welter of evidence to be collected and collated in order to reconstruct the text of the OT.<\/p>\n<h5>The Syriac Version<\/h5>\nAnother version worthy of note is the Syriac version. This version was in common use in the Syriac (eastern Aramaic) church, which designated it the Peshitta,<\/em> meaning “the simple or plain.” What they intended by this designation is difficult to discern. It may indicate that it was intended for popular consumption, or that it avoided adding explanatory glosses and other additions, or perhaps that it was not an annotated text, as was the annotated Syro-Hexapla<\/em> then in use by the same community.<\/p>\nThe literary history of the Syriac version is not known, though it is clearly complex. Some have identified it as the recasting of an Aramaic Targum in Syriac, while others claim it has a more independent origin. Some connect it to the conversion of the leaders of Adiabene (east of the Tigris River) to the Jewish faith during the first century AD<\/span>. Their need for an OT could have brought about the development of a version in their common tongue—Syriac. Still others connect it to Christian origins. Obvious later revisions to the Peshitta<\/em> complicate matters even more. More study needs to be done to assess the nature of this version before it can lend much insight into the history of the Hebrew text.<\/p>\n<h5>The Latin Versions<\/h5>\nLatin was a dominant language in western regions of the Roman Empire from well before the time of Christ. It was in the western regions of southern Gaul and North Africa that the first Latin translations of the Bible appeared. Around AD<\/span> 160 Tertullian apparently used a Latin version of the Scriptures. Not long after this, the Old Latin text seems to have been in circulation, evidenced by Cyprian’s use of it before his death in AD<\/span> 258. The Old Latin version was translated from the Septuagint. Due to its early date, it is valuable as a witness to the early Septuagint text, before later editors obscured the nature of the original. It also indirectly gives clues to the nature of the Hebrew text at the time of the Septuagint’s translation. Complete manuscripts of the Old Latin text have not survived. After the completion of Jerome’s Latin version, the Vulgate, the older text fell into disuse. Enough fragmentary manuscripts of this version do exist, however, to lend significant information to the early OT text.<\/p>\nAround the third century AD<\/span>, Latin began to replace Greek as the language of learning in the larger Roman world. A uniform, reliable text was badly needed for theological and liturgical uses. To fill this need, Pope Damasus I (AD<\/span> 336–84) commissioned Jerome, an eminent scholar in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, to undertake the translation. Jerome began this work as a translation from the Greek Septuagint, considered inspired by many church authorities, including Augustine. But later, and at the risk of great criticism, he turned to the Hebrew text being used in Palestine at that time as the base text for his translation. During the years between AD<\/span> 390 and 405 Jerome wrote his Latin translation of the Hebrew OT. Yet, despite Jerome’s return to the original Hebrew, he was heavily dependent on the various Greek versions as aids in translation. As a result the Vulgate reflects the other Greek and Latin translations as much as the underlying Hebrew text. The value of the Vulgate for textual criticism is its pre-Masoretic witness to the Hebrew Bible, though this was compromised to a great extent by the influence of already existing Greek translations.<\/p>\nThe Text of the Old Testament<\/p>\nThe task of the textual critic can be divided into a number of general stages: (1) the collection and collation of existing manuscripts, translations, and quotations; (2) the development of theory and methodology that will enable the critic to use the gathered information to reconstruct the most accurate text of the biblical materials; (3) the reconstruction of the history of the transmission of the text in order to identify the various influences affecting the text; (4) the evaluation of specific variant readings in light of textual evidence, theology, and history.<\/p>\nBoth OT and NT textual critics undertake a similar task and face similar obstacles. They both seek to unearth a hypothetical “original” text with limited resources that are at varying degrees of deterioration. But the OT textual critic faces a more complex textual history than does his NT counterpart. The NT was written primarily in the first century AD<\/span>, and complete NT manuscripts exist that were written only a few hundred years later. The OT, however, is made up of literature written over a 1,000-year period, the oldest parts dating to the 12th century BC<\/span>, or possibly even earlier. To make matters even more difficult, until recently, the earliest known Hebrew manuscripts of the OT were medieval. This left scholars with little witness as to the OT’s textual development from ancient times to the Middle Ages, a period of over 2,000 years.<\/p>\nUntil the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the 1940s and 1950s, secondary Aramaic, Greek, and Latin translations served as the earliest significant witnesses to the early Hebrew Scriptures. Since these are translations, and subject to sectarian and contextual alterations and interpolations, their value to the textual critic, though significant, is limited. The recent discoveries of the Dead Sea Scrolls and other early manuscripts, however, have provided primary witnesses to the Hebrew OT in earlier times. The scholarly assessment of these discoveries is, at present, far from complete, and the discipline of OT textual criticism anxiously awaits a more complete assessment of their significance. In a general sense, however, the Dead Sea Scrolls have affirmed the accuracy of the Masoretic Text that we use today.<\/p>\nReconstruction of the history of the transmission of the text is an important element in evaluating variant readings. Material from a wide variety of sources must be combined in order to arrive at even a tentative reconstruction of the text. A brief sketch of scholarly opinion follows.<\/p>\nThe early history of the OT text as reflected in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Septuagint, and the ancient Hebrew text shows a remarkable fluidity and diversity. Evidently the standardizing process did not begin at the earliest stages. For example, the materials from the Qumran community, where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, do not reflect any frustration with varying texts within that community.<\/p>\nSome scholars have attempted to account for such diversity by theories of local texts. They theorize that various localities in the Near East (e.g., Babylon, Palestine, Egypt) had differing text types that are reflected in the various surviving Hebrew texts and versions. Other scholars account for the diversity by recognizing a precanonical fluidity. They feel that until the process of canonization was complete, accurate reproduction of the manuscripts was not viewed as very important. It should be noted, however, that the basic text that modern scholarship has identified as closest to the original was among the Dead Sea texts (for example, the large Isaiah Scroll).<\/p>\nDestruction of the temple in AD<\/span> 70 provided an impetus for standardization of the consonantal text. The texts found at Wadi Murabba’at, copied during the first centuries AD<\/span>, reflect the new stage. The scholars initially reporting on the discovery were disappointed to find in these texts so few variations from the standard Masoretic Text. To scholars, the very early texts from the Dead Sea Scroll discoveries had become the standard consonantal text to the exclusion of other variants. Scholars have now gone so far as to identify the only slightly later Wadi Murabba’at texts as a “proto-Masoretic” standard. This seems to indicate that the Hebrew consonantal text was already approaching a standard in Palestine by the first centuries AD<\/span>.<\/p>\nStandardization as practiced by the Masoretes meant identifying one text as normative and copying carefully from that text. It also meant correcting existing texts by the normative text. The Hebrew text, of course, was written with consonants alone, not with consonants and<\/em> vowels, as we write English.<\/p>\nThe next stage in the transmission of the OT text was standardization of punctuation and vowel patterns. That process, which began fairly early in the NT period, extended over a period of 1,000 years. A long series of Masoretes provided annotations known as Masora,<\/em> which, in Hebrew, means “tradition.” Two different motivations are evident in their work. One was their concern for accurate reproduction of the consonantal text. For that purpose a collection of annotations (on irregular forms, abnormal patterns, the number of times a form or word was used, and other matters) was gathered and inserted in the margins or at the end of the text.<\/p>\nA second concern of the Masoretes was to record and standardize the vocalization of the consonantal text for reading purposes. Up until this point, scribes had been prohibited against inserting vowels to make the vocalization of the text clear. Because of this, a proper reading of the text depended on the oral tradition passed down from generation to generation. The origins of vocalization reflect differences between Babylon and Palestine. The Tiberian Masoretes (scholars working in Tiberias in Palestine) provided the most complete and exact system of vocalization. The earliest dated manuscript from that tradition is a codex of the Prophets from the Karaite synagogue of Cairo dated AD<\/span> 896. Today the standard Hebrew text of the OT, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia,<\/em> an updated version of Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica,<\/em> is constructed on the basis of the Tiberian Masoretic tradition.<\/p>\nStandardization of both the consonantal text and vocalization succeeded so well that the manuscripts that have survived display a remarkable agreement. Most of the variants, being minor and attributable to scribal error, do not affect interpretation.<\/p>\n<h5>Methodology of Old Testament Textual Criticism<\/h5>\nThe search for an adequate methodology to handle the many variant readings found in manuscripts is inseparably intertwined with our understanding of the history of transmission. The basic issue in textual criticism is the method used to decide the relative value of those variant readings. Many factors must be evaluated in order to arrive at a valid decision.<\/p>\nModern science has provided a number of aids for deciphering a manuscript. Scientific dating procedures help to determine the age of the writing material. Chemical techniques help clarify writing that has deteriorated. Ultraviolet light enables a scholar to see traces of ink (carbon) in a manuscript even after the surface writing has been effaced.<\/p>\nEach manuscript must be studied as a whole, for each has a “personality.” It is important to identify the characteristic errors, characteristic carelessness or carefulness, and other peculiarities of the scribe(s) who copied the material. Then the manuscript must be compared with other manuscripts to identify the “family” tradition with which it agrees. Preservation of common errors or insertions in the text is a clue to relationships. All possible details of date, place of origin, and authorship must be ascertained.<\/p>\nScribal errors fall into several distinct categories. The first large category is that of unintentional errors:<\/em> (1) Confusion of similar consonants and the transposition of two consonants are frequent errors. (2) Corruptions also resulted from an incorrect division of words (many early manuscripts omitted spaces between words in order to save space). (3) Confusion of sounds occurred particularly when one scribe read to a group of scribes making multiple copies. (4) In the OT, the method of vocalization (addition of vowels to the consonantal text) created some errors. (5) Omissions of a letter, word, or phrase created new readings. (6) Repetition of a letter, word, or even a whole phrase was also common. (7) Omission (called haplography) or repetition (called dittography) could be caused by the eye of a scribe slipping from one word to a similar word or ending. (8) Omissions by homoioteleuton<\/em> (Greek meaning “similar endings”) were also quite common. This occurred when two words that were identical, similar, or had identical endings were found close to each other, and the eye of the copyist moved from the first to the second, omitting the words between them. (9) In the OT, errors were at times caused by the use of consonants as vowel letters in some ancient texts. Copyists unaware of this usage of vowel letters would copy them in as aberrant consonants. Normally unintentional errors are fairly easy to identify because they create nonsense readings.<\/p>\nIntentional errors<\/em> are much more difficult to identify and evaluate. Harmonizations from similar materials occurred with regularity. Difficult readings were subject to “improvement” by a thinking scribe. Objectionable expressions were sometimes eliminated or smoothed out. Occasionally synonyms were employed. Conflation (resolving a discrepancy between two variant readings by including both of them) often appears.<\/p>\nAwareness of these common problems is the first step in detecting and eliminating the more obvious errors and identifying and eliminating the peculiarities of a particular scribe. Then more subtle criteria for identifying the reading most likely to be the original must be employed. Procedures for applying such criteria are similar in both OT and NT work.<\/p>\n<h5>General Methodological Principles<\/h5>\nThrough the work of textual critics in the last several centuries, certain basic principles have evolved. The primary principles for the OT can be briefly summarized.<\/p>\n1. The basic text for primary consideration is the Masoretic Text because of the careful standardization it represents. That text is compared with the testimony of the ancient versions. The Septuagint, by reason of age and basic faithfulness to the Hebrew text, carries significant weight in all decisions. The Targums (Aramaic translations) also reflect the Hebrew base but exhibit a tendency to expansion and paraphrase. The Syriac (Peshitta<\/em>), Vulgate (Latin), Old Latin, and Coptic versions add indirect evidence, although translations are not always clear witnesses in technical details. Use of such versions does enable scholars to use comparative philology in textual decisions and thus expose early errors for which the original reading probably has not survived.<\/p>\n<li>2. The reading that best explains the origin of other variants is preferable. Information from reconstruction of the history of transmission often provides additional insight. Knowledge of typical scribal errors enables the critic to make an educated decision on the sequence of variants.<\/li>\n<li>3. The shorter reading is preferable. The scribes frequently added material in order to solve style or syntax problems and seldom abridged or condensed material.<\/li>\n<li>4. The more difficult reading is more likely to be the original one. This principle is closely related to the third. Scribes did not intentionally create more complex readings. Unintentional errors are usually easy to identify. Thus the easier reading is normally suspect as a scribal alteration.<\/li>\n<li>5. Readings that are not harmonized or assimilated to similar passages are preferable. Copyists had a tendency to correct material on the basis of similar material elsewhere (sometimes even unconsciously).<\/li>\n<li>6. When all else fails, the textual critic must resort to conjectural emendation. To make an “educated guess” requires intimate acquaintance with the Hebrew language, familiarity with the author’s style, and an understanding of culture, customs, and theology that might color the passage. Use of conjecture must be limited to those passages in which the original reading has definitely not been transmitted to us.<\/li>\n<h5>Conclusion<\/h5>\nIt should be remembered that textual criticism operates only when two or more readings are possible for a specific word or phrase. For most of the biblical text, a single reading has been transmitted. Elimination of scribal errors and intentional changes leaves only a small percentage of the text about which any questions occur.<\/p>\nThe field of textual criticism is complex, requiring the gathering and skillful use of a wide variety of information. Because it deals with the authoritative source of revelation for all Christians, textual argumentation has often been accompanied by emotion. Yet in spite of controversy, great progress has been made, particularly in the last century. Refinement of methodology has greatly aided our understanding of the accumulated materials. Additional aid has come from accumulations of information in related fields of study such as church history, biblical theology, and the history of Christian thought.<\/p>\nCollection and organization of all variant readings have enabled modern textual critics to give strong assurance that the Word of God has been transmitted in accurate and dependable form. Although variant readings have become obvious through the publication of so many manuscripts, inadequate, inferior, and secondary readings have been largely eliminated. In relatively few places is conjectural emendation necessary. In matters pertaining to the Christian’s salvation, clear and unmistakable transmission provides authoritative answers. Christians are thus in debt to the textual critics who have worked, and are working, to provide a dependable biblical text.<\/p>","summary_ro":"BIBLE*, Manuscripts and Text of the (Old Testament) Copies of the OT books produced by scribes and editions made from these copies. The ancient manuscripts of the OT are the basic working material used to seek out the original text of the Bible with as great a degree of accuracy as possible. This process is called textual criticism, sometimes designated “lower criticism” to distinguish it from “higher criticism,” which is analysis of the date, unity, and authorship of the biblical writings. P...","summary_en":"BIBLE*, Manuscripts and Text of the (Old Testament) Copies of the OT books produced by scribes and editions made from these copies. The ancient manuscripts of the OT are the basic working material used to seek out the original text of the Bible with as great a degree of accuracy as possible. This process is called textual criticism, sometimes designated “lower criticism” to distinguish it from “higher criticism,” which is analysis of the date, unity, and authorship of the biblical writings. P...","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":18946,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Jeremiah (Person)","title_en":"Jeremiah (Person)","content_ro":"<h3>JEREMIAH (Person<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<li>1. Prophet to Judah before its fall in 586 BC<\/span>; his name is also spelled “Jeremias” (Mt 16:14) and “Jeremy” (Mt 2:17; 27:9) in the kjv<\/span>.<\/li>\nJeremiah was born in the village of Anathoth, about three miles (4.8 kilometers) northeast of Jerusalem. His father’s name was Hilkiah, and he belonged to the tribe of Benjamin. His call came in the 13th year of King Josiah (640–609 BC<\/span>). He refers to himself as “a child” when called (Jer 1:6), but the Hebrew word is not the same as used in Jeremiah 30:6 and 31:8 and cannot be limited to preadolescence. He was probably referring to his inexperience rather than to his age. Jeremiah was born about 657 BC<\/span> during the reign of the wicked king Manasseh, while the great Ashurbanipal, who had shaken the world by sacking the ancient Egyptian city of Thebes in 663 BC<\/span>, ruled a world empire from Assyria.<\/p>\nGod informed Jeremiah that he had consecrated and appointed him before birth (Jer 1:4-5). Jeremiah first shrank with a sense of inadequacy and fear: “O Sovereign Lord<\/span>, . . . I can’t speak for you! I’m too young!” (v 6, nlt<\/span>). God would not allow Jeremiah to excuse himself. He was assured that words would be given him to speak, and guidance given for the way (v 7). He was promised protection (v 18) and deliverance (v 8) despite opposition (v 19). God touched his mouth, signifying divine inspiration of his words, and gave the sign of a branch from an almond tree, explaining that the Lord is watching (see nlt<\/span> mg). The third sign was the boiling pot (v 13) facing from the north, picturing the source and fury of impending disaster.<\/p>\nThus the tone of Jeremiah’s life ministry was set: judgment, disaster, danger, defeat, and impending death for the nation.<\/p>\nEarly Ministry<\/p>\nThe messages given by Jeremiah during his first five years of ministry may have been instrumental in the great revival of 622 BC<\/span>. Those cooperating with King Josiah in the reformation and friendly with Jeremiah included Ahikam and his father, Shaphan (Jer 26:24); Gedaliah, Ahikam’s son (39:14), who later became governor; Acbor, son of Micaiah, also called Abdon, whose son Elnathan joined the opposition (26:22) but later repented (36:25); and Asaiah (2 Chr 34:20). The prophets Nahum and Zephaniah also influenced the reform movement, which must have climaxed under the preaching of Habakkuk and Jeremiah, the priestly ministry of Hilkiah, and the prophecies of Huldah the prophetess. During the reign of King Josiah, Jeremiah spoke without the fear of persecution that plagued his later ministry. Though the content of the book of Jeremiah sometimes appears to be fragmentary, most of chapters 1–19 date to the time of Josiah.<\/p>\nThe finding of the lost Book of the Covenant in the temple debris may be the reason for the words in Jeremiah 15:16: “Your words are what sustain me. They bring me great joy and are my heart’s delight” (nlt<\/span>). The words “So be it, Lord<\/span>” (Jer 11:5) in a context recalling the words of Moses in the Torah may be Jeremiah’s response after hearing King Josiah read the newly found book.<\/p>\nSmall towns and rural areas, including his hometown, heard Jeremiah’s denunciation of high places and idolatry. They sought to kill the young prophet, or at least to intimidate him (11:21). Instead of being silent, Jeremiah asserted that his motivation was for their good and condemned their resistance to the truth as their greatest danger.<\/p>\nShortly after Jeremiah began his ministry, a number of world-changing events took place. Ashurbanipal died and the Assyrian Empire rapidly declined. Nabopolassar began a 21-year reign in Babylon, leading an expansion that culminated in his son Nebuchadnezzar’s subjugation of the known world. As the world news filtered in, Jeremiah turned more toward Jerusalem. His first temple speeches (chs 7–10) may have been uttered at this time.<\/p>\nNabopolassar felt his strength sufficient to launch an attack against Assyrian territory in 616 BC<\/span>, but he advanced cautiously because Psamtik I (Psammetichus) of Egypt appeared ready to aid Assyria. Cyaxares of Media pounced on Assyria when Babylon hesitated and took its most sacred city, Asshur, in 614 BC<\/span>. Babylon joined Media, along with Scythia, and waged an assault against Nineveh, which fell late in the summer of 612 BC<\/span>. The Assyrian Empire had shriveled to two small holdings, Haran and Carchemish.<\/p>\nNabopolassar took Haran in 610, and Ashuruballit, having escaped, appealed to Egypt for help at Carchemish. Neco, who had become pharaoh within the year, responded immediately. He marched through Judah without giving Josiah prior notice and asked that the Jews not bother him in view of his haste to go northward (2 Chr 35:21). Ignoring the request, Josiah pursued them to Megiddo and was wounded in the ensuing battle; he died in Jerusalem.<\/p>\nMinistry during the Reign of Jehoiakim<\/p>\nIn place of Jehoahaz, Josiah’s fourth son, who reigned only three months, Pharaoh Neco enthroned Jehoiakim (Eliakim). Neco demanded heavy indemnity payments from Judah and took Jehoahaz prisoner as collateral to assure payment (2 Kgs 23:31-33).<\/p>\nEarly in the reign of Jehoiakim, Jeremiah, moved by God’s Spirit, delivered his third temple speech (Jer 26) on the occasion of one of the annual Jewish feasts. He called for the people to repent and to act on the basis of the revelation they had heard repeatedly from the Book of the Law. The barb of the sermon came in the warning: “This is what the Lord<\/span> says: If you will not listen to me and obey the law I have given you, and if you will not listen to my servants, the prophets—for I sent them again and again to warn you, but you would not listen to them—then I will destroy this Temple as I destroyed Shiloh, the place where the Tabernacle was located. And I will make Jerusalem an object of cursing in every nation on earth” (26:4-6, nlt<\/span>). Shiloh had been the heart of Jewish worship from Joshua to Samuel, but after being destroyed by the Philistines, it never revived. It served as an example of complete desolation following God’s judgment in the days of Eli.<\/p>\nCrowds gathered rapidly and reacted angrily against Jeremiah. Priests and princes hurried to the New Gate, where a court was established to bring order and to control violence. Jehoiakim would be no help to Jeremiah, for he had refused to listen to God’s messages (Jer 22:21). The priests and false prophets spoke against Jeremiah, calling him a traitor. Then some of the elders spoke to the people about Uriah, who had prophesied the same message. Rather than risk disaster, Ahikam persuaded the court to spare Jeremiah.<\/p>\nEgypt controlled Palestine and Syria after the decay of the Assyrian Empire. In 606 BC<\/span> Egypt succeeded in annihilating a garrison city of Babylonian soldiers south of Carchemish and then reoccupied Carchemish to await the return blow from Babylon. This Egyptian victory meant persecution for Jeremiah, who was often accused of false prophecy (cf. Jer 20).<\/p>\nJeremiah never had confidence in Egypt. Each time a Jewish leader would call for a new alliance with Egypt, Jeremiah repeated God’s message against it. Whenever a Jewish group fled to Egypt for security, Jeremiah warned of worse things in that land of false refuge (see Jer 44:26-27). Jeremiah’s ode and prophecy in chapter 46 poetically describe Egypt’s defeat at Carchemish, when Nabopolassar sent his son Nebuchadnezzar to destroy them (605 BC<\/span>). After smashing the Egyptian army at Carchemish, Nebuchadnezzar pursued the enemy through Judah. “Not a single man escaped to his own country,” reads the exaggerated Babylonian record. His father’s death, however, prevented him from invading Egypt, and he returned to Babylon to assume the throne. The following year Nebuchadnezzar, now king of Babylonia, returned to accept the homage of the rulers of Judah, Syria, and Phoenicia. On this occasion God gave Jeremiah his great 70-year prophecy (Jer 25:11-12), which became the basis of Daniel 9:2, 24-27.<\/p>\nA year after the decisive battle at Carchemish, Baruch, Jeremiah’s scribe, finished recording all the dictated words of Jeremiah and was reading from this scroll at the temple. A report reached the king, who sent Jehudi, a servant, to fetch the scroll and read it to him. When this was done, Jehoiakim burned the scroll in spite of his counselors, who pleaded that the king not do it (Jer 36:23-25). God’s message, soon rewritten, added a promise of fearful judgment on Jehoiakim (vv 27-31).<\/p>\nAmbitious young Nebuchadnezzar determined to add Egypt to his dominion. In 601 BC<\/span> he led his forces through Judah again, but Neco had advance warning and was prepared for the onslaught. In the desert of Shur, Nebuchadnezzar suffered defeat. Encouraged by this display of Egyptian defensive strength, the pro-Egyptian parties in Judah asserted themselves, persuading Jehoiakim to lead them to freedom from Babylon by making an alliance with Egypt (2 Kgs 24:1). But help from Egypt did not come (v 7).<\/p>\nIn 599 BC<\/span>, Nebuchadnezzar armed those surrounding the rebel Jewish kingdom to harass the Jews, which they willingly did (2 Kgs 24:2). Evidently Jehoiakim lost his life in one of these raids. Since the people despised him, his body was thrown out without honorable burial, as Jeremiah had predicted (Jer 22:19).<\/p>\nMinistry during the Reign of Zedekiah<\/p>\nNebuchadnezzar’s siege of Jerusalem in 598 BC<\/span> lasted only a short time because the new king, Jehoiachin, crowned at age 18, knew resistance was useless. He gave himself up, with all his family and court, in March of 597 BC<\/span>, after serving as king about three months. The Babylonian Chronicle reads: “He [Nebuchadnezzar] seized the city and captured the king.”<\/p>\nJehoiachin was carried to Babylon along with 8,000 (2 Kgs 24:16; cf. v 14) officers, artisans, and executives (Ezekiel among them) and much booty. In his place Nebuchadnezzar appointed Zedekiah, Jehoiachin’s uncle, to rule. Zedekiah proceeded to organize his government with the less capable and inexperienced help left after the deportation.<\/p>\nJeremiah took up his thankless ministry, calling on the Jews to believe God, obey the laws of Babylon, and reject false hopes in Egypt. Zedekiah turned a deaf ear to these appeals, listening rather to the unwise advice of his counselors (Jer 37:1-2). During the first year of Zedekiah’s rule, Jeremiah received the vision of the two baskets of figs. The Jews carried to Babylon were like good figs, while Zedekiah and those who trusted in Egypt were like rotten figs (24:1-8). The reason for this reproachful description was that the Jews began plotting rebellion against Babylon along with Edom, Moab, Ammon, Tyre, and Sidon from the beginning of the reign of Zedekiah (27:1-3), thus breaking their oath of loyalty to Nebuchadnezzar and repudiating God’s message through Jeremiah.<\/p>\nIn Egypt the pharaoh began to renew plans to organize dissidents within the Babylonian Empire to revolt. He hired Jewish soldiers to aid him in protecting his southern border. The Jewish soldiers settled on a Nile island called Elephantine, or Yeb (593–410 BC<\/span>). Jeremiah addressed an oracle to these Jews (ch 44). The treaty for Jews to help in Egypt evidently also assumed that Egyptians would aid Israel. When the Babylonians besieged Jerusalem in 589, Pharaoh Hophra came to the aid of Zedekiah. Nebuchadnezzar, ruling from Riblah, commanded that the siege against Jerusalem be lifted in order to make a surprise attack on Hophra (37:5). The release gave Jeremiah an opportunity to journey to Anathoth to secure some family property (v 12). However, Irijah, captain of the guard, arrested Jeremiah in the Gate of Benjamin for defecting to the enemy, and he was beaten and flung into a dungeon. King Zedekiah brought him out after many days to obtain a prognostication. With characteristic boldness, Jeremiah told the king he would shortly become a captive. At the same time, Jeremiah requested relief from injustice for himself. He gained part of his request but continued as prisoner in the court of the guard.<\/p>\nThe Babylonian army chased Pharaoh Hophra back to Egypt and returned to crush Jerusalem without further mercy. The siege, which began in 589 BC<\/span>, was restored with rigor in January of 588, Zedekiah’s ninth year (39:1). During this time, the Lord gave Jeremiah foreknowledge of a visit from a cousin who wished to sell a field near Anathoth (32:7-9; cf. 37:12). Jeremiah bought the field as an object lesson to verify the message of restoration after a captivity of 70 years (29:10).<\/p>\nThe armies of Babylon cut off all supplies from Jerusalem and were able to destroy the last two outlying Jewish fortresses of Lachish and Azekah (34:7). Food became scarce. Disease spread. Undisposed-of sewage and impure cistern water caused pestilence. With increased distress came Jeremiah’s increased appeal for the city to surrender.<\/p>\nJeremiah remained in the prison court until the Babylonians breached the city wall in July of 586 BC<\/span>. The king escaped by night and succeeded in reaching the plains of Jericho but was captured there and taken to Riblah. Zedekiah’s family and counselors were killed; he himself was blinded and taken in chains to Babylon, where he died soon after (39:6-7).<\/p>\nBack in Jerusalem, Nebuzaradan, the Babylonian general, sent most of the Jews into captivity. Jeremiah, however, was granted special consideration; after being released from prison, he was placed under the care of Gedaliah, son of Ahikam.<\/p>\nAfter the Fall of Jerusalem<\/p>\nA month after the fall of Jerusalem, the city was burned and the walls broken down. Gedaliah was appointed governor of the remaining agricultural community, with headquarters at Mizpah. Jeremiah returned to Jerusalem, where, according to tradition, he took up his abode in a grotto near what is now known as Gordon’s Calvary. There he wrote the book of Lamentations.<\/p>\nThe Ammonite king Baalis, plotting rebellion against Babylon, instigated the murder of Gedaliah (40:13). In the reaction that followed, the remaining people followed the leader Johanan ben Kareah to a camp near Bethlehem, intending to go to Egypt. They asked Jeremiah, at Jerusalem, to give guidance from the Lord, promising obedience. Jeremiah’s message required that they remain in Israel and not go to Egypt. Disobedience was complete and immediate. Fearing Babylon, they departed from Judah, taking Jeremiah with them, and entered Egypt (41:16–43:7).<\/p>\nJeremiah did not stop his ministry in Egypt. His message at Tahpanhes (43:8-12) assured a victorious conquest of the land by Nebuchadnezzar, which took place in 568–567 BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nJews from all parts of Egypt gathered to discuss their future as exiles. Jeremiah took the opportunity to denounce their idolatry. Jewish women as well as men argued that they had enjoyed prosperity while serving idols but had suffered since stopping. Jeremiah condemned their obdurate blindness to reality and gave God’s indictment. For a verifying sign, Jeremiah predicted that Pharaoh Hophra of Egypt would be assassinated (44:30), which happened in 466 BC<\/span>. No later record of Jeremiah’s acts exists in the Bible. Tradition says Jeremiah was stoned to death by the people of the Jewish exile settlement in Tahpanhes.<\/p>\nThough Jeremiah suffered continued rejection during his life, he has been honored by numerous apocryphal and traditional embellishments to his history. Jesus could well have had Jeremiah in mind when he said, “You build tombs for the prophets your ancestors killed and decorate the graves of the godly people your ancestors destroyed. . . . [You are] the descendants of those who murdered the prophets” (Mt 23:29-31, nlt<\/span>). See<\/em> Israel, History of; Jeremiah, Book of; Prophet, Prophetess.<\/p>\n<li>2. Family head in the Transjordan portion of Manasseh whom Tiglath-pileser took captive (1 Chr 5:23-26; cf. 2 Kgs 15:29).<\/li>\n<li>3. Father of Hamutal, a wife of King Josiah (2 Kgs 23:31; 24:18).<\/li>\n<li>4. Ambidextrous Benjamite bowman and slinger who joined David at Ziklag (1 Chr 12:4).<\/li>\n<li>5, 6. Two Gadite soldiers who joined David’s army (1 Chr 12:10, 13).<\/li>\n<li>7. Postexilic priest who with Nehemiah set his seal to the covenant, renewing the people’s promise to obey God’s laws (Neh 10:2). He is mentioned again (12:34) as part of the procession for the dedication of the new wall of Jerusalem.<\/li>\n<li>8. Priest who returned from exile with Zerubbabel (Neh 12:1) and became head of a family of priests (v 12).<\/li>\n<li>9. Father of Jaazaniah, a Recabite who refused to drink wine (Jer 35:3).<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>JEREMIAH (Person<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<li>1. Prophet to Judah before its fall in 586 BC<\/span>; his name is also spelled “Jeremias” (Mt 16:14) and “Jeremy” (Mt 2:17; 27:9) in the kjv<\/span>.<\/li>\nJeremiah was born in the village of Anathoth, about three miles (4.8 kilometers) northeast of Jerusalem. His father’s name was Hilkiah, and he belonged to the tribe of Benjamin. His call came in the 13th year of King Josiah (640–609 BC<\/span>). He refers to himself as “a child” when called (Jer 1:6), but the Hebrew word is not the same as used in Jeremiah 30:6 and 31:8 and cannot be limited to preadolescence. He was probably referring to his inexperience rather than to his age. Jeremiah was born about 657 BC<\/span> during the reign of the wicked king Manasseh, while the great Ashurbanipal, who had shaken the world by sacking the ancient Egyptian city of Thebes in 663 BC<\/span>, ruled a world empire from Assyria.<\/p>\nGod informed Jeremiah that he had consecrated and appointed him before birth (Jer 1:4-5). Jeremiah first shrank with a sense of inadequacy and fear: “O Sovereign Lord<\/span>, . . . I can’t speak for you! I’m too young!” (v 6, nlt<\/span>). God would not allow Jeremiah to excuse himself. He was assured that words would be given him to speak, and guidance given for the way (v 7). He was promised protection (v 18) and deliverance (v 8) despite opposition (v 19). God touched his mouth, signifying divine inspiration of his words, and gave the sign of a branch from an almond tree, explaining that the Lord is watching (see nlt<\/span> mg). The third sign was the boiling pot (v 13) facing from the north, picturing the source and fury of impending disaster.<\/p>\nThus the tone of Jeremiah’s life ministry was set: judgment, disaster, danger, defeat, and impending death for the nation.<\/p>\nEarly Ministry<\/p>\nThe messages given by Jeremiah during his first five years of ministry may have been instrumental in the great revival of 622 BC<\/span>. Those cooperating with King Josiah in the reformation and friendly with Jeremiah included Ahikam and his father, Shaphan (Jer 26:24); Gedaliah, Ahikam’s son (39:14), who later became governor; Acbor, son of Micaiah, also called Abdon, whose son Elnathan joined the opposition (26:22) but later repented (36:25); and Asaiah (2 Chr 34:20). The prophets Nahum and Zephaniah also influenced the reform movement, which must have climaxed under the preaching of Habakkuk and Jeremiah, the priestly ministry of Hilkiah, and the prophecies of Huldah the prophetess. During the reign of King Josiah, Jeremiah spoke without the fear of persecution that plagued his later ministry. Though the content of the book of Jeremiah sometimes appears to be fragmentary, most of chapters 1–19 date to the time of Josiah.<\/p>\nThe finding of the lost Book of the Covenant in the temple debris may be the reason for the words in Jeremiah 15:16: “Your words are what sustain me. They bring me great joy and are my heart’s delight” (nlt<\/span>). The words “So be it, Lord<\/span>” (Jer 11:5) in a context recalling the words of Moses in the Torah may be Jeremiah’s response after hearing King Josiah read the newly found book.<\/p>\nSmall towns and rural areas, including his hometown, heard Jeremiah’s denunciation of high places and idolatry. They sought to kill the young prophet, or at least to intimidate him (11:21). Instead of being silent, Jeremiah asserted that his motivation was for their good and condemned their resistance to the truth as their greatest danger.<\/p>\nShortly after Jeremiah began his ministry, a number of world-changing events took place. Ashurbanipal died and the Assyrian Empire rapidly declined. Nabopolassar began a 21-year reign in Babylon, leading an expansion that culminated in his son Nebuchadnezzar’s subjugation of the known world. As the world news filtered in, Jeremiah turned more toward Jerusalem. His first temple speeches (chs 7–10) may have been uttered at this time.<\/p>\nNabopolassar felt his strength sufficient to launch an attack against Assyrian territory in 616 BC<\/span>, but he advanced cautiously because Psamtik I (Psammetichus) of Egypt appeared ready to aid Assyria. Cyaxares of Media pounced on Assyria when Babylon hesitated and took its most sacred city, Asshur, in 614 BC<\/span>. Babylon joined Media, along with Scythia, and waged an assault against Nineveh, which fell late in the summer of 612 BC<\/span>. The Assyrian Empire had shriveled to two small holdings, Haran and Carchemish.<\/p>\nNabopolassar took Haran in 610, and Ashuruballit, having escaped, appealed to Egypt for help at Carchemish. Neco, who had become pharaoh within the year, responded immediately. He marched through Judah without giving Josiah prior notice and asked that the Jews not bother him in view of his haste to go northward (2 Chr 35:21). Ignoring the request, Josiah pursued them to Megiddo and was wounded in the ensuing battle; he died in Jerusalem.<\/p>\nMinistry during the Reign of Jehoiakim<\/p>\nIn place of Jehoahaz, Josiah’s fourth son, who reigned only three months, Pharaoh Neco enthroned Jehoiakim (Eliakim). Neco demanded heavy indemnity payments from Judah and took Jehoahaz prisoner as collateral to assure payment (2 Kgs 23:31-33).<\/p>\nEarly in the reign of Jehoiakim, Jeremiah, moved by God’s Spirit, delivered his third temple speech (Jer 26) on the occasion of one of the annual Jewish feasts. He called for the people to repent and to act on the basis of the revelation they had heard repeatedly from the Book of the Law. The barb of the sermon came in the warning: “This is what the Lord<\/span> says: If you will not listen to me and obey the law I have given you, and if you will not listen to my servants, the prophets—for I sent them again and again to warn you, but you would not listen to them—then I will destroy this Temple as I destroyed Shiloh, the place where the Tabernacle was located. And I will make Jerusalem an object of cursing in every nation on earth” (26:4-6, nlt<\/span>). Shiloh had been the heart of Jewish worship from Joshua to Samuel, but after being destroyed by the Philistines, it never revived. It served as an example of complete desolation following God’s judgment in the days of Eli.<\/p>\nCrowds gathered rapidly and reacted angrily against Jeremiah. Priests and princes hurried to the New Gate, where a court was established to bring order and to control violence. Jehoiakim would be no help to Jeremiah, for he had refused to listen to God’s messages (Jer 22:21). The priests and false prophets spoke against Jeremiah, calling him a traitor. Then some of the elders spoke to the people about Uriah, who had prophesied the same message. Rather than risk disaster, Ahikam persuaded the court to spare Jeremiah.<\/p>\nEgypt controlled Palestine and Syria after the decay of the Assyrian Empire. In 606 BC<\/span> Egypt succeeded in annihilating a garrison city of Babylonian soldiers south of Carchemish and then reoccupied Carchemish to await the return blow from Babylon. This Egyptian victory meant persecution for Jeremiah, who was often accused of false prophecy (cf. Jer 20).<\/p>\nJeremiah never had confidence in Egypt. Each time a Jewish leader would call for a new alliance with Egypt, Jeremiah repeated God’s message against it. Whenever a Jewish group fled to Egypt for security, Jeremiah warned of worse things in that land of false refuge (see Jer 44:26-27). Jeremiah’s ode and prophecy in chapter 46 poetically describe Egypt’s defeat at Carchemish, when Nabopolassar sent his son Nebuchadnezzar to destroy them (605 BC<\/span>). After smashing the Egyptian army at Carchemish, Nebuchadnezzar pursued the enemy through Judah. “Not a single man escaped to his own country,” reads the exaggerated Babylonian record. His father’s death, however, prevented him from invading Egypt, and he returned to Babylon to assume the throne. The following year Nebuchadnezzar, now king of Babylonia, returned to accept the homage of the rulers of Judah, Syria, and Phoenicia. On this occasion God gave Jeremiah his great 70-year prophecy (Jer 25:11-12), which became the basis of Daniel 9:2, 24-27.<\/p>\nA year after the decisive battle at Carchemish, Baruch, Jeremiah’s scribe, finished recording all the dictated words of Jeremiah and was reading from this scroll at the temple. A report reached the king, who sent Jehudi, a servant, to fetch the scroll and read it to him. When this was done, Jehoiakim burned the scroll in spite of his counselors, who pleaded that the king not do it (Jer 36:23-25). God’s message, soon rewritten, added a promise of fearful judgment on Jehoiakim (vv 27-31).<\/p>\nAmbitious young Nebuchadnezzar determined to add Egypt to his dominion. In 601 BC<\/span> he led his forces through Judah again, but Neco had advance warning and was prepared for the onslaught. In the desert of Shur, Nebuchadnezzar suffered defeat. Encouraged by this display of Egyptian defensive strength, the pro-Egyptian parties in Judah asserted themselves, persuading Jehoiakim to lead them to freedom from Babylon by making an alliance with Egypt (2 Kgs 24:1). But help from Egypt did not come (v 7).<\/p>\nIn 599 BC<\/span>, Nebuchadnezzar armed those surrounding the rebel Jewish kingdom to harass the Jews, which they willingly did (2 Kgs 24:2). Evidently Jehoiakim lost his life in one of these raids. Since the people despised him, his body was thrown out without honorable burial, as Jeremiah had predicted (Jer 22:19).<\/p>\nMinistry during the Reign of Zedekiah<\/p>\nNebuchadnezzar’s siege of Jerusalem in 598 BC<\/span> lasted only a short time because the new king, Jehoiachin, crowned at age 18, knew resistance was useless. He gave himself up, with all his family and court, in March of 597 BC<\/span>, after serving as king about three months. The Babylonian Chronicle reads: “He [Nebuchadnezzar] seized the city and captured the king.”<\/p>\nJehoiachin was carried to Babylon along with 8,000 (2 Kgs 24:16; cf. v 14) officers, artisans, and executives (Ezekiel among them) and much booty. In his place Nebuchadnezzar appointed Zedekiah, Jehoiachin’s uncle, to rule. Zedekiah proceeded to organize his government with the less capable and inexperienced help left after the deportation.<\/p>\nJeremiah took up his thankless ministry, calling on the Jews to believe God, obey the laws of Babylon, and reject false hopes in Egypt. Zedekiah turned a deaf ear to these appeals, listening rather to the unwise advice of his counselors (Jer 37:1-2). During the first year of Zedekiah’s rule, Jeremiah received the vision of the two baskets of figs. The Jews carried to Babylon were like good figs, while Zedekiah and those who trusted in Egypt were like rotten figs (24:1-8). The reason for this reproachful description was that the Jews began plotting rebellion against Babylon along with Edom, Moab, Ammon, Tyre, and Sidon from the beginning of the reign of Zedekiah (27:1-3), thus breaking their oath of loyalty to Nebuchadnezzar and repudiating God’s message through Jeremiah.<\/p>\nIn Egypt the pharaoh began to renew plans to organize dissidents within the Babylonian Empire to revolt. He hired Jewish soldiers to aid him in protecting his southern border. The Jewish soldiers settled on a Nile island called Elephantine, or Yeb (593–410 BC<\/span>). Jeremiah addressed an oracle to these Jews (ch 44). The treaty for Jews to help in Egypt evidently also assumed that Egyptians would aid Israel. When the Babylonians besieged Jerusalem in 589, Pharaoh Hophra came to the aid of Zedekiah. Nebuchadnezzar, ruling from Riblah, commanded that the siege against Jerusalem be lifted in order to make a surprise attack on Hophra (37:5). The release gave Jeremiah an opportunity to journey to Anathoth to secure some family property (v 12). However, Irijah, captain of the guard, arrested Jeremiah in the Gate of Benjamin for defecting to the enemy, and he was beaten and flung into a dungeon. King Zedekiah brought him out after many days to obtain a prognostication. With characteristic boldness, Jeremiah told the king he would shortly become a captive. At the same time, Jeremiah requested relief from injustice for himself. He gained part of his request but continued as prisoner in the court of the guard.<\/p>\nThe Babylonian army chased Pharaoh Hophra back to Egypt and returned to crush Jerusalem without further mercy. The siege, which began in 589 BC<\/span>, was restored with rigor in January of 588, Zedekiah’s ninth year (39:1). During this time, the Lord gave Jeremiah foreknowledge of a visit from a cousin who wished to sell a field near Anathoth (32:7-9; cf. 37:12). Jeremiah bought the field as an object lesson to verify the message of restoration after a captivity of 70 years (29:10).<\/p>\nThe armies of Babylon cut off all supplies from Jerusalem and were able to destroy the last two outlying Jewish fortresses of Lachish and Azekah (34:7). Food became scarce. Disease spread. Undisposed-of sewage and impure cistern water caused pestilence. With increased distress came Jeremiah’s increased appeal for the city to surrender.<\/p>\nJeremiah remained in the prison court until the Babylonians breached the city wall in July of 586 BC<\/span>. The king escaped by night and succeeded in reaching the plains of Jericho but was captured there and taken to Riblah. Zedekiah’s family and counselors were killed; he himself was blinded and taken in chains to Babylon, where he died soon after (39:6-7).<\/p>\nBack in Jerusalem, Nebuzaradan, the Babylonian general, sent most of the Jews into captivity. Jeremiah, however, was granted special consideration; after being released from prison, he was placed under the care of Gedaliah, son of Ahikam.<\/p>\nAfter the Fall of Jerusalem<\/p>\nA month after the fall of Jerusalem, the city was burned and the walls broken down. Gedaliah was appointed governor of the remaining agricultural community, with headquarters at Mizpah. Jeremiah returned to Jerusalem, where, according to tradition, he took up his abode in a grotto near what is now known as Gordon’s Calvary. There he wrote the book of Lamentations.<\/p>\nThe Ammonite king Baalis, plotting rebellion against Babylon, instigated the murder of Gedaliah (40:13). In the reaction that followed, the remaining people followed the leader Johanan ben Kareah to a camp near Bethlehem, intending to go to Egypt. They asked Jeremiah, at Jerusalem, to give guidance from the Lord, promising obedience. Jeremiah’s message required that they remain in Israel and not go to Egypt. Disobedience was complete and immediate. Fearing Babylon, they departed from Judah, taking Jeremiah with them, and entered Egypt (41:16–43:7).<\/p>\nJeremiah did not stop his ministry in Egypt. His message at Tahpanhes (43:8-12) assured a victorious conquest of the land by Nebuchadnezzar, which took place in 568–567 BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nJews from all parts of Egypt gathered to discuss their future as exiles. Jeremiah took the opportunity to denounce their idolatry. Jewish women as well as men argued that they had enjoyed prosperity while serving idols but had suffered since stopping. Jeremiah condemned their obdurate blindness to reality and gave God’s indictment. For a verifying sign, Jeremiah predicted that Pharaoh Hophra of Egypt would be assassinated (44:30), which happened in 466 BC<\/span>. No later record of Jeremiah’s acts exists in the Bible. Tradition says Jeremiah was stoned to death by the people of the Jewish exile settlement in Tahpanhes.<\/p>\nThough Jeremiah suffered continued rejection during his life, he has been honored by numerous apocryphal and traditional embellishments to his history. Jesus could well have had Jeremiah in mind when he said, “You build tombs for the prophets your ancestors killed and decorate the graves of the godly people your ancestors destroyed. . . . [You are] the descendants of those who murdered the prophets” (Mt 23:29-31, nlt<\/span>). See<\/em> Israel, History of; Jeremiah, Book of; Prophet, Prophetess.<\/p>\n<li>2. Family head in the Transjordan portion of Manasseh whom Tiglath-pileser took captive (1 Chr 5:23-26; cf. 2 Kgs 15:29).<\/li>\n<li>3. Father of Hamutal, a wife of King Josiah (2 Kgs 23:31; 24:18).<\/li>\n<li>4. Ambidextrous Benjamite bowman and slinger who joined David at Ziklag (1 Chr 12:4).<\/li>\n<li>5, 6. Two Gadite soldiers who joined David’s army (1 Chr 12:10, 13).<\/li>\n<li>7. Postexilic priest who with Nehemiah set his seal to the covenant, renewing the people’s promise to obey God’s laws (Neh 10:2). He is mentioned again (12:34) as part of the procession for the dedication of the new wall of Jerusalem.<\/li>\n<li>8. Priest who returned from exile with Zerubbabel (Neh 12:1) and became head of a family of priests (v 12).<\/li>\n<li>9. Father of Jaazaniah, a Recabite who refused to drink wine (Jer 35:3).<\/li>","summary_ro":"JEREMIAH (Person) 1. Prophet to Judah before its fall in 586 BC; his name is also spelled “Jeremias” (Mt 16:14) and “Jeremy” (Mt 2:17; 27:9) in the kjv. Jeremiah was born in the village of Anathoth, about three miles (4.8 kilometers) northeast of Jerusalem. His father’s name was Hilkiah, and he belonged to the tribe of Benjamin. His call came in the 13th year of King Josiah (640–609 BC). He refers to himself as “a child” when called (Jer 1:6), but the Hebrew word is not the same as used in Je...","summary_en":"JEREMIAH (Person) 1. Prophet to Judah before its fall in 586 BC; his name is also spelled “Jeremias” (Mt 16:14) and “Jeremy” (Mt 2:17; 27:9) in the kjv. Jeremiah was born in the village of Anathoth, about three miles (4.8 kilometers) northeast of Jerusalem. His father’s name was Hilkiah, and he belonged to the tribe of Benjamin. His call came in the 13th year of King Josiah (640–609 BC). He refers to himself as “a child” when called (Jer 1:6), but the Hebrew word is not the same as used in Je...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":19034,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Book of Jeremiah","title_en":"Book of Jeremiah","content_ro":"<h3>JEREMIAH, Book of<\/h3>\n\nOT prophetic book, second in the canonical order of the Prophets.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Author<\/p>\n• Authenticity<\/p>\n• The Book of Jeremiah and the Septuagint<\/p>\n• Background<\/p>\n• Date<\/p>\n• Origin and Destination<\/p>\n• Purpose<\/p>\n• Teaching<\/p>\n• Outline and Content<\/p>\nAuthor<\/p>\nFew doubt that the prophet from Anathoth wrote the book of Jeremiah, yet questions persist concerning some parts, particularly chapter 52. The use of the third person cannot be used to discredit Jeremiah’s authorship, for Jeremiah used the first and third person, and even the second person, in the same context. For example, 32:6-7 reads: “Jeremiah said [third person], ‘The word of the Lord<\/span> came to me: [first person] . . . your uncle will come to you [second person]’ ” (rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\nThe problem of the passage of time provides the strongest argument against the Jeremian authorship of chapter 52. Jeremiah was born about 657 BC<\/span>. Evil-merodoch released Jehoiachin (52:31) about 95 years later. Jeremiah 52:33 summarizes the continuation of events beyond this time. The problem of location also argues against Jeremian authorship, for Jeremiah took up residence in Egypt (43:6-7) while Jehoiachin dwelt in Babylon. Note also that Jeremiah concludes his writing with chapter 51, making chapter 52 a true editorial appendix. Since chapter 52 parallels 2 Kings 24:18–25:30, it may be that other portions of Jeremiah that parallel sections of 2 Kings may have been written by someone other than Jeremiah.<\/p>\nThe following table shows such portions and includes harmonic passages in 2 Chronicles. The first column shows historical (chronological) sequence. The last column provides a brief condensation of content.<\/p>\nBaruch served as the secretary for Jeremiah. The relationship between the two men apparently lasted many years; the prophet gave a word of encouragement as he blessed his helper (45:5). According to the custom of the people, it would have been legitimate for the scribe to write some of the prophet’s messages in his own words. This would not deny inspiration.<\/p>\nAuthenticity<\/p>\nThat Jeremiah lived and actually wrote the major part of the book bearing his name is authenticated by numerous references in both biblical and nonbiblical sources (e.g., Dn 9; Ecclus 49; Josephus’s Antiquities<\/em> 10; Talmud: Baba Bathra<\/em>). The veracity of the historical sections of Jeremiah have abundant confirmation in contemporary biblical books and in the secular histories preserved in Babylon, Egypt, and Persia.<\/p>\nHigher critics sought to discredit the portions of Jeremiah that were omitted by the Septuagint, or to credit passages to a later writer because of style differences (e.g., chs 30–33) or spelling differences (as found in chs 27–29) or linguistic problems (as in 10:11, written in Aramaic, but this may be a gloss). Another reason for discrediting Jeremiah’s authorship is that critics dated some prophecies later than indicated in the context. This results from their requiring that predictive writing follow the record of its fulfillment. None of these reasons is sufficient cause for doubting authenticity. The Hebrew text deserves priority over the Septuagint. Aramaic contact with the Jews became commonplace during this period (cf. Ezr 4–7; Dn 2–7) and therefore explains the presence of Aramaic. Different styles may be expected from the same writer due to differing circumstances and differing purposes. Baruch may have been inspired to write parts of this book and\/or edited what Jeremiah wrote. Prediction preceding fulfillment presents no problem for believers.<\/p>\n\nThe Book of Jeremiah and the Septuagint<\/p>\nThe special problems of the Septuagint translation of Jeremiah demand attention. The Septuagint translators evidently made an inaccurate translation. About 2,300 Hebrew words are omitted from the Septuagint. After chapter 23, the mistranslation, omissions, and mixed chronological order indicate confusion. However, the Dead Sea Scrolls display texts with both the Hebrew and the Septuagint order, indicating the antiquity of both editions. Both have suffered corruption at the hands of scribes and the ravages of the ages. The Septuagint evidently veers much further from the original, yet it has invaluable clues to help suggest answers to some textual problems. The most evident major shift in the Septuagint consists of the removal of chapters 46–51 of the Hebrew order, and the placement of them in the spot from which 25:13b-14 was removed. These chapters are renumbered 26–31 but are mixed and changed considerably from the order of the Hebrew Masoretic Text.<\/p>\nBackground<\/p>\nThis is fully discussed in the previous entry. See<\/em> Jeremiah (Person) #1.<\/p>\n\nDate<\/p>\nThe chronological sequence of the messages of Jeremiah constitutes a major problem that cannot be wholly solved. Nonetheless, the book was written during Jeremiah’s ministry (c. 627–586 BC<\/span>).<\/p>\nOrigin and Destination<\/p>\nAfter beginning his ministry in Anathoth, Jeremiah moved to Jerusalem, where he remained until he was forced to join the disobedient refugees who arrived in Egypt about 584 BC<\/span>. Until the deportation of Jehoiachin (597 BC<\/span>), Jeremiah addressed his messages to the king and the people residing in Judah. Later messages addressed the same group, plus the captives in Babylon (e.g., ch 29). After the departure to Egypt, he addressed Jews in that land.<\/p>\nPurpose<\/p>\nPart of God’s commission to Jeremiah stated the purpose of Jeremiah’s ministry: “Today I appoint you to stand up against nations and kingdoms. You are to uproot some and tear them down, to destroy and overthrow them. You are to build others up and plant them” (1:10, nlt<\/span>). The first four parts of the commission required that Jeremiah, appointed as a “chief governor” over nations, should wreck the existing religious and social structures by his preaching against moral and spiritual sin. Doubtless, the physical destruction caused by the Egyptians, Assyrians, and Babylonians was the accoutrement for the truth uttered by the prophet. Jeremiah is consistent in his blasts at moral and religious wickedness, his call to submit to the punishment that God gives through Babylon, and his assurance that such submission will lead to blessing. When Zedekiah asks advice (38:14), we know what Jeremiah will say. When the captains of the refugees ask if they should go to Egypt, we already know the answer (42:3). We may also anticipate the obdurate rejection of God’s message on the part of the inquiring people, who apparently want to know God’s will but have no desire to obey it.<\/p>\nNevertheless, part of Jeremiah’s purpose focuses on the most distant future when the new covenant will supplant the old (31:31-37), and a transformed people bent on obedience rather than sin will receive God’s promised kingdom.<\/p>\nTeaching<\/p>\nNational sin brings national punishment. No truth blazes so clearly as this. Gentiles as well as Jews stand under the same judgment, for God is not the God of Israel only.<\/p>\nIndividuals are not overlooked in divine judgments on nations. God sets before each the way of life and the way of death (21:8) and appeals to each to choose life (27:13).<\/p>\nJeremiah illustrates human depravity by questioning if people can change their skin color or leopards their spots (13:23). The depths of depravity reach beyond man’s ability to measure (17:9-10). People even love falsehood (5:30-31). Yet God promises to transform willing subjects who call on him (33:3) by giving them a “new heart” (24:7; 32:38-41) as the climatic provision of the new covenant (31:33-35). The Messiah, who accomplishes the saving work, is called the Lord our Righteousness, the King, the righteous Branch, the Branch of David (23:5-6; 33:15-16).<\/p>\nA future nation will be made up of individuals who accept this salvation. Passing through the night of tribulation as of travail (30:6-7), the Jews will understand the true identity of their Messiah, will believe and receive him with repentant sorrow, will be cleansed (33:8), and will be regathered from all countries (32:37) by the omnipotent God (v 27).<\/p>\nOutline and Content<\/p>\nThough many see no logical order, a careful reading of Jeremiah will reveal a grouping on the basis of content, as suggested by the following outline:<\/p>\n<li> I. Introduction (1)<\/li>\n<li> II. Oracles against the Jews (2–25)<\/li>\n<li>III. History—Signs and Sufferings of Jeremiah before the Siege (26–29)<\/li>\n<li> IV. The Book of Hope written during the Siege (30–33)<\/li>\n<li> V. History—Signs and Sufferings of Jeremiah after the Siege (34–45)<\/li>\n<li> VI. Oracles against the Nations (46–51)<\/li>\n<li>VII. Conclusion (52)<\/li>\nThe prophet opens his ministry with a series of utterances against the sins of Jerusalem (2:1–3:5), followed by similar messages (through ch 4), concluding with words of judgment (chs 5–6). The message in the temple gate (chs 7–10) leads into the proclamation against covenant breakers (chs 11–13). The lamentation over the drought (ch 14) and subsequent miseries (ch 15) compares with many similar expressions of grief. Jeremiah did not differ from other prophets in his use of object lessons. The rotted linen waistband (ch 13), the broken jug (ch 19), figs (ch 24), and ox yoke (chs 27–28) may be supplemented by human object lessons (ch 35), and even the prophet himself, whose celibacy (16:1-4), resistance to sympathetic consolation (16:5-7), and withdrawal from feasts (16:8-9) all served to illustrate and confirm his message.<\/p>\nPlaces where Jeremiah proclaimed his messages helped bear home his point. He stood in the public gate, where kings came and went, to proclaim that judgment (fire) would come through the gate (17:19, 27; 39:3). Then he went to the potter’s house (ch 18), and then to Hinnom or Topath, which would be called the Valley of Slaughter (ch 19).<\/p>\nThe persecution suffered by Jeremiah first hinted at (1:8), then predicted (v 19), expresses its venom privately from his home village (11:19-23). The prophet’s kindred join the opposition (12:6). Public opposition brings beatings and the stocks (20:2-3). Jeremiah prefers to keep silent rather than to speak and suffer (v 9), but he cannot withhold the word that is as fire in his bones. The result: all his familiars reproached, derided, terrorized, and denounced him, then sought his death (vv 7-18). Jeremiah escaped death at the hands of priests, prophets, and people only because he had a few faithful friends (26:8-24). When his prophecies began to materialize, hatred mounted. He was beaten and put into a dungeon for many days (37:14-17) on a false charge. Temporary relief at the guardhouse (v 21) lasted only a few days. Officials clamored again for his death (38:4) and put him into a cistern, where he sank in the mire (v 6). His rescue (v 10) preserved his life, but his imprisonment at the guardhouse continued (v 28). His writings were cut up and burned (36:23); his words were denied and rejected (43:1-7; 44:16).<\/p>\nThe “Book of Hope“ (chs 30–33) does contain some words of judgment (32:28-35), and other sections of the prophecy have a few bright spots (3:11-18; 16:14-16; 23:2-8; 29:10-14), but in a volume otherwise dark, these four chapters bring pleasant relief. The climax of hope, as indicated also in the longest NT quotation from Jeremiah (see Heb 8:8-12), predicts a new covenant (31:31-40). Other prophecies also describe the end of the Mosaic law and sacrament (e.g., 3:16), and the new covenant (32:40; 33:19-26).<\/p>\nLittle is known of Jeremiah’s activity or messages from c. 594–589 BC<\/span>. Zedekiah’s counselors made clandestine plans for throwing off Babylon’s yoke by alliances with neighbor nations. A traitor may have reported the conspiracy to Babylon (perhaps Edom). After Babylon attacked, Zedekiah sought a hopeful report from Jeremiah but did not get it.<\/p>\nThe Recabite faithfulness to the Nazarite vow (ch 35) dates to the days of Jehoiakim but as an object lesson fits the siege context. Recabites received a human command that they obeyed; Jews received a divine command that they rejected. Recabites will be blessed (35:18-19); Judah, judged (vv 15-17). The reading of the scroll to Jehoiakim and his scornful rejection of it (ch 36) illustrates the prophetic assertion (35:15) that destruction follows the rejection of God’s message given through the prophets.<\/p>\nThe siege comes into focus in chapter 37 with another inquiry from Zedekiah (the nonchronological chs 35–36 serve as an illustrative parenthesis). Jeremiah 37:11 moves forward to the time of the lifting of the siege of 589 BC<\/span> when Nebuchadnezzar drove Pharaoh Hophra’s army back to Egypt. During the reprieve, Jeremiah sought to attend a meeting of relatives to settle family matters at or near Anathoth. Perhaps the trip involved initiating the purchase that would be made two years later (32:6-15). However, as he was leaving the city, he was arrested for desertion to the Babylonians and jailed in a dungeon cell until Zedekiah granted him privileged prisoner status.<\/p>\nThe king’s officers had ample cause for the accusation of sedition: Jeremiah had encouraged desertion (21:9; 38:2). Traitors deserved death, and this was their verdict against Jeremiah (38:4-5). The violence of the time encouraged the officers to select a cruel method of execution: let Jeremiah starve and bury himself in the mire at the bottom of an abandoned cistern. A sympathetic Ethiopian, Ebed-melech, made the rescue. Immediately, the unadulterated prophecies of judgment came forth again from Jeremiah’s lips, including a message to the king that reflected Jeremiah’s own recent experience: “[Your friends] have betrayed and misled you. When your feet sank in the mud, they left you to your fate” (38:22, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nJeremiah 39:1–43:7 records history from the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BC<\/span> to the flight into Egypt, including the liberation of Jeremiah (ch 39), appointment and assassination of Gedaliah (chs 40–41), a warning from God against going to Egypt (ch 42), and the obdurate disobedience of the people (43:1-7).<\/p>\nThe latest writings of Jeremiah are found in chapter 44. The audience consisted of idolatrous Jews (44:4-6) gathered from various parts of Egypt as far as Aswan (Pathros). Jeremiah repeated the appeal of former prophets to reject false gods in favor of Jehovah, but to no avail (44:15-16).<\/p>\nThe message to Baruch (ch 45), written about 605 BC<\/span>, is placed here to round out the main part of the book, which begins with the commission to “break down” and “pluck up” (1:10) and concludes with the same Hebrew words (45:4). If Baruch had ambition to obtain status in the Judean court like his brother Seraiah (51:59), he was advised that it would be useless because disaster would come, as the preceding chapters indicate.<\/p>\nThe oracles against the nations (46–51), introduced by a title superscription (46:1), constitute a distinct stylistic division similar to Isaiah 13–23, Ezekiel 25–32, and Amos 1:3–2:16.<\/p>\nSome of the prophecies against foreign nations in Jeremiah carry dates that show that they were written at different points during his ministry but were collected together for the book.<\/p>\nThe prophecy against Egypt opens with a colorful description of Egypt’s expulsion from Carchemish (605 BC<\/span>) after a short occupancy (Jer 46:1-12). The second message (vv 13-26) may picture the attack on Egypt in 601 BC<\/span> when Neco stopped Nebuchadnezzar at the border; the attack in 589 BC<\/span> when Hophra lost in his attempt to aid Zedekiah; or (most probably) the invasion of Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar in 568 BC<\/span>, when Babylon took advantage of the weakness of Egypt to occupy it. At that time Nebuchadnezzar set up his judgment throne as predicted (43:10) and meted out death sentences to all rebels, including those Jews who might have been implicated in anti-Babylonian conspiracies. The conclusion of the Egypt oracle repeats part of the Book of Hope (46:27-28, cf. 30:10-11).<\/p>\nMessages against Edom, Arabia, Phoenician cities, and Ammon generally condemn pride, cruelty, and idolatry. The oracle against Elam is unique. No other prophet speaks judgment against this people, whose dwelling east of Babylon meant rare contact with Judah. Jeremiah predicted that Elam would be doomed, then restored. Ezekiel counts Elamites among the inhabitants of Sheol (Ez 32:24).<\/p>\nThe final judgment indicates the unbiased attitude of the prophet. His messages placed him in an advantageous position with the Babylonians, who treated him with respect and kindness, in contrast to their cruelty to other Jews. But when God spoke against Babylon, Jeremiah uttered God’s words without respect to his own comfort, just as he had spoken against Egypt when silence would have been logical for self-preservation.<\/p>\nChapter 51 concludes “the words of Jeremiah.”<\/p>\nChapter 52 repeats historical facts previously stated prophetically by Jeremiah, and partially recorded also as history in chapter 39 (cf. 2 Kgs 25 and 2 Chr 36). The editor of Jeremiah evidently desired to climax the book with a historical confirmation of Jeremiah’s prophecy, but he included facts beyond those contained elsewhere.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Israel, History of; Jeremiah (Person) #1; Prophecy; Prophet, Prophetess.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JEREMIAH, Book of<\/h3>\n\nOT prophetic book, second in the canonical order of the Prophets.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Author<\/p>\n• Authenticity<\/p>\n• The Book of Jeremiah and the Septuagint<\/p>\n• Background<\/p>\n• Date<\/p>\n• Origin and Destination<\/p>\n• Purpose<\/p>\n• Teaching<\/p>\n• Outline and Content<\/p>\nAuthor<\/p>\nFew doubt that the prophet from Anathoth wrote the book of Jeremiah, yet questions persist concerning some parts, particularly chapter 52. The use of the third person cannot be used to discredit Jeremiah’s authorship, for Jeremiah used the first and third person, and even the second person, in the same context. For example, 32:6-7 reads: “Jeremiah said [third person], ‘The word of the Lord<\/span> came to me: [first person] . . . your uncle will come to you [second person]’ ” (rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\nThe problem of the passage of time provides the strongest argument against the Jeremian authorship of chapter 52. Jeremiah was born about 657 BC<\/span>. Evil-merodoch released Jehoiachin (52:31) about 95 years later. Jeremiah 52:33 summarizes the continuation of events beyond this time. The problem of location also argues against Jeremian authorship, for Jeremiah took up residence in Egypt (43:6-7) while Jehoiachin dwelt in Babylon. Note also that Jeremiah concludes his writing with chapter 51, making chapter 52 a true editorial appendix. Since chapter 52 parallels 2 Kings 24:18–25:30, it may be that other portions of Jeremiah that parallel sections of 2 Kings may have been written by someone other than Jeremiah.<\/p>\nThe following table shows such portions and includes harmonic passages in 2 Chronicles. The first column shows historical (chronological) sequence. The last column provides a brief condensation of content.<\/p>\nBaruch served as the secretary for Jeremiah. The relationship between the two men apparently lasted many years; the prophet gave a word of encouragement as he blessed his helper (45:5). According to the custom of the people, it would have been legitimate for the scribe to write some of the prophet’s messages in his own words. This would not deny inspiration.<\/p>\nAuthenticity<\/p>\nThat Jeremiah lived and actually wrote the major part of the book bearing his name is authenticated by numerous references in both biblical and nonbiblical sources (e.g., Dn 9; Ecclus 49; Josephus’s Antiquities<\/em> 10; Talmud: Baba Bathra<\/em>). The veracity of the historical sections of Jeremiah have abundant confirmation in contemporary biblical books and in the secular histories preserved in Babylon, Egypt, and Persia.<\/p>\nHigher critics sought to discredit the portions of Jeremiah that were omitted by the Septuagint, or to credit passages to a later writer because of style differences (e.g., chs 30–33) or spelling differences (as found in chs 27–29) or linguistic problems (as in 10:11, written in Aramaic, but this may be a gloss). Another reason for discrediting Jeremiah’s authorship is that critics dated some prophecies later than indicated in the context. This results from their requiring that predictive writing follow the record of its fulfillment. None of these reasons is sufficient cause for doubting authenticity. The Hebrew text deserves priority over the Septuagint. Aramaic contact with the Jews became commonplace during this period (cf. Ezr 4–7; Dn 2–7) and therefore explains the presence of Aramaic. Different styles may be expected from the same writer due to differing circumstances and differing purposes. Baruch may have been inspired to write parts of this book and\/or edited what Jeremiah wrote. Prediction preceding fulfillment presents no problem for believers.<\/p>\n\nThe Book of Jeremiah and the Septuagint<\/p>\nThe special problems of the Septuagint translation of Jeremiah demand attention. The Septuagint translators evidently made an inaccurate translation. About 2,300 Hebrew words are omitted from the Septuagint. After chapter 23, the mistranslation, omissions, and mixed chronological order indicate confusion. However, the Dead Sea Scrolls display texts with both the Hebrew and the Septuagint order, indicating the antiquity of both editions. Both have suffered corruption at the hands of scribes and the ravages of the ages. The Septuagint evidently veers much further from the original, yet it has invaluable clues to help suggest answers to some textual problems. The most evident major shift in the Septuagint consists of the removal of chapters 46–51 of the Hebrew order, and the placement of them in the spot from which 25:13b-14 was removed. These chapters are renumbered 26–31 but are mixed and changed considerably from the order of the Hebrew Masoretic Text.<\/p>\nBackground<\/p>\nThis is fully discussed in the previous entry. See<\/em> Jeremiah (Person) #1.<\/p>\n\nDate<\/p>\nThe chronological sequence of the messages of Jeremiah constitutes a major problem that cannot be wholly solved. Nonetheless, the book was written during Jeremiah’s ministry (c. 627–586 BC<\/span>).<\/p>\nOrigin and Destination<\/p>\nAfter beginning his ministry in Anathoth, Jeremiah moved to Jerusalem, where he remained until he was forced to join the disobedient refugees who arrived in Egypt about 584 BC<\/span>. Until the deportation of Jehoiachin (597 BC<\/span>), Jeremiah addressed his messages to the king and the people residing in Judah. Later messages addressed the same group, plus the captives in Babylon (e.g., ch 29). After the departure to Egypt, he addressed Jews in that land.<\/p>\nPurpose<\/p>\nPart of God’s commission to Jeremiah stated the purpose of Jeremiah’s ministry: “Today I appoint you to stand up against nations and kingdoms. You are to uproot some and tear them down, to destroy and overthrow them. You are to build others up and plant them” (1:10, nlt<\/span>). The first four parts of the commission required that Jeremiah, appointed as a “chief governor” over nations, should wreck the existing religious and social structures by his preaching against moral and spiritual sin. Doubtless, the physical destruction caused by the Egyptians, Assyrians, and Babylonians was the accoutrement for the truth uttered by the prophet. Jeremiah is consistent in his blasts at moral and religious wickedness, his call to submit to the punishment that God gives through Babylon, and his assurance that such submission will lead to blessing. When Zedekiah asks advice (38:14), we know what Jeremiah will say. When the captains of the refugees ask if they should go to Egypt, we already know the answer (42:3). We may also anticipate the obdurate rejection of God’s message on the part of the inquiring people, who apparently want to know God’s will but have no desire to obey it.<\/p>\nNevertheless, part of Jeremiah’s purpose focuses on the most distant future when the new covenant will supplant the old (31:31-37), and a transformed people bent on obedience rather than sin will receive God’s promised kingdom.<\/p>\nTeaching<\/p>\nNational sin brings national punishment. No truth blazes so clearly as this. Gentiles as well as Jews stand under the same judgment, for God is not the God of Israel only.<\/p>\nIndividuals are not overlooked in divine judgments on nations. God sets before each the way of life and the way of death (21:8) and appeals to each to choose life (27:13).<\/p>\nJeremiah illustrates human depravity by questioning if people can change their skin color or leopards their spots (13:23). The depths of depravity reach beyond man’s ability to measure (17:9-10). People even love falsehood (5:30-31). Yet God promises to transform willing subjects who call on him (33:3) by giving them a “new heart” (24:7; 32:38-41) as the climatic provision of the new covenant (31:33-35). The Messiah, who accomplishes the saving work, is called the Lord our Righteousness, the King, the righteous Branch, the Branch of David (23:5-6; 33:15-16).<\/p>\nA future nation will be made up of individuals who accept this salvation. Passing through the night of tribulation as of travail (30:6-7), the Jews will understand the true identity of their Messiah, will believe and receive him with repentant sorrow, will be cleansed (33:8), and will be regathered from all countries (32:37) by the omnipotent God (v 27).<\/p>\nOutline and Content<\/p>\nThough many see no logical order, a careful reading of Jeremiah will reveal a grouping on the basis of content, as suggested by the following outline:<\/p>\n<li> I. Introduction (1)<\/li>\n<li> II. Oracles against the Jews (2–25)<\/li>\n<li>III. History—Signs and Sufferings of Jeremiah before the Siege (26–29)<\/li>\n<li> IV. The Book of Hope written during the Siege (30–33)<\/li>\n<li> V. History—Signs and Sufferings of Jeremiah after the Siege (34–45)<\/li>\n<li> VI. Oracles against the Nations (46–51)<\/li>\n<li>VII. Conclusion (52)<\/li>\nThe prophet opens his ministry with a series of utterances against the sins of Jerusalem (2:1–3:5), followed by similar messages (through ch 4), concluding with words of judgment (chs 5–6). The message in the temple gate (chs 7–10) leads into the proclamation against covenant breakers (chs 11–13). The lamentation over the drought (ch 14) and subsequent miseries (ch 15) compares with many similar expressions of grief. Jeremiah did not differ from other prophets in his use of object lessons. The rotted linen waistband (ch 13), the broken jug (ch 19), figs (ch 24), and ox yoke (chs 27–28) may be supplemented by human object lessons (ch 35), and even the prophet himself, whose celibacy (16:1-4), resistance to sympathetic consolation (16:5-7), and withdrawal from feasts (16:8-9) all served to illustrate and confirm his message.<\/p>\nPlaces where Jeremiah proclaimed his messages helped bear home his point. He stood in the public gate, where kings came and went, to proclaim that judgment (fire) would come through the gate (17:19, 27; 39:3). Then he went to the potter’s house (ch 18), and then to Hinnom or Topath, which would be called the Valley of Slaughter (ch 19).<\/p>\nThe persecution suffered by Jeremiah first hinted at (1:8), then predicted (v 19), expresses its venom privately from his home village (11:19-23). The prophet’s kindred join the opposition (12:6). Public opposition brings beatings and the stocks (20:2-3). Jeremiah prefers to keep silent rather than to speak and suffer (v 9), but he cannot withhold the word that is as fire in his bones. The result: all his familiars reproached, derided, terrorized, and denounced him, then sought his death (vv 7-18). Jeremiah escaped death at the hands of priests, prophets, and people only because he had a few faithful friends (26:8-24). When his prophecies began to materialize, hatred mounted. He was beaten and put into a dungeon for many days (37:14-17) on a false charge. Temporary relief at the guardhouse (v 21) lasted only a few days. Officials clamored again for his death (38:4) and put him into a cistern, where he sank in the mire (v 6). His rescue (v 10) preserved his life, but his imprisonment at the guardhouse continued (v 28). His writings were cut up and burned (36:23); his words were denied and rejected (43:1-7; 44:16).<\/p>\nThe “Book of Hope“ (chs 30–33) does contain some words of judgment (32:28-35), and other sections of the prophecy have a few bright spots (3:11-18; 16:14-16; 23:2-8; 29:10-14), but in a volume otherwise dark, these four chapters bring pleasant relief. The climax of hope, as indicated also in the longest NT quotation from Jeremiah (see Heb 8:8-12), predicts a new covenant (31:31-40). Other prophecies also describe the end of the Mosaic law and sacrament (e.g., 3:16), and the new covenant (32:40; 33:19-26).<\/p>\nLittle is known of Jeremiah’s activity or messages from c. 594–589 BC<\/span>. Zedekiah’s counselors made clandestine plans for throwing off Babylon’s yoke by alliances with neighbor nations. A traitor may have reported the conspiracy to Babylon (perhaps Edom). After Babylon attacked, Zedekiah sought a hopeful report from Jeremiah but did not get it.<\/p>\nThe Recabite faithfulness to the Nazarite vow (ch 35) dates to the days of Jehoiakim but as an object lesson fits the siege context. Recabites received a human command that they obeyed; Jews received a divine command that they rejected. Recabites will be blessed (35:18-19); Judah, judged (vv 15-17). The reading of the scroll to Jehoiakim and his scornful rejection of it (ch 36) illustrates the prophetic assertion (35:15) that destruction follows the rejection of God’s message given through the prophets.<\/p>\nThe siege comes into focus in chapter 37 with another inquiry from Zedekiah (the nonchronological chs 35–36 serve as an illustrative parenthesis). Jeremiah 37:11 moves forward to the time of the lifting of the siege of 589 BC<\/span> when Nebuchadnezzar drove Pharaoh Hophra’s army back to Egypt. During the reprieve, Jeremiah sought to attend a meeting of relatives to settle family matters at or near Anathoth. Perhaps the trip involved initiating the purchase that would be made two years later (32:6-15). However, as he was leaving the city, he was arrested for desertion to the Babylonians and jailed in a dungeon cell until Zedekiah granted him privileged prisoner status.<\/p>\nThe king’s officers had ample cause for the accusation of sedition: Jeremiah had encouraged desertion (21:9; 38:2). Traitors deserved death, and this was their verdict against Jeremiah (38:4-5). The violence of the time encouraged the officers to select a cruel method of execution: let Jeremiah starve and bury himself in the mire at the bottom of an abandoned cistern. A sympathetic Ethiopian, Ebed-melech, made the rescue. Immediately, the unadulterated prophecies of judgment came forth again from Jeremiah’s lips, including a message to the king that reflected Jeremiah’s own recent experience: “[Your friends] have betrayed and misled you. When your feet sank in the mud, they left you to your fate” (38:22, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nJeremiah 39:1–43:7 records history from the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BC<\/span> to the flight into Egypt, including the liberation of Jeremiah (ch 39), appointment and assassination of Gedaliah (chs 40–41), a warning from God against going to Egypt (ch 42), and the obdurate disobedience of the people (43:1-7).<\/p>\nThe latest writings of Jeremiah are found in chapter 44. The audience consisted of idolatrous Jews (44:4-6) gathered from various parts of Egypt as far as Aswan (Pathros). Jeremiah repeated the appeal of former prophets to reject false gods in favor of Jehovah, but to no avail (44:15-16).<\/p>\nThe message to Baruch (ch 45), written about 605 BC<\/span>, is placed here to round out the main part of the book, which begins with the commission to “break down” and “pluck up” (1:10) and concludes with the same Hebrew words (45:4). If Baruch had ambition to obtain status in the Judean court like his brother Seraiah (51:59), he was advised that it would be useless because disaster would come, as the preceding chapters indicate.<\/p>\nThe oracles against the nations (46–51), introduced by a title superscription (46:1), constitute a distinct stylistic division similar to Isaiah 13–23, Ezekiel 25–32, and Amos 1:3–2:16.<\/p>\nSome of the prophecies against foreign nations in Jeremiah carry dates that show that they were written at different points during his ministry but were collected together for the book.<\/p>\nThe prophecy against Egypt opens with a colorful description of Egypt’s expulsion from Carchemish (605 BC<\/span>) after a short occupancy (Jer 46:1-12). The second message (vv 13-26) may picture the attack on Egypt in 601 BC<\/span> when Neco stopped Nebuchadnezzar at the border; the attack in 589 BC<\/span> when Hophra lost in his attempt to aid Zedekiah; or (most probably) the invasion of Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar in 568 BC<\/span>, when Babylon took advantage of the weakness of Egypt to occupy it. At that time Nebuchadnezzar set up his judgment throne as predicted (43:10) and meted out death sentences to all rebels, including those Jews who might have been implicated in anti-Babylonian conspiracies. The conclusion of the Egypt oracle repeats part of the Book of Hope (46:27-28, cf. 30:10-11).<\/p>\nMessages against Edom, Arabia, Phoenician cities, and Ammon generally condemn pride, cruelty, and idolatry. The oracle against Elam is unique. No other prophet speaks judgment against this people, whose dwelling east of Babylon meant rare contact with Judah. Jeremiah predicted that Elam would be doomed, then restored. Ezekiel counts Elamites among the inhabitants of Sheol (Ez 32:24).<\/p>\nThe final judgment indicates the unbiased attitude of the prophet. His messages placed him in an advantageous position with the Babylonians, who treated him with respect and kindness, in contrast to their cruelty to other Jews. But when God spoke against Babylon, Jeremiah uttered God’s words without respect to his own comfort, just as he had spoken against Egypt when silence would have been logical for self-preservation.<\/p>\nChapter 51 concludes “the words of Jeremiah.”<\/p>\nChapter 52 repeats historical facts previously stated prophetically by Jeremiah, and partially recorded also as history in chapter 39 (cf. 2 Kgs 25 and 2 Chr 36). The editor of Jeremiah evidently desired to climax the book with a historical confirmation of Jeremiah’s prophecy, but he included facts beyond those contained elsewhere.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Israel, History of; Jeremiah (Person) #1; Prophecy; Prophet, Prophetess.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JEREMIAH, Book of OT prophetic book, second in the canonical order of the Prophets. Preview • Author • Authenticity • The Book of Jeremiah and the Septuagint • Background • Date • Origin and Destination • Purpose • Teaching • Outline and Content Author Few doubt that the prophet from Anathoth wrote the book of Jeremiah, yet questions persist concerning some parts, particularly chapter 52. The use of the third person cannot be used to discredit Jeremiah’s authorship, for Jeremiah used the firs...","summary_en":"JEREMIAH, Book of OT prophetic book, second in the canonical order of the Prophets. Preview • Author • Authenticity • The Book of Jeremiah and the Septuagint • Background • Date • Origin and Destination • Purpose • Teaching • Outline and Content Author Few doubt that the prophet from Anathoth wrote the book of Jeremiah, yet questions persist concerning some parts, particularly chapter 52. The use of the third person cannot be used to discredit Jeremiah’s authorship, for Jeremiah used the firs...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":27278,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Neighbor","title_en":"Neighbor","content_ro":"<h3>NEIGHBOR<\/h3>\nConcept apparently limited in the OT period and late Judaism to one’s fellow Israelite, or member of the covenant, and extended by Jesus to include anyone encountered in life.<\/p>\nIn the Old Testament<\/p>\nAlthough it is never explicitly limited as such, the prominent connotation of “neighbor” in the OT is that of a fellow member of the covenant community; that is, another Israelite (see Lv 6:1-7; 19; Dt 15:2-3). In Leviticus 19:18, a passage often quoted in the NT, the Israelite is commanded to “love your neighbor as yourself.” In 19:34, it is explicitly stated that such love should also be shown to the foreigner (or “sojourner”) passing through the land. If “neighbor” (v 18) implied a more encompassing notion, such as “mankind” or “fellow man,” there presumably would have been no need to include the further stipulation in verse 34. “Neighbor” was therefore probably taken to mean one’s immediate neighbor, the fellow Israelite.<\/p>\nWithin the covenant community, love of neighbor involved certain responsibilities explicitly set forth in the law. The neighbor was to be treated fairly (Ex 22:5-15; Lv 6:2-7; 19:9-18) and respected (Ex 20:16), as were his belongings (Ex 20:17). To foster such just and merciful relationships within the covenant community, the neighbor was to be thought of as a “brother” (Lv 25:25; Dt 22:1-4). What one did to one’s neighbor was to be returned in kind (Lv 24:19-23; Dt 19:11-19).<\/p>\nThe grave importance attached to treatment of the neighbor is understandable when seen as part of one’s wider relationship with God and was considered something that could affect significantly the divine-human relationship (Lv 6:1-7; 19; 25:17; Dt 24:10-13; Ps 12). Israelites were to treat their neighbors in the same loving way they had themselves been treated by God (Ex 22:21; Lv 25:35-38).<\/p>\nThe importance of the neighbor relationship within the covenant community is also demonstrated by the fact that when such responsibilities were ignored, a societal breakdown or national turmoil followed (Dt 28:15-68; Hos 4:1-3; Am 2:6-7). That the Israelites often did neglect love for neighbor, particularly the neighbor in need, is a contributing cause for the divine punishment of the exile (Jer 5:7-9; 7:1-15; 9:2-9; Hos 4:1-3; Am 2:6-7; 5:10-13; 8:4-6). The mere fact that proper love of neighbor was also part of Israel’s hope for the messianic age to come (Jer 31:34; Zec 3:10) also points to its common neglect within the OT covenant community.<\/p>\nIn Late Judaism<\/p>\nFrom the exilic experience, Israel recognized that divine blessing was conditional somewhat on justice and love exercised toward one another (Zec 8:14-17). The identity of the “neighbor” was debatable, however. Several factors suggest that “neighbor” was limited in this period to the fellow Israelite and the proselyte (gentile convert to Judaism). Evidence from rabbinic material excludes Samaritans and the Gentiles living in the land from being considered “neighbors” and thus worthy of love. Within the Jewish Essene community at Qumran, the “neighbor” to be respected and treated fairly was restricted to one’s fellow community members. Finally, when Jesus recalls, “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy’” (Mt 5:43), he is quoting only partially from the OT (Lv 19:18—“You shall love your neighbor”). The last phrase (“and hate your enemy”) reflects the contemporary Jewish feeling toward outsiders; that is, God did not require love toward those considered “enemies” but only toward fellow countrymen.<\/p>\nIn the New Testament<\/p>\nJesus differed dramatically from his Jewish contemporaries by eradicating the limitations on the neighbor to be loved. In contrast to those who would limit love to one’s fellow countrymen, Jesus advocated extending the obligation reserved for the neighbor to the enemy as well (Mt 5:43-48), and in so doing, he destroyed the distinction between neighbor and enemy altogether.<\/p>\nOn another occasion, a scribe asked Jesus what was the greatest commandment given by God (Mk 12:28-31). In response, Jesus cited Deuteronomy 6:5 concerning the nature of God and man’s obligation to love God with his entire being: heart, soul, and mind. Of significance is that Jesus did not stop there but linked with this a second commandment to “love your neighbor as yourself” (Lv 19:18). Some scholars suggest that this dramatic and close association of love of God and love of neighbor originated with Jesus. If Jesus was the first to tie these commands together (see Mt 22:37; Mk 12:29-31), it reveals our Lord’s own understanding of the relation of these two obligations; proper love for neighbor derives from love for God, and conversely, love for God is inseparable from meeting the needs of a neighbor in love.<\/p>\nThe debate in Jesus’ time was not over how to properly treat a neighbor but who, in fact, was the neighbor. Jesus is asked this very question by an expert of the law (Lk 10:29). Jesus had complimented the lawyer for his clear understanding of what was required to inherit eternal life, namely, love of God and love of neighbor. Luke suggests that the lawyer asked the further qualifying question in order to “justify himself,” that is, justify his actual behavior of limited love toward his fellow man. Jesus chose not to respond directly but through the use of a parable, in this case, the familiar parable of the Good Samaritan (vv 30-35).<\/p>\nIn order to open the lawyer’s eyes to the tragic shortsightedness of his question, Jesus related an everyday story of a man traveling the treacherous road from Jerusalem down to Jericho, a road particularly plagued by robbers. The traveler is robbed, stripped, beaten, and left half dead. To this point, the lawyer might have assumed Jesus was offering an example of who constitutes a “neighbor”—a fellow Jew in need. Jesus proceeds, however, to introduce two figures, a priest and a Levite who, in an academic discussion, could have argued quite ably on who is the neighbor God calls one to love. The lawyer would no doubt have anticipated such experts in the law to act rightly toward the victim. In contrast, the priest and Levite, upon seeing the man in need, respond by “passing by on the other side.” Unable to determine whether the victim was dead or barely alive, and possibly not wanting to risk uncleanness, the experts of the law pass by, thus violating the greatest of the commandments just identified by the lawyer (10:25-28).<\/p>\nEnter a Samaritan—a figure especially despised by the Jews. Viewed as heretics by the Jewish religious authorities, the Samaritans were disqualified in rabbinic circles from being considered a “neighbor” and thus worthy of love. In fact, previous centuries had witnessed the slaughter of many Samaritans by Jewish rulers, and animosity clearly existed between the two peoples (see Jn 4:9). While the lawyer listening to the parable would have expected the priest and Levite to act justly toward the victim, he must have been surprised that a hated Samaritan would show compassion and thus fulfill the greatest commandment. Jesus intentionally spelled out the extent of the Samaritan’s compassion (immediate care in dressing wounds, transport to the inn, care for the victim there and extended care in paying for care by others while he is away, Lk 10:34-35) to such a degree that the lawyer would have no doubt as to the genuineness of the Samaritan’s love. The irony of the story is that one not considered worthy to be called “neighbor” by Jews was precisely the one who showed himself to be “neighbor” to the victim (vv 36-37).<\/p>\nThe parable, like the statement in Matthew 5:43-48, reveals Jesus’ own understanding of “neighbor” and what “love of neighbor” demands. Jesus sets no limitation on who qualifies as the neighbor commanded by God to be loved.<\/p>\nThe forcefulness and power of Jesus’ teachings on the love of neighbor and its relationship to one’s love for God are demonstrated by a similar emphasis within the early church. Paul on two occasions called the love of neighbor the fulfillment of the entire law (Rom 13:8-10; Gal 5:14), while James referred to the same commandment as “the royal law” (Jas 2:8).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>NEIGHBOR<\/h3>\nConcept apparently limited in the OT period and late Judaism to one’s fellow Israelite, or member of the covenant, and extended by Jesus to include anyone encountered in life.<\/p>\nIn the Old Testament<\/p>\nAlthough it is never explicitly limited as such, the prominent connotation of “neighbor” in the OT is that of a fellow member of the covenant community; that is, another Israelite (see Lv 6:1-7; 19; Dt 15:2-3). In Leviticus 19:18, a passage often quoted in the NT, the Israelite is commanded to “love your neighbor as yourself.” In 19:34, it is explicitly stated that such love should also be shown to the foreigner (or “sojourner”) passing through the land. If “neighbor” (v 18) implied a more encompassing notion, such as “mankind” or “fellow man,” there presumably would have been no need to include the further stipulation in verse 34. “Neighbor” was therefore probably taken to mean one’s immediate neighbor, the fellow Israelite.<\/p>\nWithin the covenant community, love of neighbor involved certain responsibilities explicitly set forth in the law. The neighbor was to be treated fairly (Ex 22:5-15; Lv 6:2-7; 19:9-18) and respected (Ex 20:16), as were his belongings (Ex 20:17). To foster such just and merciful relationships within the covenant community, the neighbor was to be thought of as a “brother” (Lv 25:25; Dt 22:1-4). What one did to one’s neighbor was to be returned in kind (Lv 24:19-23; Dt 19:11-19).<\/p>\nThe grave importance attached to treatment of the neighbor is understandable when seen as part of one’s wider relationship with God and was considered something that could affect significantly the divine-human relationship (Lv 6:1-7; 19; 25:17; Dt 24:10-13; Ps 12). Israelites were to treat their neighbors in the same loving way they had themselves been treated by God (Ex 22:21; Lv 25:35-38).<\/p>\nThe importance of the neighbor relationship within the covenant community is also demonstrated by the fact that when such responsibilities were ignored, a societal breakdown or national turmoil followed (Dt 28:15-68; Hos 4:1-3; Am 2:6-7). That the Israelites often did neglect love for neighbor, particularly the neighbor in need, is a contributing cause for the divine punishment of the exile (Jer 5:7-9; 7:1-15; 9:2-9; Hos 4:1-3; Am 2:6-7; 5:10-13; 8:4-6). The mere fact that proper love of neighbor was also part of Israel’s hope for the messianic age to come (Jer 31:34; Zec 3:10) also points to its common neglect within the OT covenant community.<\/p>\nIn Late Judaism<\/p>\nFrom the exilic experience, Israel recognized that divine blessing was conditional somewhat on justice and love exercised toward one another (Zec 8:14-17). The identity of the “neighbor” was debatable, however. Several factors suggest that “neighbor” was limited in this period to the fellow Israelite and the proselyte (gentile convert to Judaism). Evidence from rabbinic material excludes Samaritans and the Gentiles living in the land from being considered “neighbors” and thus worthy of love. Within the Jewish Essene community at Qumran, the “neighbor” to be respected and treated fairly was restricted to one’s fellow community members. Finally, when Jesus recalls, “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy’” (Mt 5:43), he is quoting only partially from the OT (Lv 19:18—“You shall love your neighbor”). The last phrase (“and hate your enemy”) reflects the contemporary Jewish feeling toward outsiders; that is, God did not require love toward those considered “enemies” but only toward fellow countrymen.<\/p>\nIn the New Testament<\/p>\nJesus differed dramatically from his Jewish contemporaries by eradicating the limitations on the neighbor to be loved. In contrast to those who would limit love to one’s fellow countrymen, Jesus advocated extending the obligation reserved for the neighbor to the enemy as well (Mt 5:43-48), and in so doing, he destroyed the distinction between neighbor and enemy altogether.<\/p>\nOn another occasion, a scribe asked Jesus what was the greatest commandment given by God (Mk 12:28-31). In response, Jesus cited Deuteronomy 6:5 concerning the nature of God and man’s obligation to love God with his entire being: heart, soul, and mind. Of significance is that Jesus did not stop there but linked with this a second commandment to “love your neighbor as yourself” (Lv 19:18). Some scholars suggest that this dramatic and close association of love of God and love of neighbor originated with Jesus. If Jesus was the first to tie these commands together (see Mt 22:37; Mk 12:29-31), it reveals our Lord’s own understanding of the relation of these two obligations; proper love for neighbor derives from love for God, and conversely, love for God is inseparable from meeting the needs of a neighbor in love.<\/p>\nThe debate in Jesus’ time was not over how to properly treat a neighbor but who, in fact, was the neighbor. Jesus is asked this very question by an expert of the law (Lk 10:29). Jesus had complimented the lawyer for his clear understanding of what was required to inherit eternal life, namely, love of God and love of neighbor. Luke suggests that the lawyer asked the further qualifying question in order to “justify himself,” that is, justify his actual behavior of limited love toward his fellow man. Jesus chose not to respond directly but through the use of a parable, in this case, the familiar parable of the Good Samaritan (vv 30-35).<\/p>\nIn order to open the lawyer’s eyes to the tragic shortsightedness of his question, Jesus related an everyday story of a man traveling the treacherous road from Jerusalem down to Jericho, a road particularly plagued by robbers. The traveler is robbed, stripped, beaten, and left half dead. To this point, the lawyer might have assumed Jesus was offering an example of who constitutes a “neighbor”—a fellow Jew in need. Jesus proceeds, however, to introduce two figures, a priest and a Levite who, in an academic discussion, could have argued quite ably on who is the neighbor God calls one to love. The lawyer would no doubt have anticipated such experts in the law to act rightly toward the victim. In contrast, the priest and Levite, upon seeing the man in need, respond by “passing by on the other side.” Unable to determine whether the victim was dead or barely alive, and possibly not wanting to risk uncleanness, the experts of the law pass by, thus violating the greatest of the commandments just identified by the lawyer (10:25-28).<\/p>\nEnter a Samaritan—a figure especially despised by the Jews. Viewed as heretics by the Jewish religious authorities, the Samaritans were disqualified in rabbinic circles from being considered a “neighbor” and thus worthy of love. In fact, previous centuries had witnessed the slaughter of many Samaritans by Jewish rulers, and animosity clearly existed between the two peoples (see Jn 4:9). While the lawyer listening to the parable would have expected the priest and Levite to act justly toward the victim, he must have been surprised that a hated Samaritan would show compassion and thus fulfill the greatest commandment. Jesus intentionally spelled out the extent of the Samaritan’s compassion (immediate care in dressing wounds, transport to the inn, care for the victim there and extended care in paying for care by others while he is away, Lk 10:34-35) to such a degree that the lawyer would have no doubt as to the genuineness of the Samaritan’s love. The irony of the story is that one not considered worthy to be called “neighbor” by Jews was precisely the one who showed himself to be “neighbor” to the victim (vv 36-37).<\/p>\nThe parable, like the statement in Matthew 5:43-48, reveals Jesus’ own understanding of “neighbor” and what “love of neighbor” demands. Jesus sets no limitation on who qualifies as the neighbor commanded by God to be loved.<\/p>\nThe forcefulness and power of Jesus’ teachings on the love of neighbor and its relationship to one’s love for God are demonstrated by a similar emphasis within the early church. Paul on two occasions called the love of neighbor the fulfillment of the entire law (Rom 13:8-10; Gal 5:14), while James referred to the same commandment as “the royal law” (Jas 2:8).<\/p>","summary_ro":"NEIGHBOR Concept apparently limited in the OT period and late Judaism to one’s fellow Israelite, or member of the covenant, and extended by Jesus to include anyone encountered in life. In the Old Testament Although it is never explicitly limited as such, the prominent connotation of “neighbor” in the OT is that of a fellow member of the covenant community; that is, another Israelite (see Lv 6:1-7; 19; Dt 15:2-3). In Leviticus 19:18, a passage often quoted in the NT, the Israelite is commanded...","summary_en":"NEIGHBOR Concept apparently limited in the OT period and late Judaism to one’s fellow Israelite, or member of the covenant, and extended by Jesus to include anyone encountered in life. In the Old Testament Although it is never explicitly limited as such, the prominent connotation of “neighbor” in the OT is that of a fellow member of the covenant community; that is, another Israelite (see Lv 6:1-7; 19; Dt 15:2-3). In Leviticus 19:18, a passage often quoted in the NT, the Israelite is commanded...","source":"Articles\/N.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":37007,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Temple","title_en":"Temple","content_ro":"<h3>TEMPLE<\/h3>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Background<\/p>\n• Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n• Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n• Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n• Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n• Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\nBackground<\/p>\nDavid’s capture of Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:6-9) and his designation of it as the nation’s capital is one of the great masterstrokes of history. Occupied by the Jebusites, it was a pocket of neutral territory between the northern and southern sections of David’s united kingdom and was politically acceptable to both. Jerusalem was then established as the national religious center by the return of the ark, which had been largely neglected since its capture by the Philistines (2 Sm 6:1-17). Henceforth, God’s choices of both David and Jerusalem (“Mount Zion”) were indissolubly linked (Ps 78:67-72).<\/p>\nDavid’s great impulse was to build an adequate dwelling place for Israel’s God. The idea was initially approved by Nathan the prophet (2 Sm 7:1-3), but God revealed otherwise to him, and he conveyed the divine purpose to David (vv 4-17). In a significant wordplay, David was informed that, while he was not to build a house (temple) for God, God would build a house (dynasty) for him. David was not the one to build a temple because of the numerous wars during his reign; the temple would instead be built by his son (1 Kgs 5:3; 1 Chr 22:7-8; 28:3). Nevertheless, David enthusiastically amassed most of the necessary finances and materials and drew up the blueprints for the temple (1 Chr 22:3-5, 14; 28:2, 11-19). He also purchased the temple site (21:25).<\/p>\nSolomon’s Temple<\/p>\n\n<h5>Date<\/h5>\nConstruction commenced in Solomon’s fourth year, about 966 BC<\/span>, and took seven years to complete (1 Kgs 6:1, 38). Everything necessary for the temple, including the workers, had been prepared by David (1 Chr 28:21). The temple evidently had first priority among Solomon’s building schemes, as he built his own palace later (1 Kgs 7:1).<\/p>\n<h5>Superintendents and Workforce<\/h5>\nThe principal architect for the bronze furnishings was Huram (Hebrew “Hiram”), whose father was a metal craftsman from Tyre and whose mother was an Israelite (1 Kgs 7:13-14). Cedar for the temple came from Lebanon and was felled and transported by the skilled woodsmen of another Hiram—the king of Tyre, Solomon’s ally (5:5-9). Thirty thousand Israelites, divided into three groups, were drafted to assist at Lebanon. Each group was on duty for one month in three. For the stonework, Solomon conscripted 153,600 foreigners resident in Israel to provide a self-contained group of carriers, stone cutters, and supervisors (vv 15-17; 2 Chr 2:17-18). Possibly the “men of Gebal,” with their specialized skills, formed yet another group (1 Kgs 5:18). Building the temple was obviously a national project of immense size and effort. In order to preserve the sanctity of the site and to eliminate noise, the masonry and carpentry were not done at the temple site (6:7).<\/p>\n<h5>Description<\/h5>\nThe details given in the Bible are sufficiently clear for us to make a reasonably accurate description of the temple. The accounts in Kings and Chronicles are supplemented by Ezekiel’s depiction of the temple (see below), which was broadly based on his knowledge of the Jerusalem temple (Ez 40–48).<\/p>\nThe side rooms probably rested on a foundation or platform that was separate from the temple itself (1 Kgs 6:5, 10; cf. Ez 41:8-9) and were arranged in three stories, each seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) high, extending around the whole building except for the porch side. Each successive story was one and a half feet (.5 meter) wider than the one below, these dimensions coinciding with the thickness of the side wall of the Holy Place. The ground floor rooms were seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) wide; the first story was nine feet (2.7 meters), and the second was ten and a half feet (3.2 meters). Access to the upper stories was possibly by winding staircases (1 Kgs 6:8). There is some uncertainty concerning the location of the entrances; there may have been one on either side, but only one is mentioned (v 8). As in Ezekiel’s temple (Ez 40:17, 28), there were two adjacent courts, an inner and an outer (1 Kgs 6:36; 7:12), but no dimensions are given for these. The inner court, or “court of the priests,” being next to the temple itself, was also called “the upper court” (2 Chr 4:9; Jer 36:10). The wall of the inner court was made of three layers of hewn stone held together by a layer of cedar beams (1 Kgs 6:36), and the doors of both courts were sheathed in bronze (2 Chr 4:9). The palace buildings were within the outer court area, probably with a private passageway between the palace and the temple that was later closed during the reign of Ahaz (2 Chr 4:9, 12; 2 Kgs 16:18).<\/p>\nThe temple itself was 90 feet (27.4 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 45 feet (13.7 meters) high (1 Kgs 6:2), with a porch or vestibule 15 feet (4.6 meters) deep stretching across the width. Probably the vestibule was on the east end of the temple, thus corresponding with the orientation of Ezekiel’s temple (Ez 43:1; 44:1). The larger part of the main sanctuary, next to the porch, formed the Holy Place, which was 60 feet (18.3 meters) long (1 Kgs 6:17). Beyond this was the innermost sanctuary, the Holy of Holies (or the “Most Holy Place“), which was a perfect cube of 30 feet (9.1 meters). All the interior walls were paneled with cedar decorated with flower patterns, cherubim, and palm trees, so that no masonry was visible. The walls of both inner and outer sanctuaries were “overlaid” (v 22) with pure gold. Actually the gold decoration may have been inlaid, on the basis that a solid sheath of gold would spoil the natural beauty of the wood carving. The floor was made of cypress planks (v 15). Narrow windows set high in the walls above the level of the three-storied outer chambers provided light in the Holy Place (v 4). The ceiling was paneled with beams and planks of cedar. No detail is given about the exterior roofing, but probably the contemporary technique was employed, using a wooden, latticelike framework into which a waterproof, limestone plaster was packed and rolled.<\/p>\nThe outer porch was apparently an open space, since no doors are mentioned. Access into the Holy Place was by double doors, both hinged to fold back on themselves, made of cypress and decorated in exactly the same way as the interior walls (vv 34-35). The doorposts were made of olive wood. Within the Holy Place was the altar of incense made of cedar overlaid with gold; it was placed centrally before the Holy of Holies. Also in the Holy Place were a table for the bread of the Presence of God, ten lampstands arranged in two groups of five on either side, and various utensils required for maintaining the priestly duties (1 Kgs 7:48-50). All these were made or overlaid with gold. The ten tables, arranged five on each side, were presumably for the utensils and accessories (2 Chr 4:8).<\/p>\nBetween the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies was a double door made of olive wood, carved with cherubim, palm trees, and flower patterns and overlaid with gold. Inside these doors, veiling still further the Holy of Holies, was a blue, purple, and crimson curtain, made of the finest fabrics and ornamented with cherubim (2 Chr 3:14).<\/p>\nIn the Holy of Holies were two cherubim, each 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and made of olive wood covered with gold (1 Kgs 6:23-28). Each wing measured seven and a half feet (2.3 meters). A wing of each touched the side walls; the other wings met at the center of the room. The divine throne had been considerably less impressive in the tabernacle, where a wing of each cherubim fused into the mercy seat above the ark (Ex 25:17-22). In Solomon’s temple, the ark of the covenant was placed below the forward-facing cherubim, the symbolic protectors. The ark, the only major item surviving from the Mosaic tabernacle, still contained the tablets of the law, but the pot of manna and Aaron’s rod were missing (1 Kgs 8:9).<\/p>\nImmediately outside the temple and on either side of the vestibule were two hollow bronze pillars (1 Kgs 7:15-20; 2 Chr 3:15-17). According to the book of Kings, these pillars were 27 feet (8.2 meters) high, with a circumference of 18 feet (5.5 meters). The metal itself was about four inches (10.2 centimeters) thick. The pillars were surmounted by bronze, lily-shaped capitals seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) high and six feet (1.8 meters) wide, intricately adorned with a chain latticework that supported two rows of pomegranates. The total weight must have been enormous, and their size is attested to by Jeremiah, who notes that the Babylonians had to break them in pieces before transporting them to Babylon (Jer 52:17, 21-23).<\/p>\nThe bronze altar of sacrifice in front of the vestibule is not listed in the specifications of 1 Kings 7. However, it is mentioned in the temple dedication and subsequently (1 Kgs 8:22, 54, 64; 9:25) and clearly stood in the inner court. Its dimensions were 30 feet (9.1 meters) square and 15 feet (4.6 meters) high (2 Chr 4:1). In view of its weight, it was probably cast in sections at Solomon’s foundry in the Jordan Rift valley (vv 17-18) and then transported to the temple site for assembly.<\/p>\nProbably the most striking article in the inner court was the “molten (bronze) sea,” a huge, round tank made of bronze 3 inches (8 centimeters) thick, 7½ feet (2.3 meters) high, and 15 feet (4.6 meters) in diameter (1 Kgs 7:23-26). Its rim flared out like a lily (2 Chr 4:2-5). The tank was supported on 12 bronze oxen, four on each side, and had two rows of decoration, possibly gourds or pomegranates, under the brim. Its capacity was between 10,000 and 12,000 gallons (37,850–45,420 liters). The bronze sea was used for priestly ablutions (v 6). Presumably this involved a platform of sorts, for the brim of this vast basin would have been about 15 feet (4.6 meters) above ground level.<\/p>\nHiram also constructed ten large lavers, mounted on moveable stands and placed in two groups of five, on the north and south sides of the inner court (1 Kgs 7:27-39). Basically the stands were bronze boxes, six feet (1.8 meters) square and four and a half feet (1.4 meters) high with a nine-inch (22.9-centimeter) rim around the top edge. Each corner was attached to braced posts to which the axles were fixed. The four-spoked wheels were 27 inches (68.6 centimeters) high. Into each stand there fitted a laver containing approximately 220 gallons (832.7 liters) of water, used for washing sacrificial animals (2 Chr 4:6). Probably each was adjacent to one of the ten tables that would be used to flay and otherwise prepare the sacrifices (v 8). Supplementary items, such as pots, shovels, and basins, all made of bronze, were also manufactured (1 Kgs 7:40, 45).<\/p>\n<h5>The Dedication<\/h5>\nEleven months elapsed between the completion of the temple and its dedication (1 Kgs 6:38; 8:2), during which time the major items of furniture were set in place. The dedication itself took place in the seventh month, presumably in connection with the Feast of Tabernacles and the Day of Atonement (Lv 23:23-36). The ark of the covenant was brought into its final resting place (1 Kgs 8:3-4), but the inner court proved inadequate for the vast numbers of beasts sacrificed (1 Kgs 8:62-64; 2 Chr 7:7).<\/p>\nThe temple employed the most sophisticated building techniques of the age, and no expense had been spared in construction, ornamentation, or equipment. Yet Solomon readily confessed its utter inadequacy to house the eternal God (1 Kgs 8:27). His prayer also underlined Israel’s propensity to forsake the Lord, contrasting the nation with God, who, though a just judge, was also merciful and faithful. The climax of the proceedings came when fire from heaven consumed the sacrifices and the shekinah glory filled the temple (2 Chr 7:1-3).<\/p>\n<h5>Later History<\/h5>\nLike most ancient shrines, the temple became a treasury for national wealth and as such was often the target for attack. Shishak of Egypt plundered it within five years of Solomon’s death (1 Kgs 14:25-38). Shortly afterward, King Asa (910–869 BC<\/span>) depleted its gold and silver treasures to buy Syrian help against his oppressor, Baasha (908–886 BC<\/span>), king of Israel (15:16-19). Joash, the king of Judah (835–796 BC<\/span>) who was concealed in the temple from the vicious Athaliah during his youth (2 Kgs 11), made provision for its repair after protesting the priests’ embezzlement of gifts (12:4-16). But after the death of Jehoiada, the high priest, Joash himself was adversely influenced by his nobles (2 Chr 24:15-19). As punishment for his apostasy, the Lord allowed the Syrians to attack, and Joash used the temple treasures to buy them off (2 Kgs 12:17-18). Hardly had provision for replacements been made, when Jehoash of Israel (798–782 BC<\/span>), having shattered the arrogant pride of Amaziah of Judah (796–767 BC<\/span>), again stripped the temple (14:8-14). Later, King Ahaz (735-715 BC<\/span>) used the remaining resources of the temple to enlist support from the Assyrians (16:7-9), though he eventually became completely subservient to them.<\/p>\n Then Hezekiah (715–686 BC<\/span>), one of the great reforming kings, thoroughly renovated the temple and restored worship after it had fallen into disuse during theclosing years of Ahaz (2 Chr 29:1-19; 31:9-21). Manasseh (696–642 BC<\/span>), however, completely reversed his father’s policy, bringing the practices of Canaanite and Mesopotamian worship into the temple (2 Kgs 21:3-7). His conversion experience, which probably occurred late in his reign and resulted in certain reform measures in the temple (2 Chr 33:12-19), was not far-reaching enough to escape the final judgment that his reign was the dark spot of Judah’s history (2 Kgs 21:10-16).<\/p>\nManasseh’s grandson Josiah (640–609 BC<\/span>), was the second great reforming king. He organized the repair of the temple in 622 BC<\/span>, during which the lost Book of the Law (almost certainly the book of Deuteronomy) was discovered (2 Kgs 22:3-13). As a result, Josiah’s reformation gained a new dimension and sense of urgency (22:14–23:3). The reformation included a thorough purge of all idolatrous elements from the temple (23:4-12) and the restoration of the traditional festivals. Sadly, however, Josiah’s reformation died with him, and Judah’s downward slide continued under the apostate Jehoiakim (609–598 BC<\/span>). It was probably during this time that Jeremiah preached his famous temple sermon foretelling its destruction (Jer 7:1–8:3; 26:1-19), which alienated him from the religious leaders. In Nebuchadnezzar’s reprisal raid following Jehoiakim’s rebellion in 601 BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 24:1-4), Jerusalem was captured (596 BC<\/span>) and many of the temple treasures were transported to Babylon (2 Chr 36:7). The temple itself appears to have escaped damage, but when Judah again rebelled under Zedekiah (597–586 BC<\/span>), the temple was demolished (2 Kgs 25:8-10). The remaining temple treasures were taken away.<\/p>\nZerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<h5>Construction<\/h5>\nAlthough the temple was devastated, the site still remained as a place of pilgrimage during the exile (Jer 41:4-5). In 538 BC<\/span> the Persian king, Cyrus, in pursuance of a liberal policy diametrically opposed to that of the earlier empires, permitted the Jews to return from exile. And he authorized the rebuilding of the temple, financing it from the Persian treasury.<\/p>\nIn the book of Ezra, the decree of authorization has been preserved in two forms: the general proclamation (Ezr 1:2-4) and a more prosaic memorandum in the national archives indicating the main temple specifications and the amount of promised Persian help (6:1-5). Probably only a minority of the Jews opted to leave the relative comforts of Mesopotamia for the dangers of a long journey to their desolated homeland. According to the book of Ezra, 42,360 dedicated individuals and their servants (2:64-65) responded under the leadership of Sheshbazzar (1:8-11; 5:14-16) and Zerubbabel (2:2; 3:2, 8; 4:2). With great enthusiasm, the altar was rebuilt on the temple site and the traditional pattern of worship reestablished (3:1-6). Utilizing the grant from Persia as well as their own freewill gifts (2:68-69; 3:7), the Jews began to plan the second temple and lay its foundations (3:7-13). The initial impetus quickly died as a result of local opposition (4:1-4, 24), selfish preoccupation, and crop failures (Hg 1:2-11). In 520 BC<\/span> (Ezr 4:24; Hg 1:1; Zec 1:1), inspired by the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, the Jews under Zerubbabel and Joshua the high priest commenced rebuilding. Work continued in spite of official suspicion, if not direct opposition, and the temple was completed and dedicated in 515 BC<\/span> (Ezr 5:1–6:22).<\/p>\nLittle is known of the physical features of Zerubbabel’s temple. The inference that it was vastly inferior to Solomon’s temple (Hg 2:3) probably relates to an early stage in the building operation. In fact, the second temple stood for over 500 years. The dimensions noted in Ezra 6:3 are incomplete; the new temple was no doubt about the same size as its predecessor and was probably built on the same foundation. The construction technique appears to have followed the method of the original, with layers of timber providing a framework for sections of masonry (v 4). Clearly, there was auxiliary accommodation, probably like the side rooms of Solomon’s temple (Ezr 8:29; Neh 12:44; 13:4-5). If Persian aid was forthcoming as promised (Ezr 6:8-12), the second temple was a more splendid, substantial structure than is generally supposed.<\/p>\n<h5>Later History<\/h5>\nSeveral references in the Apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, rabbinic writings, and the historian Josephus help to illumine the history of the temple and give more detail on its structure and furnishings. Josephus, quoting from Hecateus of Abdera (fourth century BC<\/span>), states that the temple was a large building in an enclosure about 500 feet by 150 feet (152.4 meters by 45.7 meters), surrounded by a stone wall, with an altar of unhewn stones the same size as Solomon’s bronze altar (cf. 2 Chr 4:1). Within the sanctuary was a golden altar of incense and a lampstand, the flame of which burned continually. Josephus also notes that Antiochus III (223–187 BC<\/span>) financially supported the temple when the Seleucids displaced the Ptolemies as masters of Jerusalem.<\/p>\nBen Sirach, early in the second century BC<\/span>, commended Simon, the son of Onias the high priest, for his work in fortifying and repairing the temple area. First Maccabees provides valuable evidence of the fate of the temple during the oppression under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 BC<\/span>). The books of the Maccabees recount the defilement of the altar of burnt offering (1 Macc 1:54) and the plundering of the golden lampstand, altar of incense, table of offering, veil, and other treasures (2 Macc 5:15-16; 6:2-4). When the temple was recaptured and restored, the victorious Maccabees replaced the items taken by the Seleucids, except for the altar of sacrifice, which was considered so polluted that it was dismantled and replaced by a new one constructed of unhewn stone (1 Macc 4:36-61; 2 Macc 10:1-9). Clearly the temple area was used as a fortress, both in opposition to the Seleucid garrison that was maintained in Jerusalem in the Maccabean period and in the conflicts of the later Hasmonean period. When Pompey captured Jerusalem about 63 BC<\/span>, he entered the temple to assert his authority but took no plunder, thus showing respect for it.<\/p>\nThe history of Zerubbabel’s temple closed when Herod, having carefully preserved it from any major damage when he gained control of Jerusalem with Roman aid in 37 BC<\/span>, began to dismantle it about 21 BC<\/span> in preparation for the construction of his own grand temple.<\/p>\nHerod’s Temple<\/p>\nApart from over 100 references in the NT, our main sources of information about Herod’s temple come from the Jewish historian Josephus and from the Middoth (a section of the Jewish rabbinic writings). There are considerable differences in detail between the two, which rules out any dogmatic interpretation in attempted reconstructions. Since Josephus was contemporary with the temple (he was born about AD<\/span> 37 and died early in the second century), he is probably more reliable than the Middoth, which, dating from about AD<\/span> 150, appears to exaggerate occasionally. Archaeological research has been helpful in determining the positions of the outer walls and gates.<\/p>\nHerod’s motive in building his temple was political rather than religious. As an Idumean, he wished to placate his Jewish subjects by constructing a sanctuary as magnificent as Solomon’s. Possible fears that the site might be profaned, or that the existing temple might be demolished and never rebuilt, were allayed by the training of 1,000 priests as masons and the amassing of materials before the work commenced. Herod’s temple followed the tripartite plan of its predecessors, although its porch was much larger. It was built in the contemporary Greco-Roman architectural style and must therefore be regarded as distinct from Zerubbabel’s temple. Work began in 20 BC<\/span>, and while the main sanctuary was quickly erected (it was in full operation within ten years), the total project was not completed until AD<\/span> 64, only six years before it was destroyed by the Romans.<\/p>\nHerod first prepared the site by clearing and leveling an area approximately 500 yards (457.2 meters) from north to south and about 325 yards (297.2 meters) from east to west. This involved cutting away sections of rock in some areas and building up with rubble in others. Considerable sections of the enclosing wall, constructed on stone blocks averaging about 15 feet (4.6 meters) long by 4 feet (1.2 meters) high, still survive. Some of the stones in the corners of the south wall weigh up to 70 tons (63.5 metric tons).<\/p>\nThe sanctuary itself seems to have been based on the same dimensions as Solomon’s temple. It was divided into the Holy Place, which was 60 feet (18.3 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 60 feet high, and the Holy of Holies, which was 30 feet square. There was no furniture within the Holy of Holies, which was separated by a veil from the Holy Place. The Holy Place contained the seven-branch lampstand, the table for the bread of the Presence, and the incense altar. The main divergence from Solomon’s temple was the imposing porch, 150 feet (45.7 meters) in width and height. Outside was a doorway approximately 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide by 40 feet (12.2 meters) high, with an inner doorway about half that size leading into the sanctuary. By allowing empty rooms over the Holy of Holies and the Holy Place, there was a uniform roof height of 150 feet (45.7 meters). Golden spikes on the roof discouraged birds from alighting and defiling the structure. Like its predecessors, the temple was oriented toward the east and was surrounded on the other sides by three stories of rooms rising to a height of 60 feet (18.3 meters). The stone used was the local white stone, cut in huge blocks and highly polished.<\/p>\nAccess to the porch was by a flight of 12 steps from the Court of the Priests. Centrally placed before the porch and 33 feet (10.1 meters) away was the altar of sacrifice. Made of unhewn stone, it was a multilevel construction 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and about 48 feet (14.6 meters) square at its base. Male Israelites were allowed into this area once a year, during the Feast of the Tabernacles, to walk around the altar of sacrifice. Otherwise, they were restricted to the Court of Israel. To the east of the Court of Israel, and separated from it by a flight of 15 steps and by the ornate Great Gate, made of Corinthian bronze, was the Court of the Women. Here the offertory chests for temple expenses were located (Mk 12:41-44). The next court was the large, lower, outer Court of the Gentiles, which surrounded the inner courts and was separated from them by a balustrade and a series of warning notices. Two of these have been excavated, written in Latin and Greek and forbidding trespass by Gentiles into the inner areas, on pain of death. This outer court was widely used. Immediately inside its walls was a portico, supported by four rows of columns almost 40 feet (12.2 meters) high on the south side (the Royal Porch), and two rows on the other sides, the eastern portico known as “Solomon’s Porch” or “Solomon’s Colonnade.” Here is the area where the stalls of the money changers and merchants were set up, where the Sanhedrin met, and where Christ and the scribes taught and debated (Mk 11:27; Lk 2:46; 19:47; Jn 10:23). Here, too, the infant church met before it was rejected by a hostile Judaism (Acts 3:11; 5:12). Just to the northwest of the temple enclosure was the Fortress of Antonia, where the Roman governor resided while in Jerusalem, and where a Roman garrison was on hand to deal with disturbances (Acts 21:31-40). Overlooking the temple area, it was separated from it by a wide moat. The high priest’s vestments were stored in the fortress as a symbol of Roman authority. Access to the Court of the Gentiles was by four gates in the west wall; two in the south wall, where the ground fell away steeply into the valley, a site often identified as the pinnacle of the temple (Mt 4:5; Lk 4:9); and one gate in each of the east and north walls.<\/p>\nSignificance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\nThe temple in Jerusalem functioned as the focal point of the tribal confederation. In spite of the attempt of Jeroboam I, the first king of the northern kingdom, to divert attention from Jerusalem by establishing shrines at Bethel and Dan (1 Kgs 12:26-30), Jerusalem never lost its preeminence. Naturally, both Hezekiah and Josiah sought to extend their reformation into the area of the northern tribes (2 Chr 30:1-12; 34:6-7), and Jerusalem was a pilgrimage center for those areas even after its destruction (Jer 41:5). The prophets foretold its destiny as the focal point of universal worship (Is 2:1-4).<\/p>\nThe temple was God’s dwelling place among his people. God’s presence, symbolized in the shekinah glory and the pillar of cloud, was associated with the tent of meeting (Ex 33:9-11), with the tabernacle (40:34-38), and finally with the temple (1 Kgs 8:10-11). The paradox is that while God is completely unrestricted, the temple was considered a place for God to live forever (vv 13, 27). God had chosen Zion, as he had chosen David (Pss 68:15-18; 76:2; 78:67-72), so the temple was regarded as God’s house (27:4; 42:4; 84:1-4).<\/p>\n<h5>Ezekiel’s Temple<\/h5>\nEzekiel’s detailed description of the ideal temple (Ez 40–48) was not used as the blueprint for Zerubbabel’s temple. In fact, since Ezekiel must have been familiar with Solomon’s temple before his deportation in 597 BC<\/span>, his description is of greater help in determining uncertain details of the first temple. Ezekiel’s concern was to show the nature of pure worship, safeguarded from all contamination. This worship would allow the glory of God, which had departed from corrupted Solomon’s temple (9:3; 10:4, 18-19: 11:22-23), to return so that Jerusalem could again be named “the Lord is there” (43:1-5; 48:35). This thought, linked with Ezekiel’s vital concept of God’s Spirit indwelling his faithful worshipers (36:24-28), anticipated the NT teaching of the believers becoming God’s temple.<\/p>\nSignificance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<h5>Christ and the Temple<\/h5>\nChrist showed considerable respect for the temple. When he was 12 years old, he entered into the rabbinic discussions in its porticoes and described it as his Father’s house (Lk 2:41-50). To him “the house of God” was indwelt by God (Mt 12:4; 23:21). Although he twice cleansed it in righteous anger (Mt 21:12-13; Jn 2:13-16), he wept over the impending destruction of the city and temple (Lk 19:41-44). He often taught there, but he was “greater than the temple” (Mt 12:6). When his presentation to Jerusalem as the predicted Messiah was rejected, in spite of attendant miracles, he foretold its inevitable destruction (Mt 21:9-15; 24:1-2). For a brief period after Pentecost, the early church used the temple as its meeting place, until mounting opposition drove believers from Jerusalem (Acts 5:12, 21, 42; 8:1).<\/p>\n<h5>The Church as the Temple<\/h5>\nThe NT writers used two different Greek words to describe the temple: naos<\/span> and hieron<\/span>.<\/em> Naos<\/span> refers to the actual sanctuary of the temple, the place of God’s dwelling. Hieron<\/span> refers to the temple precincts as well as to the sanctuary. Generally speaking, naos<\/span> was used to designate the inner section of the temple known as the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies, whereas hieron<\/span> included the outer court and the temple proper.<\/p>\nIn Paul’s epistles the word naos<\/span> appears six times (1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21; 2 Thes 2:4) and hieron<\/span> once (1 Cor 9:13). In these verses Paul maintains the distinction of definition noted above. When speaking of the actual physical temple, he used the word hieron<\/span> to indicate the place where the priests offered up animal sacrifices on the altar (1 Cor 9:13), which was situated in the outer court (see Ex 27–29, 40). And when Paul referred to the abominable act of the lawless one in usurping God’s place in the temple, he used the word naos<\/span>—the word that designates the place of deity’s presence (2 Thes 2:4).<\/p>\nIn all the other Pauline passages, naos<\/span> is used metaphorically—to depict a human habitation for the divine Spirit. In one instance the sanctuary image is used to describe the individual believer’s body (1 Cor 6:19); in every other instance the sanctuary depicts Christ’s body, the church (1 Cor 3:16-17; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21). Mistakenly, many readers think 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 speaks of the individual, but according to the Greek text, it is unquestionably clear that Paul was speaking about the collective church (specifically, the church in Corinth).<\/p>\nWhen Paul told the church in Corinth that it was God’s sanctuary, they would have understood the image from their knowledge of pagan temples. But Paul probably had in mind the one temple in Jerusalem. The Gentiles had many gods with many temples in one city; the Jews had one God with only one temple in all of Israel. This helped to preserve unity among the Israelites. The Corinthians needed spiritual unity; they were fragmented due to their individual preferences (see 1 Cor 1:10-13).<\/p>\nIn Ephesians, Paul’s masterpiece on the church, he speaks of the local churches as living, organic entities that are all (compositely speaking) growing into a holy sanctuary in the Lord (Eph 2:21). Paul pictured each local church as providing God with a spiritual habitation in that locality (v 22) and as growing together with all the other churches into one holy, universal sanctuary for the Lord’s indwelling.<\/p>\n<h5>The Temple in John’s Revelation<\/h5>\nIn John’s revelation there is no material temple, even though he continues to use the imagery of Jerusalem and Mt Zion (Rv 3:12; 14:1; 21:2, 10, 22). Three interrelated ideas dominate. First is the concept of the church made up of martyrs, whose faithful members are God’s temple (3:12; 14:1). This temple grows gradually as the number of martyrs increases (6:11). Another aspect is the temple as the place of judgment (11:19; 14:15; 15:5–16:1). Finally, any temple in the new age is unnecessary, “for its temple is the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb” (21:22). The ultimate state will be God’s dwelling with his people—the eternal, spritual temple.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Altar; Ark of the Covenant; Bread of the Presence; David; Feasts and Festivals of Israel; First Jewish Revolt; Judaism; Mercy Seat; Offerings and Sacrifices; Priests and Levites; Sanctuary; Singers in the Temple; Solomon (Person).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>TEMPLE<\/h3>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Background<\/p>\n• Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n• Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n• Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n• Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n• Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\nBackground<\/p>\nDavid’s capture of Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:6-9) and his designation of it as the nation’s capital is one of the great masterstrokes of history. Occupied by the Jebusites, it was a pocket of neutral territory between the northern and southern sections of David’s united kingdom and was politically acceptable to both. Jerusalem was then established as the national religious center by the return of the ark, which had been largely neglected since its capture by the Philistines (2 Sm 6:1-17). Henceforth, God’s choices of both David and Jerusalem (“Mount Zion”) were indissolubly linked (Ps 78:67-72).<\/p>\nDavid’s great impulse was to build an adequate dwelling place for Israel’s God. The idea was initially approved by Nathan the prophet (2 Sm 7:1-3), but God revealed otherwise to him, and he conveyed the divine purpose to David (vv 4-17). In a significant wordplay, David was informed that, while he was not to build a house (temple) for God, God would build a house (dynasty) for him. David was not the one to build a temple because of the numerous wars during his reign; the temple would instead be built by his son (1 Kgs 5:3; 1 Chr 22:7-8; 28:3). Nevertheless, David enthusiastically amassed most of the necessary finances and materials and drew up the blueprints for the temple (1 Chr 22:3-5, 14; 28:2, 11-19). He also purchased the temple site (21:25).<\/p>\nSolomon’s Temple<\/p>\n\n<h5>Date<\/h5>\nConstruction commenced in Solomon’s fourth year, about 966 BC<\/span>, and took seven years to complete (1 Kgs 6:1, 38). Everything necessary for the temple, including the workers, had been prepared by David (1 Chr 28:21). The temple evidently had first priority among Solomon’s building schemes, as he built his own palace later (1 Kgs 7:1).<\/p>\n<h5>Superintendents and Workforce<\/h5>\nThe principal architect for the bronze furnishings was Huram (Hebrew “Hiram”), whose father was a metal craftsman from Tyre and whose mother was an Israelite (1 Kgs 7:13-14). Cedar for the temple came from Lebanon and was felled and transported by the skilled woodsmen of another Hiram—the king of Tyre, Solomon’s ally (5:5-9). Thirty thousand Israelites, divided into three groups, were drafted to assist at Lebanon. Each group was on duty for one month in three. For the stonework, Solomon conscripted 153,600 foreigners resident in Israel to provide a self-contained group of carriers, stone cutters, and supervisors (vv 15-17; 2 Chr 2:17-18). Possibly the “men of Gebal,” with their specialized skills, formed yet another group (1 Kgs 5:18). Building the temple was obviously a national project of immense size and effort. In order to preserve the sanctity of the site and to eliminate noise, the masonry and carpentry were not done at the temple site (6:7).<\/p>\n<h5>Description<\/h5>\nThe details given in the Bible are sufficiently clear for us to make a reasonably accurate description of the temple. The accounts in Kings and Chronicles are supplemented by Ezekiel’s depiction of the temple (see below), which was broadly based on his knowledge of the Jerusalem temple (Ez 40–48).<\/p>\nThe side rooms probably rested on a foundation or platform that was separate from the temple itself (1 Kgs 6:5, 10; cf. Ez 41:8-9) and were arranged in three stories, each seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) high, extending around the whole building except for the porch side. Each successive story was one and a half feet (.5 meter) wider than the one below, these dimensions coinciding with the thickness of the side wall of the Holy Place. The ground floor rooms were seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) wide; the first story was nine feet (2.7 meters), and the second was ten and a half feet (3.2 meters). Access to the upper stories was possibly by winding staircases (1 Kgs 6:8). There is some uncertainty concerning the location of the entrances; there may have been one on either side, but only one is mentioned (v 8). As in Ezekiel’s temple (Ez 40:17, 28), there were two adjacent courts, an inner and an outer (1 Kgs 6:36; 7:12), but no dimensions are given for these. The inner court, or “court of the priests,” being next to the temple itself, was also called “the upper court” (2 Chr 4:9; Jer 36:10). The wall of the inner court was made of three layers of hewn stone held together by a layer of cedar beams (1 Kgs 6:36), and the doors of both courts were sheathed in bronze (2 Chr 4:9). The palace buildings were within the outer court area, probably with a private passageway between the palace and the temple that was later closed during the reign of Ahaz (2 Chr 4:9, 12; 2 Kgs 16:18).<\/p>\nThe temple itself was 90 feet (27.4 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 45 feet (13.7 meters) high (1 Kgs 6:2), with a porch or vestibule 15 feet (4.6 meters) deep stretching across the width. Probably the vestibule was on the east end of the temple, thus corresponding with the orientation of Ezekiel’s temple (Ez 43:1; 44:1). The larger part of the main sanctuary, next to the porch, formed the Holy Place, which was 60 feet (18.3 meters) long (1 Kgs 6:17). Beyond this was the innermost sanctuary, the Holy of Holies (or the “Most Holy Place“), which was a perfect cube of 30 feet (9.1 meters). All the interior walls were paneled with cedar decorated with flower patterns, cherubim, and palm trees, so that no masonry was visible. The walls of both inner and outer sanctuaries were “overlaid” (v 22) with pure gold. Actually the gold decoration may have been inlaid, on the basis that a solid sheath of gold would spoil the natural beauty of the wood carving. The floor was made of cypress planks (v 15). Narrow windows set high in the walls above the level of the three-storied outer chambers provided light in the Holy Place (v 4). The ceiling was paneled with beams and planks of cedar. No detail is given about the exterior roofing, but probably the contemporary technique was employed, using a wooden, latticelike framework into which a waterproof, limestone plaster was packed and rolled.<\/p>\nThe outer porch was apparently an open space, since no doors are mentioned. Access into the Holy Place was by double doors, both hinged to fold back on themselves, made of cypress and decorated in exactly the same way as the interior walls (vv 34-35). The doorposts were made of olive wood. Within the Holy Place was the altar of incense made of cedar overlaid with gold; it was placed centrally before the Holy of Holies. Also in the Holy Place were a table for the bread of the Presence of God, ten lampstands arranged in two groups of five on either side, and various utensils required for maintaining the priestly duties (1 Kgs 7:48-50). All these were made or overlaid with gold. The ten tables, arranged five on each side, were presumably for the utensils and accessories (2 Chr 4:8).<\/p>\nBetween the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies was a double door made of olive wood, carved with cherubim, palm trees, and flower patterns and overlaid with gold. Inside these doors, veiling still further the Holy of Holies, was a blue, purple, and crimson curtain, made of the finest fabrics and ornamented with cherubim (2 Chr 3:14).<\/p>\nIn the Holy of Holies were two cherubim, each 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and made of olive wood covered with gold (1 Kgs 6:23-28). Each wing measured seven and a half feet (2.3 meters). A wing of each touched the side walls; the other wings met at the center of the room. The divine throne had been considerably less impressive in the tabernacle, where a wing of each cherubim fused into the mercy seat above the ark (Ex 25:17-22). In Solomon’s temple, the ark of the covenant was placed below the forward-facing cherubim, the symbolic protectors. The ark, the only major item surviving from the Mosaic tabernacle, still contained the tablets of the law, but the pot of manna and Aaron’s rod were missing (1 Kgs 8:9).<\/p>\nImmediately outside the temple and on either side of the vestibule were two hollow bronze pillars (1 Kgs 7:15-20; 2 Chr 3:15-17). According to the book of Kings, these pillars were 27 feet (8.2 meters) high, with a circumference of 18 feet (5.5 meters). The metal itself was about four inches (10.2 centimeters) thick. The pillars were surmounted by bronze, lily-shaped capitals seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) high and six feet (1.8 meters) wide, intricately adorned with a chain latticework that supported two rows of pomegranates. The total weight must have been enormous, and their size is attested to by Jeremiah, who notes that the Babylonians had to break them in pieces before transporting them to Babylon (Jer 52:17, 21-23).<\/p>\nThe bronze altar of sacrifice in front of the vestibule is not listed in the specifications of 1 Kings 7. However, it is mentioned in the temple dedication and subsequently (1 Kgs 8:22, 54, 64; 9:25) and clearly stood in the inner court. Its dimensions were 30 feet (9.1 meters) square and 15 feet (4.6 meters) high (2 Chr 4:1). In view of its weight, it was probably cast in sections at Solomon’s foundry in the Jordan Rift valley (vv 17-18) and then transported to the temple site for assembly.<\/p>\nProbably the most striking article in the inner court was the “molten (bronze) sea,” a huge, round tank made of bronze 3 inches (8 centimeters) thick, 7½ feet (2.3 meters) high, and 15 feet (4.6 meters) in diameter (1 Kgs 7:23-26). Its rim flared out like a lily (2 Chr 4:2-5). The tank was supported on 12 bronze oxen, four on each side, and had two rows of decoration, possibly gourds or pomegranates, under the brim. Its capacity was between 10,000 and 12,000 gallons (37,850–45,420 liters). The bronze sea was used for priestly ablutions (v 6). Presumably this involved a platform of sorts, for the brim of this vast basin would have been about 15 feet (4.6 meters) above ground level.<\/p>\nHiram also constructed ten large lavers, mounted on moveable stands and placed in two groups of five, on the north and south sides of the inner court (1 Kgs 7:27-39). Basically the stands were bronze boxes, six feet (1.8 meters) square and four and a half feet (1.4 meters) high with a nine-inch (22.9-centimeter) rim around the top edge. Each corner was attached to braced posts to which the axles were fixed. The four-spoked wheels were 27 inches (68.6 centimeters) high. Into each stand there fitted a laver containing approximately 220 gallons (832.7 liters) of water, used for washing sacrificial animals (2 Chr 4:6). Probably each was adjacent to one of the ten tables that would be used to flay and otherwise prepare the sacrifices (v 8). Supplementary items, such as pots, shovels, and basins, all made of bronze, were also manufactured (1 Kgs 7:40, 45).<\/p>\n<h5>The Dedication<\/h5>\nEleven months elapsed between the completion of the temple and its dedication (1 Kgs 6:38; 8:2), during which time the major items of furniture were set in place. The dedication itself took place in the seventh month, presumably in connection with the Feast of Tabernacles and the Day of Atonement (Lv 23:23-36). The ark of the covenant was brought into its final resting place (1 Kgs 8:3-4), but the inner court proved inadequate for the vast numbers of beasts sacrificed (1 Kgs 8:62-64; 2 Chr 7:7).<\/p>\nThe temple employed the most sophisticated building techniques of the age, and no expense had been spared in construction, ornamentation, or equipment. Yet Solomon readily confessed its utter inadequacy to house the eternal God (1 Kgs 8:27). His prayer also underlined Israel’s propensity to forsake the Lord, contrasting the nation with God, who, though a just judge, was also merciful and faithful. The climax of the proceedings came when fire from heaven consumed the sacrifices and the shekinah glory filled the temple (2 Chr 7:1-3).<\/p>\n<h5>Later History<\/h5>\nLike most ancient shrines, the temple became a treasury for national wealth and as such was often the target for attack. Shishak of Egypt plundered it within five years of Solomon’s death (1 Kgs 14:25-38). Shortly afterward, King Asa (910–869 BC<\/span>) depleted its gold and silver treasures to buy Syrian help against his oppressor, Baasha (908–886 BC<\/span>), king of Israel (15:16-19). Joash, the king of Judah (835–796 BC<\/span>) who was concealed in the temple from the vicious Athaliah during his youth (2 Kgs 11), made provision for its repair after protesting the priests’ embezzlement of gifts (12:4-16). But after the death of Jehoiada, the high priest, Joash himself was adversely influenced by his nobles (2 Chr 24:15-19). As punishment for his apostasy, the Lord allowed the Syrians to attack, and Joash used the temple treasures to buy them off (2 Kgs 12:17-18). Hardly had provision for replacements been made, when Jehoash of Israel (798–782 BC<\/span>), having shattered the arrogant pride of Amaziah of Judah (796–767 BC<\/span>), again stripped the temple (14:8-14). Later, King Ahaz (735-715 BC<\/span>) used the remaining resources of the temple to enlist support from the Assyrians (16:7-9), though he eventually became completely subservient to them.<\/p>\n Then Hezekiah (715–686 BC<\/span>), one of the great reforming kings, thoroughly renovated the temple and restored worship after it had fallen into disuse during theclosing years of Ahaz (2 Chr 29:1-19; 31:9-21). Manasseh (696–642 BC<\/span>), however, completely reversed his father’s policy, bringing the practices of Canaanite and Mesopotamian worship into the temple (2 Kgs 21:3-7). His conversion experience, which probably occurred late in his reign and resulted in certain reform measures in the temple (2 Chr 33:12-19), was not far-reaching enough to escape the final judgment that his reign was the dark spot of Judah’s history (2 Kgs 21:10-16).<\/p>\nManasseh’s grandson Josiah (640–609 BC<\/span>), was the second great reforming king. He organized the repair of the temple in 622 BC<\/span>, during which the lost Book of the Law (almost certainly the book of Deuteronomy) was discovered (2 Kgs 22:3-13). As a result, Josiah’s reformation gained a new dimension and sense of urgency (22:14–23:3). The reformation included a thorough purge of all idolatrous elements from the temple (23:4-12) and the restoration of the traditional festivals. Sadly, however, Josiah’s reformation died with him, and Judah’s downward slide continued under the apostate Jehoiakim (609–598 BC<\/span>). It was probably during this time that Jeremiah preached his famous temple sermon foretelling its destruction (Jer 7:1–8:3; 26:1-19), which alienated him from the religious leaders. In Nebuchadnezzar’s reprisal raid following Jehoiakim’s rebellion in 601 BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 24:1-4), Jerusalem was captured (596 BC<\/span>) and many of the temple treasures were transported to Babylon (2 Chr 36:7). The temple itself appears to have escaped damage, but when Judah again rebelled under Zedekiah (597–586 BC<\/span>), the temple was demolished (2 Kgs 25:8-10). The remaining temple treasures were taken away.<\/p>\nZerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<h5>Construction<\/h5>\nAlthough the temple was devastated, the site still remained as a place of pilgrimage during the exile (Jer 41:4-5). In 538 BC<\/span> the Persian king, Cyrus, in pursuance of a liberal policy diametrically opposed to that of the earlier empires, permitted the Jews to return from exile. And he authorized the rebuilding of the temple, financing it from the Persian treasury.<\/p>\nIn the book of Ezra, the decree of authorization has been preserved in two forms: the general proclamation (Ezr 1:2-4) and a more prosaic memorandum in the national archives indicating the main temple specifications and the amount of promised Persian help (6:1-5). Probably only a minority of the Jews opted to leave the relative comforts of Mesopotamia for the dangers of a long journey to their desolated homeland. According to the book of Ezra, 42,360 dedicated individuals and their servants (2:64-65) responded under the leadership of Sheshbazzar (1:8-11; 5:14-16) and Zerubbabel (2:2; 3:2, 8; 4:2). With great enthusiasm, the altar was rebuilt on the temple site and the traditional pattern of worship reestablished (3:1-6). Utilizing the grant from Persia as well as their own freewill gifts (2:68-69; 3:7), the Jews began to plan the second temple and lay its foundations (3:7-13). The initial impetus quickly died as a result of local opposition (4:1-4, 24), selfish preoccupation, and crop failures (Hg 1:2-11). In 520 BC<\/span> (Ezr 4:24; Hg 1:1; Zec 1:1), inspired by the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, the Jews under Zerubbabel and Joshua the high priest commenced rebuilding. Work continued in spite of official suspicion, if not direct opposition, and the temple was completed and dedicated in 515 BC<\/span> (Ezr 5:1–6:22).<\/p>\nLittle is known of the physical features of Zerubbabel’s temple. The inference that it was vastly inferior to Solomon’s temple (Hg 2:3) probably relates to an early stage in the building operation. In fact, the second temple stood for over 500 years. The dimensions noted in Ezra 6:3 are incomplete; the new temple was no doubt about the same size as its predecessor and was probably built on the same foundation. The construction technique appears to have followed the method of the original, with layers of timber providing a framework for sections of masonry (v 4). Clearly, there was auxiliary accommodation, probably like the side rooms of Solomon’s temple (Ezr 8:29; Neh 12:44; 13:4-5). If Persian aid was forthcoming as promised (Ezr 6:8-12), the second temple was a more splendid, substantial structure than is generally supposed.<\/p>\n<h5>Later History<\/h5>\nSeveral references in the Apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, rabbinic writings, and the historian Josephus help to illumine the history of the temple and give more detail on its structure and furnishings. Josephus, quoting from Hecateus of Abdera (fourth century BC<\/span>), states that the temple was a large building in an enclosure about 500 feet by 150 feet (152.4 meters by 45.7 meters), surrounded by a stone wall, with an altar of unhewn stones the same size as Solomon’s bronze altar (cf. 2 Chr 4:1). Within the sanctuary was a golden altar of incense and a lampstand, the flame of which burned continually. Josephus also notes that Antiochus III (223–187 BC<\/span>) financially supported the temple when the Seleucids displaced the Ptolemies as masters of Jerusalem.<\/p>\nBen Sirach, early in the second century BC<\/span>, commended Simon, the son of Onias the high priest, for his work in fortifying and repairing the temple area. First Maccabees provides valuable evidence of the fate of the temple during the oppression under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 BC<\/span>). The books of the Maccabees recount the defilement of the altar of burnt offering (1 Macc 1:54) and the plundering of the golden lampstand, altar of incense, table of offering, veil, and other treasures (2 Macc 5:15-16; 6:2-4). When the temple was recaptured and restored, the victorious Maccabees replaced the items taken by the Seleucids, except for the altar of sacrifice, which was considered so polluted that it was dismantled and replaced by a new one constructed of unhewn stone (1 Macc 4:36-61; 2 Macc 10:1-9). Clearly the temple area was used as a fortress, both in opposition to the Seleucid garrison that was maintained in Jerusalem in the Maccabean period and in the conflicts of the later Hasmonean period. When Pompey captured Jerusalem about 63 BC<\/span>, he entered the temple to assert his authority but took no plunder, thus showing respect for it.<\/p>\nThe history of Zerubbabel’s temple closed when Herod, having carefully preserved it from any major damage when he gained control of Jerusalem with Roman aid in 37 BC<\/span>, began to dismantle it about 21 BC<\/span> in preparation for the construction of his own grand temple.<\/p>\nHerod’s Temple<\/p>\nApart from over 100 references in the NT, our main sources of information about Herod’s temple come from the Jewish historian Josephus and from the Middoth (a section of the Jewish rabbinic writings). There are considerable differences in detail between the two, which rules out any dogmatic interpretation in attempted reconstructions. Since Josephus was contemporary with the temple (he was born about AD<\/span> 37 and died early in the second century), he is probably more reliable than the Middoth, which, dating from about AD<\/span> 150, appears to exaggerate occasionally. Archaeological research has been helpful in determining the positions of the outer walls and gates.<\/p>\nHerod’s motive in building his temple was political rather than religious. As an Idumean, he wished to placate his Jewish subjects by constructing a sanctuary as magnificent as Solomon’s. Possible fears that the site might be profaned, or that the existing temple might be demolished and never rebuilt, were allayed by the training of 1,000 priests as masons and the amassing of materials before the work commenced. Herod’s temple followed the tripartite plan of its predecessors, although its porch was much larger. It was built in the contemporary Greco-Roman architectural style and must therefore be regarded as distinct from Zerubbabel’s temple. Work began in 20 BC<\/span>, and while the main sanctuary was quickly erected (it was in full operation within ten years), the total project was not completed until AD<\/span> 64, only six years before it was destroyed by the Romans.<\/p>\nHerod first prepared the site by clearing and leveling an area approximately 500 yards (457.2 meters) from north to south and about 325 yards (297.2 meters) from east to west. This involved cutting away sections of rock in some areas and building up with rubble in others. Considerable sections of the enclosing wall, constructed on stone blocks averaging about 15 feet (4.6 meters) long by 4 feet (1.2 meters) high, still survive. Some of the stones in the corners of the south wall weigh up to 70 tons (63.5 metric tons).<\/p>\nThe sanctuary itself seems to have been based on the same dimensions as Solomon’s temple. It was divided into the Holy Place, which was 60 feet (18.3 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 60 feet high, and the Holy of Holies, which was 30 feet square. There was no furniture within the Holy of Holies, which was separated by a veil from the Holy Place. The Holy Place contained the seven-branch lampstand, the table for the bread of the Presence, and the incense altar. The main divergence from Solomon’s temple was the imposing porch, 150 feet (45.7 meters) in width and height. Outside was a doorway approximately 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide by 40 feet (12.2 meters) high, with an inner doorway about half that size leading into the sanctuary. By allowing empty rooms over the Holy of Holies and the Holy Place, there was a uniform roof height of 150 feet (45.7 meters). Golden spikes on the roof discouraged birds from alighting and defiling the structure. Like its predecessors, the temple was oriented toward the east and was surrounded on the other sides by three stories of rooms rising to a height of 60 feet (18.3 meters). The stone used was the local white stone, cut in huge blocks and highly polished.<\/p>\nAccess to the porch was by a flight of 12 steps from the Court of the Priests. Centrally placed before the porch and 33 feet (10.1 meters) away was the altar of sacrifice. Made of unhewn stone, it was a multilevel construction 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and about 48 feet (14.6 meters) square at its base. Male Israelites were allowed into this area once a year, during the Feast of the Tabernacles, to walk around the altar of sacrifice. Otherwise, they were restricted to the Court of Israel. To the east of the Court of Israel, and separated from it by a flight of 15 steps and by the ornate Great Gate, made of Corinthian bronze, was the Court of the Women. Here the offertory chests for temple expenses were located (Mk 12:41-44). The next court was the large, lower, outer Court of the Gentiles, which surrounded the inner courts and was separated from them by a balustrade and a series of warning notices. Two of these have been excavated, written in Latin and Greek and forbidding trespass by Gentiles into the inner areas, on pain of death. This outer court was widely used. Immediately inside its walls was a portico, supported by four rows of columns almost 40 feet (12.2 meters) high on the south side (the Royal Porch), and two rows on the other sides, the eastern portico known as “Solomon’s Porch” or “Solomon’s Colonnade.” Here is the area where the stalls of the money changers and merchants were set up, where the Sanhedrin met, and where Christ and the scribes taught and debated (Mk 11:27; Lk 2:46; 19:47; Jn 10:23). Here, too, the infant church met before it was rejected by a hostile Judaism (Acts 3:11; 5:12). Just to the northwest of the temple enclosure was the Fortress of Antonia, where the Roman governor resided while in Jerusalem, and where a Roman garrison was on hand to deal with disturbances (Acts 21:31-40). Overlooking the temple area, it was separated from it by a wide moat. The high priest’s vestments were stored in the fortress as a symbol of Roman authority. Access to the Court of the Gentiles was by four gates in the west wall; two in the south wall, where the ground fell away steeply into the valley, a site often identified as the pinnacle of the temple (Mt 4:5; Lk 4:9); and one gate in each of the east and north walls.<\/p>\nSignificance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\nThe temple in Jerusalem functioned as the focal point of the tribal confederation. In spite of the attempt of Jeroboam I, the first king of the northern kingdom, to divert attention from Jerusalem by establishing shrines at Bethel and Dan (1 Kgs 12:26-30), Jerusalem never lost its preeminence. Naturally, both Hezekiah and Josiah sought to extend their reformation into the area of the northern tribes (2 Chr 30:1-12; 34:6-7), and Jerusalem was a pilgrimage center for those areas even after its destruction (Jer 41:5). The prophets foretold its destiny as the focal point of universal worship (Is 2:1-4).<\/p>\nThe temple was God’s dwelling place among his people. God’s presence, symbolized in the shekinah glory and the pillar of cloud, was associated with the tent of meeting (Ex 33:9-11), with the tabernacle (40:34-38), and finally with the temple (1 Kgs 8:10-11). The paradox is that while God is completely unrestricted, the temple was considered a place for God to live forever (vv 13, 27). God had chosen Zion, as he had chosen David (Pss 68:15-18; 76:2; 78:67-72), so the temple was regarded as God’s house (27:4; 42:4; 84:1-4).<\/p>\n<h5>Ezekiel’s Temple<\/h5>\nEzekiel’s detailed description of the ideal temple (Ez 40–48) was not used as the blueprint for Zerubbabel’s temple. In fact, since Ezekiel must have been familiar with Solomon’s temple before his deportation in 597 BC<\/span>, his description is of greater help in determining uncertain details of the first temple. Ezekiel’s concern was to show the nature of pure worship, safeguarded from all contamination. This worship would allow the glory of God, which had departed from corrupted Solomon’s temple (9:3; 10:4, 18-19: 11:22-23), to return so that Jerusalem could again be named “the Lord is there” (43:1-5; 48:35). This thought, linked with Ezekiel’s vital concept of God’s Spirit indwelling his faithful worshipers (36:24-28), anticipated the NT teaching of the believers becoming God’s temple.<\/p>\nSignificance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<h5>Christ and the Temple<\/h5>\nChrist showed considerable respect for the temple. When he was 12 years old, he entered into the rabbinic discussions in its porticoes and described it as his Father’s house (Lk 2:41-50). To him “the house of God” was indwelt by God (Mt 12:4; 23:21). Although he twice cleansed it in righteous anger (Mt 21:12-13; Jn 2:13-16), he wept over the impending destruction of the city and temple (Lk 19:41-44). He often taught there, but he was “greater than the temple” (Mt 12:6). When his presentation to Jerusalem as the predicted Messiah was rejected, in spite of attendant miracles, he foretold its inevitable destruction (Mt 21:9-15; 24:1-2). For a brief period after Pentecost, the early church used the temple as its meeting place, until mounting opposition drove believers from Jerusalem (Acts 5:12, 21, 42; 8:1).<\/p>\n<h5>The Church as the Temple<\/h5>\nThe NT writers used two different Greek words to describe the temple: naos<\/span> and hieron<\/span>.<\/em> Naos<\/span> refers to the actual sanctuary of the temple, the place of God’s dwelling. Hieron<\/span> refers to the temple precincts as well as to the sanctuary. Generally speaking, naos<\/span> was used to designate the inner section of the temple known as the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies, whereas hieron<\/span> included the outer court and the temple proper.<\/p>\nIn Paul’s epistles the word naos<\/span> appears six times (1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21; 2 Thes 2:4) and hieron<\/span> once (1 Cor 9:13). In these verses Paul maintains the distinction of definition noted above. When speaking of the actual physical temple, he used the word hieron<\/span> to indicate the place where the priests offered up animal sacrifices on the altar (1 Cor 9:13), which was situated in the outer court (see Ex 27–29, 40). And when Paul referred to the abominable act of the lawless one in usurping God’s place in the temple, he used the word naos<\/span>—the word that designates the place of deity’s presence (2 Thes 2:4).<\/p>\nIn all the other Pauline passages, naos<\/span> is used metaphorically—to depict a human habitation for the divine Spirit. In one instance the sanctuary image is used to describe the individual believer’s body (1 Cor 6:19); in every other instance the sanctuary depicts Christ’s body, the church (1 Cor 3:16-17; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21). Mistakenly, many readers think 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 speaks of the individual, but according to the Greek text, it is unquestionably clear that Paul was speaking about the collective church (specifically, the church in Corinth).<\/p>\nWhen Paul told the church in Corinth that it was God’s sanctuary, they would have understood the image from their knowledge of pagan temples. But Paul probably had in mind the one temple in Jerusalem. The Gentiles had many gods with many temples in one city; the Jews had one God with only one temple in all of Israel. This helped to preserve unity among the Israelites. The Corinthians needed spiritual unity; they were fragmented due to their individual preferences (see 1 Cor 1:10-13).<\/p>\nIn Ephesians, Paul’s masterpiece on the church, he speaks of the local churches as living, organic entities that are all (compositely speaking) growing into a holy sanctuary in the Lord (Eph 2:21). Paul pictured each local church as providing God with a spiritual habitation in that locality (v 22) and as growing together with all the other churches into one holy, universal sanctuary for the Lord’s indwelling.<\/p>\n<h5>The Temple in John’s Revelation<\/h5>\nIn John’s revelation there is no material temple, even though he continues to use the imagery of Jerusalem and Mt Zion (Rv 3:12; 14:1; 21:2, 10, 22). Three interrelated ideas dominate. First is the concept of the church made up of martyrs, whose faithful members are God’s temple (3:12; 14:1). This temple grows gradually as the number of martyrs increases (6:11). Another aspect is the temple as the place of judgment (11:19; 14:15; 15:5–16:1). Finally, any temple in the new age is unnecessary, “for its temple is the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb” (21:22). The ultimate state will be God’s dwelling with his people—the eternal, spritual temple.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Altar; Ark of the Covenant; Bread of the Presence; David; Feasts and Festivals of Israel; First Jewish Revolt; Judaism; Mercy Seat; Offerings and Sacrifices; Priests and Levites; Sanctuary; Singers in the Temple; Solomon (Person).<\/p>","summary_ro":"TEMPLE Preview • Background • Solomon’s Temple • Zerubbabel’s Temple • Herod’s Temple • Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament • Significance of the Temple in the New Testament Background David’s capture of Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:6-9) and his designation of it as the nation’s capital is one of the great masterstrokes of history. Occupied by the Jebusites, it was a pocket of neutral territory between the northern and southern sections of David’s united kingdom and was politically acceptabl...","summary_en":"TEMPLE Preview • Background • Solomon’s Temple • Zerubbabel’s Temple • Herod’s Temple • Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament • Significance of the Temple in the New Testament Background David’s capture of Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:6-9) and his designation of it as the nation’s capital is one of the great masterstrokes of history. Occupied by the Jebusites, it was a pocket of neutral territory between the northern and southern sections of David’s united kingdom and was politically acceptabl...","source":"Articles\/T.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":52123,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 7:1","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 7:1","content_ro":"7:1-15<\/strong> Jeremiah disabused the people of their belief that God’s Temple<\/em> would guarantee their safety (cp. 26:1-6).<\/p>","content_en":"7:1-15<\/strong> Jeremiah disabused the people of their belief that God’s Temple<\/em> would guarantee their safety (cp. 26:1-6).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:1-15 Jeremiah disabused the people of their belief that God’s Temple would guarantee their safety (cp. 26:1-6).","summary_en":"7:1-15 Jeremiah disabused the people of their belief that God’s Temple would guarantee their safety (cp. 26:1-6).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":52124,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 7:1","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 7:1","content_ro":"7:1-2<\/strong> The people were probably at the entrance of the<\/em> Lord<\/span>’s Temple<\/em> for one of the annual festivals (see also 17:19; 26:2).<\/p>","content_en":"7:1-2<\/strong> The people were probably at the entrance of the<\/em> Lord<\/span>’s Temple<\/em> for one of the annual festivals (see also 17:19; 26:2).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:1-2 The people were probably at the entrance of the Lord’s Temple for one of the annual festivals (see also 17:19; 26:2).","summary_en":"7:1-2 The people were probably at the entrance of the Lord’s Temple for one of the annual festivals (see also 17:19; 26:2).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":79749,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 7:1","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 7:1","content_ro":"7:1-15<\/strong> Jeremiah disabused the people of their belief that God’s Temple<\/em> would guarantee their safety (cp. 26:1-6).<\/p>","content_en":"7:1-15<\/strong> Jeremiah disabused the people of their belief that God’s Temple<\/em> would guarantee their safety (cp. 26:1-6).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:1-15 Jeremiah disabused the people of their belief that God’s Temple would guarantee their safety (cp. 26:1-6).","summary_en":"7:1-15 Jeremiah disabused the people of their belief that God’s Temple would guarantee their safety (cp. 26:1-6).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":79750,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 7:1","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 7:1","content_ro":"7:1-2<\/strong> The people were probably at the entrance of the<\/em> Lord<\/span>’s Temple<\/em> for one of the annual festivals (see also 17:19; 26:2).<\/p>","content_en":"7:1-2<\/strong> The people were probably at the entrance of the<\/em> Lord<\/span>’s Temple<\/em> for one of the annual festivals (see also 17:19; 26:2).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:1-2 The people were probably at the entrance of the Lord’s Temple for one of the annual festivals (see also 17:19; 26:2).","summary_en":"7:1-2 The people were probably at the entrance of the Lord’s Temple for one of the annual festivals (see also 17:19; 26:2).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":107375,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 7:1","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 7:1","content_ro":"7:1-15<\/strong> Jeremiah disabused the people of their belief that God’s Temple<\/em> would guarantee their safety (cp. 26:1-6).<\/p>","content_en":"7:1-15<\/strong> Jeremiah disabused the people of their belief that God’s Temple<\/em> would guarantee their safety (cp. 26:1-6).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:1-15 Jeremiah disabused the people of their belief that God’s Temple would guarantee their safety (cp. 26:1-6).","summary_en":"7:1-15 Jeremiah disabused the people of their belief that God’s Temple would guarantee their safety (cp. 26:1-6).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":107376,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 7:1","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 7:1","content_ro":"7:1-2<\/strong> The people were probably at the entrance of the<\/em> Lord<\/span>’s Temple<\/em> for one of the annual festivals (see also 17:19; 26:2).<\/p>","content_en":"7:1-2<\/strong> The people were probably at the entrance of the<\/em> Lord<\/span>’s Temple<\/em> for one of the annual festivals (see also 17:19; 26:2).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:1-2 The people were probably at the entrance of the Lord’s Temple for one of the annual festivals (see also 17:19; 26:2).","summary_en":"7:1-2 The people were probably at the entrance of the Lord’s Temple for one of the annual festivals (see also 17:19; 26:2).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":135001,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 7:1","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 7:1","content_ro":"7:1-15<\/strong> Jeremiah disabused the people of their belief that God’s Temple<\/em> would guarantee their safety (cp. 26:1-6).<\/p>","content_en":"7:1-15<\/strong> Jeremiah disabused the people of their belief that God’s Temple<\/em> would guarantee their safety (cp. 26:1-6).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:1-15 Jeremiah disabused the people of their belief that God’s Temple would guarantee their safety (cp. 26:1-6).","summary_en":"7:1-15 Jeremiah disabused the people of their belief that God’s Temple would guarantee their safety (cp. 26:1-6).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":135002,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 7:1","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 7:1","content_ro":"7:1-2<\/strong> The people were probably at the entrance of the<\/em> Lord<\/span>’s Temple<\/em> for one of the annual festivals (see also 17:19; 26:2).<\/p>","content_en":"7:1-2<\/strong> The people were probably at the entrance of the<\/em> Lord<\/span>’s Temple<\/em> for one of the annual festivals (see also 17:19; 26:2).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:1-2 The people were probably at the entrance of the Lord’s Temple for one of the annual festivals (see also 17:19; 26:2).","summary_en":"7:1-2 The people were probably at the entrance of the Lord’s Temple for one of the annual festivals (see also 17:19; 26:2).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"3":[{"id":52125,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 7:3","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 7:3","content_ro":"7:3-4<\/strong> Pagans believed that a symbol was identical with what it represented, so in the paganized worship of Jeremiah’s day, the Temple was<\/em> God’s heavenly house. It would be ridiculous to think that enemies could destroy it. To reinforce that idea, the people vigorously repeated a chant, The<\/em> Lord<\/span>’s Temple is here<\/em>. However, the<\/em> Lord<\/span> of Heaven’s Armies<\/em> needed no earthly house (2 Sam 7:6-7; 1 Kgs 8:27); whatever security the Israelites obtained from the Temple came from the Lord himself, and only on his terms (1 Kgs 6:12).<\/p>","content_en":"7:3-4<\/strong> Pagans believed that a symbol was identical with what it represented, so in the paganized worship of Jeremiah’s day, the Temple was<\/em> God’s heavenly house. It would be ridiculous to think that enemies could destroy it. To reinforce that idea, the people vigorously repeated a chant, The<\/em> Lord<\/span>’s Temple is here<\/em>. However, the<\/em> Lord<\/span> of Heaven’s Armies<\/em> needed no earthly house (2 Sam 7:6-7; 1 Kgs 8:27); whatever security the Israelites obtained from the Temple came from the Lord himself, and only on his terms (1 Kgs 6:12).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:3-4 Pagans believed that a symbol was identical with what it represented, so in the paganized worship of Jeremiah’s day, the Temple was God’s heavenly house. It would be ridiculous to think that enemies could destroy it. To reinforce that idea, the people vigorously repeated a chant, The Lord’s Temple is here. However, the Lord of Heaven’s Armies needed no earthly house (2 Sam 7:6-7; 1 Kgs 8:27); whatever security the Israelites obtained from the Temple came from the Lord himself, and only ...","summary_en":"7:3-4 Pagans believed that a symbol was identical with what it represented, so in the paganized worship of Jeremiah’s day, the Temple was God’s heavenly house. It would be ridiculous to think that enemies could destroy it. To reinforce that idea, the people vigorously repeated a chant, The Lord’s Temple is here. However, the Lord of Heaven’s Armies needed no earthly house (2 Sam 7:6-7; 1 Kgs 8:27); whatever security the Israelites obtained from the Temple came from the Lord himself, and only ...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":79751,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 7:3","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 7:3","content_ro":"7:3-4<\/strong> Pagans believed that a symbol was identical with what it represented, so in the paganized worship of Jeremiah’s day, the Temple was<\/em> God’s heavenly house. It would be ridiculous to think that enemies could destroy it. To reinforce that idea, the people vigorously repeated a chant, The<\/em> Lord<\/span>’s Temple is here<\/em>. However, the<\/em> Lord<\/span> of Heaven’s Armies<\/em> needed no earthly house (2 Sam 7:6-7; 1 Kgs 8:27); whatever security the Israelites obtained from the Temple came from the Lord himself, and only on his terms (1 Kgs 6:12).<\/p>","content_en":"7:3-4<\/strong> Pagans believed that a symbol was identical with what it represented, so in the paganized worship of Jeremiah’s day, the Temple was<\/em> God’s heavenly house. It would be ridiculous to think that enemies could destroy it. To reinforce that idea, the people vigorously repeated a chant, The<\/em> Lord<\/span>’s Temple is here<\/em>. However, the<\/em> Lord<\/span> of Heaven’s Armies<\/em> needed no earthly house (2 Sam 7:6-7; 1 Kgs 8:27); whatever security the Israelites obtained from the Temple came from the Lord himself, and only on his terms (1 Kgs 6:12).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:3-4 Pagans believed that a symbol was identical with what it represented, so in the paganized worship of Jeremiah’s day, the Temple was God’s heavenly house. It would be ridiculous to think that enemies could destroy it. To reinforce that idea, the people vigorously repeated a chant, The Lord’s Temple is here. However, the Lord of Heaven’s Armies needed no earthly house (2 Sam 7:6-7; 1 Kgs 8:27); whatever security the Israelites obtained from the Temple came from the Lord himself, and only ...","summary_en":"7:3-4 Pagans believed that a symbol was identical with what it represented, so in the paganized worship of Jeremiah’s day, the Temple was God’s heavenly house. It would be ridiculous to think that enemies could destroy it. To reinforce that idea, the people vigorously repeated a chant, The Lord’s Temple is here. However, the Lord of Heaven’s Armies needed no earthly house (2 Sam 7:6-7; 1 Kgs 8:27); whatever security the Israelites obtained from the Temple came from the Lord himself, and only ...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":107377,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 7:3","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 7:3","content_ro":"7:3-4<\/strong> Pagans believed that a symbol was identical with what it represented, so in the paganized worship of Jeremiah’s day, the Temple was<\/em> God’s heavenly house. It would be ridiculous to think that enemies could destroy it. To reinforce that idea, the people vigorously repeated a chant, The<\/em> Lord<\/span>’s Temple is here<\/em>. However, the<\/em> Lord<\/span> of Heaven’s Armies<\/em> needed no earthly house (2 Sam 7:6-7; 1 Kgs 8:27); whatever security the Israelites obtained from the Temple came from the Lord himself, and only on his terms (1 Kgs 6:12).<\/p>","content_en":"7:3-4<\/strong> Pagans believed that a symbol was identical with what it represented, so in the paganized worship of Jeremiah’s day, the Temple was<\/em> God’s heavenly house. It would be ridiculous to think that enemies could destroy it. To reinforce that idea, the people vigorously repeated a chant, The<\/em> Lord<\/span>’s Temple is here<\/em>. However, the<\/em> Lord<\/span> of Heaven’s Armies<\/em> needed no earthly house (2 Sam 7:6-7; 1 Kgs 8:27); whatever security the Israelites obtained from the Temple came from the Lord himself, and only on his terms (1 Kgs 6:12).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:3-4 Pagans believed that a symbol was identical with what it represented, so in the paganized worship of Jeremiah’s day, the Temple was God’s heavenly house. It would be ridiculous to think that enemies could destroy it. To reinforce that idea, the people vigorously repeated a chant, The Lord’s Temple is here. However, the Lord of Heaven’s Armies needed no earthly house (2 Sam 7:6-7; 1 Kgs 8:27); whatever security the Israelites obtained from the Temple came from the Lord himself, and only ...","summary_en":"7:3-4 Pagans believed that a symbol was identical with what it represented, so in the paganized worship of Jeremiah’s day, the Temple was God’s heavenly house. It would be ridiculous to think that enemies could destroy it. To reinforce that idea, the people vigorously repeated a chant, The Lord’s Temple is here. However, the Lord of Heaven’s Armies needed no earthly house (2 Sam 7:6-7; 1 Kgs 8:27); whatever security the Israelites obtained from the Temple came from the Lord himself, and only ...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":135003,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 7:3","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 7:3","content_ro":"7:3-4<\/strong> Pagans believed that a symbol was identical with what it represented, so in the paganized worship of Jeremiah’s day, the Temple was<\/em> God’s heavenly house. It would be ridiculous to think that enemies could destroy it. To reinforce that idea, the people vigorously repeated a chant, The<\/em> Lord<\/span>’s Temple is here<\/em>. However, the<\/em> Lord<\/span> of Heaven’s Armies<\/em> needed no earthly house (2 Sam 7:6-7; 1 Kgs 8:27); whatever security the Israelites obtained from the Temple came from the Lord himself, and only on his terms (1 Kgs 6:12).<\/p>","content_en":"7:3-4<\/strong> Pagans believed that a symbol was identical with what it represented, so in the paganized worship of Jeremiah’s day, the Temple was<\/em> God’s heavenly house. It would be ridiculous to think that enemies could destroy it. To reinforce that idea, the people vigorously repeated a chant, The<\/em> Lord<\/span>’s Temple is here<\/em>. However, the<\/em> Lord<\/span> of Heaven’s Armies<\/em> needed no earthly house (2 Sam 7:6-7; 1 Kgs 8:27); whatever security the Israelites obtained from the Temple came from the Lord himself, and only on his terms (1 Kgs 6:12).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:3-4 Pagans believed that a symbol was identical with what it represented, so in the paganized worship of Jeremiah’s day, the Temple was God’s heavenly house. It would be ridiculous to think that enemies could destroy it. To reinforce that idea, the people vigorously repeated a chant, The Lord’s Temple is here. However, the Lord of Heaven’s Armies needed no earthly house (2 Sam 7:6-7; 1 Kgs 8:27); whatever security the Israelites obtained from the Temple came from the Lord himself, and only ...","summary_en":"7:3-4 Pagans believed that a symbol was identical with what it represented, so in the paganized worship of Jeremiah’s day, the Temple was God’s heavenly house. It would be ridiculous to think that enemies could destroy it. To reinforce that idea, the people vigorously repeated a chant, The Lord’s Temple is here. However, the Lord of Heaven’s Armies needed no earthly house (2 Sam 7:6-7; 1 Kgs 8:27); whatever security the Israelites obtained from the Temple came from the Lord himself, and only ...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":61911,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Temple Worship","title_en":"Temple Worship","content_ro":"<h3>Temple Worship<\/h3>\nThroughout the ancient Near East, it was a king’s responsibility to provide for his nation’s temple. David, the founder of the dynasty of Judah’s kings, established Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (2 Sam 5:4-10) and made it the central place of worship. Although Solomon actually built the Temple, David prepared for the building of the Temple and for its liturgy.<\/p>\nIt took Solomon seven years to build the Temple in Jerusalem, beginning in the fourth year of his reign (967 BC<\/span>). It was a large structure—90 feet long, 30 feet wide, and 45 feet high, with a vestibule 15 feet deep stretching across the width (see 1 Kgs 6:2-10). It employed the most sophisticated building techniques of the age, and no expense was spared in construction, ornamentation, or equipment. Even so, Solomon readily confessed to its utter inadequacy to house the eternal God (1 Kgs 8:27).<\/p>\nThe Temple, located adjacent to the king’s palace, represented God’s reign over all creation and all nations: “The Lord<\/span> is in his holy Temple. Let all the earth be silent before him” (Hab 2:20). It served to teach Israel about God’s exclusive dominion and their total dependence on him. And although God cannot be confined to a building, he chose to make the Temple the focal point of his presence on earth. As such, the Temple was central for Israelite worship and for the personal relationship between God and his people.<\/p>\nThe kings were charged to devote themselves to God and to encourage the proper worship of God at his dwelling place, the Temple (see 1 Chr 22:17-19). The Temple also established the legitimacy of the human king, who represented divine rule. This role of the Temple was expressed in Psalm 132, which celebrated David’s restoration of the Ark to Jerusalem (Ps 132:6-12). This psalm was used at the conclusion of Solomon’s prayer of dedication (2 Chr 6:41-42).<\/p>\nThe Temple’s purpose in representing God’s presence in the world was later fulfilled in Christ and the church. Jesus himself signaled the transition from the Temple buildings to his own body as the temple (see John 2:19), and the disciples began understanding this transition after the resurrection (John 2:21-22). The apostle Paul later described the church as the new sacred space where Jews and Gentiles are reconciled. Using Temple imagery, he described breaking down barriers in the body of Christ, creating one people (Eph 2:14-15). The church stands as a holy temple, resting on the foundation of the apostles and prophets (Eph 2:20-22). It is built from living stones—believers—fashioned together around Jesus Christ, the cornerstone (1 Pet 2:4-5).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n1 Kgs 8:27-53; 1 Chr 22:1-19; 2 Chr 5:2-14; 6:41-42; 7:12-16; Ps 48:9; 65:4; 66:13; 138:2; Jer 7:3-11; 11:15; Ezek 8:6-16; 44:1-31; Joel 1:14; 2:17; Hab 2:20; Hag 2:7; John 2:19-22; Eph 2:14-15, 20-22; 1 Pet 2:4-5<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Temple Worship<\/h3>\nThroughout the ancient Near East, it was a king’s responsibility to provide for his nation’s temple. David, the founder of the dynasty of Judah’s kings, established Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (2 Sam 5:4-10) and made it the central place of worship. Although Solomon actually built the Temple, David prepared for the building of the Temple and for its liturgy.<\/p>\nIt took Solomon seven years to build the Temple in Jerusalem, beginning in the fourth year of his reign (967 BC<\/span>). It was a large structure—90 feet long, 30 feet wide, and 45 feet high, with a vestibule 15 feet deep stretching across the width (see 1 Kgs 6:2-10). It employed the most sophisticated building techniques of the age, and no expense was spared in construction, ornamentation, or equipment. Even so, Solomon readily confessed to its utter inadequacy to house the eternal God (1 Kgs 8:27).<\/p>\nThe Temple, located adjacent to the king’s palace, represented God’s reign over all creation and all nations: “The Lord<\/span> is in his holy Temple. Let all the earth be silent before him” (Hab 2:20). It served to teach Israel about God’s exclusive dominion and their total dependence on him. And although God cannot be confined to a building, he chose to make the Temple the focal point of his presence on earth. As such, the Temple was central for Israelite worship and for the personal relationship between God and his people.<\/p>\nThe kings were charged to devote themselves to God and to encourage the proper worship of God at his dwelling place, the Temple (see 1 Chr 22:17-19). The Temple also established the legitimacy of the human king, who represented divine rule. This role of the Temple was expressed in Psalm 132, which celebrated David’s restoration of the Ark to Jerusalem (Ps 132:6-12). This psalm was used at the conclusion of Solomon’s prayer of dedication (2 Chr 6:41-42).<\/p>\nThe Temple’s purpose in representing God’s presence in the world was later fulfilled in Christ and the church. Jesus himself signaled the transition from the Temple buildings to his own body as the temple (see John 2:19), and the disciples began understanding this transition after the resurrection (John 2:21-22). The apostle Paul later described the church as the new sacred space where Jews and Gentiles are reconciled. Using Temple imagery, he described breaking down barriers in the body of Christ, creating one people (Eph 2:14-15). The church stands as a holy temple, resting on the foundation of the apostles and prophets (Eph 2:20-22). It is built from living stones—believers—fashioned together around Jesus Christ, the cornerstone (1 Pet 2:4-5).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n1 Kgs 8:27-53; 1 Chr 22:1-19; 2 Chr 5:2-14; 6:41-42; 7:12-16; Ps 48:9; 65:4; 66:13; 138:2; Jer 7:3-11; 11:15; Ezek 8:6-16; 44:1-31; Joel 1:14; 2:17; Hab 2:20; Hag 2:7; John 2:19-22; Eph 2:14-15, 20-22; 1 Pet 2:4-5<\/p>","summary_ro":"Temple Worship Throughout the ancient Near East, it was a king’s responsibility to provide for his nation’s temple. David, the founder of the dynasty of Judah’s kings, established Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (2 Sam 5:4-10) and made it the central place of worship. Although Solomon actually built the Temple, David prepared for the building of the Temple and for its liturgy. It took Solomon seven years to build the Temple in Jerusalem, beginning in the fourth year of his reign (967 BC). ...","summary_en":"Temple Worship Throughout the ancient Near East, it was a king’s responsibility to provide for his nation’s temple. David, the founder of the dynasty of Judah’s kings, established Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (2 Sam 5:4-10) and made it the central place of worship. Although Solomon actually built the Temple, David prepared for the building of the Temple and for its liturgy. It took Solomon seven years to build the Temple in Jerusalem, beginning in the fourth year of his reign (967 BC). ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":89537,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Temple Worship","title_en":"Temple Worship","content_ro":"<h3>Temple Worship<\/h3>\nThroughout the ancient Near East, it was a king’s responsibility to provide for his nation’s temple. David, the founder of the dynasty of Judah’s kings, established Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (2 Sam 5:4-10) and made it the central place of worship. Although Solomon actually built the Temple, David prepared for the building of the Temple and for its liturgy.<\/p>\nIt took Solomon seven years to build the Temple in Jerusalem, beginning in the fourth year of his reign (967 BC<\/span>). It was a large structure—90 feet long, 30 feet wide, and 45 feet high, with a vestibule 15 feet deep stretching across the width (see 1 Kgs 6:2-10). It employed the most sophisticated building techniques of the age, and no expense was spared in construction, ornamentation, or equipment. Even so, Solomon readily confessed to its utter inadequacy to house the eternal God (1 Kgs 8:27).<\/p>\nThe Temple, located adjacent to the king’s palace, represented God’s reign over all creation and all nations: “The Lord<\/span> is in his holy Temple. Let all the earth be silent before him” (Hab 2:20). It served to teach Israel about God’s exclusive dominion and their total dependence on him. And although God cannot be confined to a building, he chose to make the Temple the focal point of his presence on earth. As such, the Temple was central for Israelite worship and for the personal relationship between God and his people.<\/p>\nThe kings were charged to devote themselves to God and to encourage the proper worship of God at his dwelling place, the Temple (see 1 Chr 22:17-19). The Temple also established the legitimacy of the human king, who represented divine rule. This role of the Temple was expressed in Psalm 132, which celebrated David’s restoration of the Ark to Jerusalem (Ps 132:6-12). This psalm was used at the conclusion of Solomon’s prayer of dedication (2 Chr 6:41-42).<\/p>\nThe Temple’s purpose in representing God’s presence in the world was later fulfilled in Christ and the church. Jesus himself signaled the transition from the Temple buildings to his own body as the temple (see John 2:19), and the disciples began understanding this transition after the resurrection (John 2:21-22). The apostle Paul later described the church as the new sacred space where Jews and Gentiles are reconciled. Using Temple imagery, he described breaking down barriers in the body of Christ, creating one people (Eph 2:14-15). The church stands as a holy temple, resting on the foundation of the apostles and prophets (Eph 2:20-22). It is built from living stones—believers—fashioned together around Jesus Christ, the cornerstone (1 Pet 2:4-5).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n1 Kgs 8:27-53; 1 Chr 22:1-19; 2 Chr 5:2-14; 6:41-42; 7:12-16; Ps 48:9; 65:4; 66:13; 138:2; Jer 7:3-11; 11:15; Ezek 8:6-16; 44:1-31; Joel 1:14; 2:17; Hab 2:20; Hag 2:7; John 2:19-22; Eph 2:14-15, 20-22; 1 Pet 2:4-5<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Temple Worship<\/h3>\nThroughout the ancient Near East, it was a king’s responsibility to provide for his nation’s temple. David, the founder of the dynasty of Judah’s kings, established Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (2 Sam 5:4-10) and made it the central place of worship. Although Solomon actually built the Temple, David prepared for the building of the Temple and for its liturgy.<\/p>\nIt took Solomon seven years to build the Temple in Jerusalem, beginning in the fourth year of his reign (967 BC<\/span>). It was a large structure—90 feet long, 30 feet wide, and 45 feet high, with a vestibule 15 feet deep stretching across the width (see 1 Kgs 6:2-10). It employed the most sophisticated building techniques of the age, and no expense was spared in construction, ornamentation, or equipment. Even so, Solomon readily confessed to its utter inadequacy to house the eternal God (1 Kgs 8:27).<\/p>\nThe Temple, located adjacent to the king’s palace, represented God’s reign over all creation and all nations: “The Lord<\/span> is in his holy Temple. Let all the earth be silent before him” (Hab 2:20). It served to teach Israel about God’s exclusive dominion and their total dependence on him. And although God cannot be confined to a building, he chose to make the Temple the focal point of his presence on earth. As such, the Temple was central for Israelite worship and for the personal relationship between God and his people.<\/p>\nThe kings were charged to devote themselves to God and to encourage the proper worship of God at his dwelling place, the Temple (see 1 Chr 22:17-19). The Temple also established the legitimacy of the human king, who represented divine rule. This role of the Temple was expressed in Psalm 132, which celebrated David’s restoration of the Ark to Jerusalem (Ps 132:6-12). This psalm was used at the conclusion of Solomon’s prayer of dedication (2 Chr 6:41-42).<\/p>\nThe Temple’s purpose in representing God’s presence in the world was later fulfilled in Christ and the church. Jesus himself signaled the transition from the Temple buildings to his own body as the temple (see John 2:19), and the disciples began understanding this transition after the resurrection (John 2:21-22). The apostle Paul later described the church as the new sacred space where Jews and Gentiles are reconciled. Using Temple imagery, he described breaking down barriers in the body of Christ, creating one people (Eph 2:14-15). The church stands as a holy temple, resting on the foundation of the apostles and prophets (Eph 2:20-22). It is built from living stones—believers—fashioned together around Jesus Christ, the cornerstone (1 Pet 2:4-5).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n1 Kgs 8:27-53; 1 Chr 22:1-19; 2 Chr 5:2-14; 6:41-42; 7:12-16; Ps 48:9; 65:4; 66:13; 138:2; Jer 7:3-11; 11:15; Ezek 8:6-16; 44:1-31; Joel 1:14; 2:17; Hab 2:20; Hag 2:7; John 2:19-22; Eph 2:14-15, 20-22; 1 Pet 2:4-5<\/p>","summary_ro":"Temple Worship Throughout the ancient Near East, it was a king’s responsibility to provide for his nation’s temple. David, the founder of the dynasty of Judah’s kings, established Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (2 Sam 5:4-10) and made it the central place of worship. Although Solomon actually built the Temple, David prepared for the building of the Temple and for its liturgy. It took Solomon seven years to build the Temple in Jerusalem, beginning in the fourth year of his reign (967 BC). ...","summary_en":"Temple Worship Throughout the ancient Near East, it was a king’s responsibility to provide for his nation’s temple. David, the founder of the dynasty of Judah’s kings, established Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (2 Sam 5:4-10) and made it the central place of worship. Although Solomon actually built the Temple, David prepared for the building of the Temple and for its liturgy. It took Solomon seven years to build the Temple in Jerusalem, beginning in the fourth year of his reign (967 BC). ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":117163,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Temple Worship","title_en":"Temple Worship","content_ro":"<h3>Temple Worship<\/h3>\nThroughout the ancient Near East, it was a king’s responsibility to provide for his nation’s temple. David, the founder of the dynasty of Judah’s kings, established Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (2 Sam 5:4-10) and made it the central place of worship. Although Solomon actually built the Temple, David prepared for the building of the Temple and for its liturgy.<\/p>\nIt took Solomon seven years to build the Temple in Jerusalem, beginning in the fourth year of his reign (967 BC<\/span>). It was a large structure—90 feet long, 30 feet wide, and 45 feet high, with a vestibule 15 feet deep stretching across the width (see 1 Kgs 6:2-10). It employed the most sophisticated building techniques of the age, and no expense was spared in construction, ornamentation, or equipment. Even so, Solomon readily confessed to its utter inadequacy to house the eternal God (1 Kgs 8:27).<\/p>\nThe Temple, located adjacent to the king’s palace, represented God’s reign over all creation and all nations: “The Lord<\/span> is in his holy Temple. Let all the earth be silent before him” (Hab 2:20). It served to teach Israel about God’s exclusive dominion and their total dependence on him. And although God cannot be confined to a building, he chose to make the Temple the focal point of his presence on earth. As such, the Temple was central for Israelite worship and for the personal relationship between God and his people.<\/p>\nThe kings were charged to devote themselves to God and to encourage the proper worship of God at his dwelling place, the Temple (see 1 Chr 22:17-19). The Temple also established the legitimacy of the human king, who represented divine rule. This role of the Temple was expressed in Psalm 132, which celebrated David’s restoration of the Ark to Jerusalem (Ps 132:6-12). This psalm was used at the conclusion of Solomon’s prayer of dedication (2 Chr 6:41-42).<\/p>\nThe Temple’s purpose in representing God’s presence in the world was later fulfilled in Christ and the church. Jesus himself signaled the transition from the Temple buildings to his own body as the temple (see John 2:19), and the disciples began understanding this transition after the resurrection (John 2:21-22). The apostle Paul later described the church as the new sacred space where Jews and Gentiles are reconciled. Using Temple imagery, he described breaking down barriers in the body of Christ, creating one people (Eph 2:14-15). The church stands as a holy temple, resting on the foundation of the apostles and prophets (Eph 2:20-22). It is built from living stones—believers—fashioned together around Jesus Christ, the cornerstone (1 Pet 2:4-5).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n1 Kgs 8:27-53; 1 Chr 22:1-19; 2 Chr 5:2-14; 6:41-42; 7:12-16; Ps 48:9; 65:4; 66:13; 138:2; Jer 7:3-11; 11:15; Ezek 8:6-16; 44:1-31; Joel 1:14; 2:17; Hab 2:20; Hag 2:7; John 2:19-22; Eph 2:14-15, 20-22; 1 Pet 2:4-5<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Temple Worship<\/h3>\nThroughout the ancient Near East, it was a king’s responsibility to provide for his nation’s temple. David, the founder of the dynasty of Judah’s kings, established Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (2 Sam 5:4-10) and made it the central place of worship. Although Solomon actually built the Temple, David prepared for the building of the Temple and for its liturgy.<\/p>\nIt took Solomon seven years to build the Temple in Jerusalem, beginning in the fourth year of his reign (967 BC<\/span>). It was a large structure—90 feet long, 30 feet wide, and 45 feet high, with a vestibule 15 feet deep stretching across the width (see 1 Kgs 6:2-10). It employed the most sophisticated building techniques of the age, and no expense was spared in construction, ornamentation, or equipment. Even so, Solomon readily confessed to its utter inadequacy to house the eternal God (1 Kgs 8:27).<\/p>\nThe Temple, located adjacent to the king’s palace, represented God’s reign over all creation and all nations: “The Lord<\/span> is in his holy Temple. Let all the earth be silent before him” (Hab 2:20). It served to teach Israel about God’s exclusive dominion and their total dependence on him. And although God cannot be confined to a building, he chose to make the Temple the focal point of his presence on earth. As such, the Temple was central for Israelite worship and for the personal relationship between God and his people.<\/p>\nThe kings were charged to devote themselves to God and to encourage the proper worship of God at his dwelling place, the Temple (see 1 Chr 22:17-19). The Temple also established the legitimacy of the human king, who represented divine rule. This role of the Temple was expressed in Psalm 132, which celebrated David’s restoration of the Ark to Jerusalem (Ps 132:6-12). This psalm was used at the conclusion of Solomon’s prayer of dedication (2 Chr 6:41-42).<\/p>\nThe Temple’s purpose in representing God’s presence in the world was later fulfilled in Christ and the church. Jesus himself signaled the transition from the Temple buildings to his own body as the temple (see John 2:19), and the disciples began understanding this transition after the resurrection (John 2:21-22). The apostle Paul later described the church as the new sacred space where Jews and Gentiles are reconciled. Using Temple imagery, he described breaking down barriers in the body of Christ, creating one people (Eph 2:14-15). The church stands as a holy temple, resting on the foundation of the apostles and prophets (Eph 2:20-22). It is built from living stones—believers—fashioned together around Jesus Christ, the cornerstone (1 Pet 2:4-5).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n1 Kgs 8:27-53; 1 Chr 22:1-19; 2 Chr 5:2-14; 6:41-42; 7:12-16; Ps 48:9; 65:4; 66:13; 138:2; Jer 7:3-11; 11:15; Ezek 8:6-16; 44:1-31; Joel 1:14; 2:17; Hab 2:20; Hag 2:7; John 2:19-22; Eph 2:14-15, 20-22; 1 Pet 2:4-5<\/p>","summary_ro":"Temple Worship Throughout the ancient Near East, it was a king’s responsibility to provide for his nation’s temple. David, the founder of the dynasty of Judah’s kings, established Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (2 Sam 5:4-10) and made it the central place of worship. Although Solomon actually built the Temple, David prepared for the building of the Temple and for its liturgy. It took Solomon seven years to build the Temple in Jerusalem, beginning in the fourth year of his reign (967 BC). ...","summary_en":"Temple Worship Throughout the ancient Near East, it was a king’s responsibility to provide for his nation’s temple. David, the founder of the dynasty of Judah’s kings, established Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (2 Sam 5:4-10) and made it the central place of worship. Although Solomon actually built the Temple, David prepared for the building of the Temple and for its liturgy. It took Solomon seven years to build the Temple in Jerusalem, beginning in the fourth year of his reign (967 BC). ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":144789,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Temple Worship","title_en":"Temple Worship","content_ro":"<h3>Temple Worship<\/h3>\nThroughout the ancient Near East, it was a king’s responsibility to provide for his nation’s temple. David, the founder of the dynasty of Judah’s kings, established Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (2 Sam 5:4-10) and made it the central place of worship. Although Solomon actually built the Temple, David prepared for the building of the Temple and for its liturgy.<\/p>\nIt took Solomon seven years to build the Temple in Jerusalem, beginning in the fourth year of his reign (967 BC<\/span>). It was a large structure—90 feet long, 30 feet wide, and 45 feet high, with a vestibule 15 feet deep stretching across the width (see 1 Kgs 6:2-10). It employed the most sophisticated building techniques of the age, and no expense was spared in construction, ornamentation, or equipment. Even so, Solomon readily confessed to its utter inadequacy to house the eternal God (1 Kgs 8:27).<\/p>\nThe Temple, located adjacent to the king’s palace, represented God’s reign over all creation and all nations: “The Lord<\/span> is in his holy Temple. Let all the earth be silent before him” (Hab 2:20). It served to teach Israel about God’s exclusive dominion and their total dependence on him. And although God cannot be confined to a building, he chose to make the Temple the focal point of his presence on earth. As such, the Temple was central for Israelite worship and for the personal relationship between God and his people.<\/p>\nThe kings were charged to devote themselves to God and to encourage the proper worship of God at his dwelling place, the Temple (see 1 Chr 22:17-19). The Temple also established the legitimacy of the human king, who represented divine rule. This role of the Temple was expressed in Psalm 132, which celebrated David’s restoration of the Ark to Jerusalem (Ps 132:6-12). This psalm was used at the conclusion of Solomon’s prayer of dedication (2 Chr 6:41-42).<\/p>\nThe Temple’s purpose in representing God’s presence in the world was later fulfilled in Christ and the church. Jesus himself signaled the transition from the Temple buildings to his own body as the temple (see John 2:19), and the disciples began understanding this transition after the resurrection (John 2:21-22). The apostle Paul later described the church as the new sacred space where Jews and Gentiles are reconciled. Using Temple imagery, he described breaking down barriers in the body of Christ, creating one people (Eph 2:14-15). The church stands as a holy temple, resting on the foundation of the apostles and prophets (Eph 2:20-22). It is built from living stones—believers—fashioned together around Jesus Christ, the cornerstone (1 Pet 2:4-5).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n1 Kgs 8:27-53; 1 Chr 22:1-19; 2 Chr 5:2-14; 6:41-42; 7:12-16; Ps 48:9; 65:4; 66:13; 138:2; Jer 7:3-11; 11:15; Ezek 8:6-16; 44:1-31; Joel 1:14; 2:17; Hab 2:20; Hag 2:7; John 2:19-22; Eph 2:14-15, 20-22; 1 Pet 2:4-5<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Temple Worship<\/h3>\nThroughout the ancient Near East, it was a king’s responsibility to provide for his nation’s temple. David, the founder of the dynasty of Judah’s kings, established Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (2 Sam 5:4-10) and made it the central place of worship. Although Solomon actually built the Temple, David prepared for the building of the Temple and for its liturgy.<\/p>\nIt took Solomon seven years to build the Temple in Jerusalem, beginning in the fourth year of his reign (967 BC<\/span>). It was a large structure—90 feet long, 30 feet wide, and 45 feet high, with a vestibule 15 feet deep stretching across the width (see 1 Kgs 6:2-10). It employed the most sophisticated building techniques of the age, and no expense was spared in construction, ornamentation, or equipment. Even so, Solomon readily confessed to its utter inadequacy to house the eternal God (1 Kgs 8:27).<\/p>\nThe Temple, located adjacent to the king’s palace, represented God’s reign over all creation and all nations: “The Lord<\/span> is in his holy Temple. Let all the earth be silent before him” (Hab 2:20). It served to teach Israel about God’s exclusive dominion and their total dependence on him. And although God cannot be confined to a building, he chose to make the Temple the focal point of his presence on earth. As such, the Temple was central for Israelite worship and for the personal relationship between God and his people.<\/p>\nThe kings were charged to devote themselves to God and to encourage the proper worship of God at his dwelling place, the Temple (see 1 Chr 22:17-19). The Temple also established the legitimacy of the human king, who represented divine rule. This role of the Temple was expressed in Psalm 132, which celebrated David’s restoration of the Ark to Jerusalem (Ps 132:6-12). This psalm was used at the conclusion of Solomon’s prayer of dedication (2 Chr 6:41-42).<\/p>\nThe Temple’s purpose in representing God’s presence in the world was later fulfilled in Christ and the church. Jesus himself signaled the transition from the Temple buildings to his own body as the temple (see John 2:19), and the disciples began understanding this transition after the resurrection (John 2:21-22). The apostle Paul later described the church as the new sacred space where Jews and Gentiles are reconciled. Using Temple imagery, he described breaking down barriers in the body of Christ, creating one people (Eph 2:14-15). The church stands as a holy temple, resting on the foundation of the apostles and prophets (Eph 2:20-22). It is built from living stones—believers—fashioned together around Jesus Christ, the cornerstone (1 Pet 2:4-5).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n1 Kgs 8:27-53; 1 Chr 22:1-19; 2 Chr 5:2-14; 6:41-42; 7:12-16; Ps 48:9; 65:4; 66:13; 138:2; Jer 7:3-11; 11:15; Ezek 8:6-16; 44:1-31; Joel 1:14; 2:17; Hab 2:20; Hag 2:7; John 2:19-22; Eph 2:14-15, 20-22; 1 Pet 2:4-5<\/p>","summary_ro":"Temple Worship Throughout the ancient Near East, it was a king’s responsibility to provide for his nation’s temple. David, the founder of the dynasty of Judah’s kings, established Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (2 Sam 5:4-10) and made it the central place of worship. Although Solomon actually built the Temple, David prepared for the building of the Temple and for its liturgy. It took Solomon seven years to build the Temple in Jerusalem, beginning in the fourth year of his reign (967 BC). ...","summary_en":"Temple Worship Throughout the ancient Near East, it was a king’s responsibility to provide for his nation’s temple. David, the founder of the dynasty of Judah’s kings, established Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (2 Sam 5:4-10) and made it the central place of worship. Although Solomon actually built the Temple, David prepared for the building of the Temple and for its liturgy. It took Solomon seven years to build the Temple in Jerusalem, beginning in the fourth year of his reign (967 BC). ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"4":[{"id":21987,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Books of First and Second Kings","title_en":"Books of First and Second Kings","content_ro":"<h3>KINGS, Books of First and Second<\/h3>\nBooks continuing the history of the covenant people as recorded in Joshua, Judges, and the books of Samuel. The record in Kings begins with the events at the end of David’s reign (1 Kgs 1–2). It continues through the reign of Solomon (chs 3–11); the histories of the divided kingdoms (1 Kgs 12—2 Kgs 17); and the history of the surviving kingdom in the south, through its fall in 586 BC<\/span> and the subsequent kindness shown Jehoiachin by Evil-merodach, king of Babylon, around 561 BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 18–25).<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Authorship and Date<\/p>\n• Sources<\/p>\n• Theology and Purpose<\/p>\n• Content<\/p>\nAuthorship and Date<\/p>\nKings was originally regarded as one book in the Hebrew canon; the division into two books of approximately equal length appeared first in the Septuagint and finally entered the Hebrew Bible in the 15th century AD<\/span>.<\/p>\nThe book itself is anonymous, and information about its author can only be deduced by examining the concerns and perspectives of the work. The Babylonian Talmud (Baba Bathra<\/em> 15a) attributes Kings to Jeremiah. Although this identification could have arisen from the tendency of later Jewish tradition to assign biblical books to prophetic authors, the theory of origin in prophetic circles fits the evidence quite well. Substantial portions are given to the lives of the prophets; 16 of 47 chapters are devoted to the lives of Elijah and Elisha (1 Kgs 17—2 Kgs 10), and there is considerable interest in other prophetic figures such as Ahijah (1 Kgs 11:29-39; 14:1-16), an unnamed man of God (13:1-10), and Micaiah (22:13-28). Possible dependence on Isaiah (2 Kgs 18–20; cf. Is 36–39) and Jeremiah (2 Kgs 24–25; cf. Jer 52) also suggest prophetic origin. The author-compiler also shows intense concern with the efficacy of the prophetic word, frequently calling attention to the fulfillment of words spoken earlier by the prophets.<\/p>\nOne might initially think that such a history would be unlikely for a prophet, but the evidence is to the contrary. The prophets were the guardians of the covenant relationship and are known to have produced accounts used as sources by other biblical historians. The following are among such sources: the acts of Samuel the seer, the acts of Nathan the prophet, the acts of Gad the seer (1 Chr 29:29); the acts of Nathan the prophet, the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, the visions of Iddo the seer (2 Chr 9:29); the chronicles of Shemaiah the prophet and of Iddo the seer (12:15); the annotations of the prophet Iddo (13:22); and the acts of Uzziah by Isaiah the prophet (26:22). Add to this the fact that Kings is positioned in the Hebrew canon in the Former Prophets (Joshua to 2 Kings), and a consistent picture of prophetic origin emerges.<\/p>\nThe date of the final part of the book must be after the last events recorded. Evil-merodach’s kindness toward Jehoiachin (c. 561 BC<\/span>) is the terminus of the book and therefore fixes the earliest date. Since the work shows no knowledge of the restoration period, a date before 539 BC<\/span> is probable. The author’s selection of his data to answer the burning theological questions of the exilic community also suggests a date between 561 and 539 BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nSources<\/p>\nThe compiler of Kings specifically names three of the sources that he used in his work, and biblical scholars have suggested the presence of a number of other sources that may have been cited. Of course, the sources not mentioned specifically by the compiler are only the speculations of those who have studied his work and can have only varying degrees of probability. The sources both specified and alleged are as follows.<\/p>\n<h5>The Book of the Acts of Solomon<\/h5>\nAs 1 Kings 11:41 says, “The rest of the events in Solomon’s reign, including his wisdom, are recorded in The Book of the Acts of Solomon”<\/em> (nlt<\/span>). Presumably additional materials of a biographical nature were included, specifically accounts similar to the judgment between the two mothers (3:16-28) or the visit of the queen of Sheba (10:1-10). There has been debate as to whether these materials were official court records or nonofficial documents. Some scholars have attempted to isolate further materials within this section by identifying descriptions of the buildings as from temple archives (chs 6–7) and lists of administrators as from administrative documents (chs 4–5), but this must remain speculative.<\/p>\n<h5>The Book of the History of the Kings of Israel<\/h5>\nThis source is mentioned 17 times in Kings, usually in the closing formulas at the end of the account of the reign of a northern king. Some idea of the nature of these chronicles can be derived from looking at the type of information to which the compiler refers his readers (see 1 Kgs 14:19; 16:27; 22:39; 2 Kgs 13:12; 14:28). These passages suggest that this source was the official annals covering the reigns of the kings.<\/p>\n<h5>The Book of the History of the Kings of Judah<\/h5>\nThis source is mentioned in 15 passages, and as with the kings of Israel, is found in the concluding formulas to the accounts of the reigns. This source was to be consulted for additional details on individuals’ reigns (for example, see 1 Kgs 15:23; 22:45; 2 Kgs 20:20; 21:17). These sources for the histories of the two kingdoms were probably similar to the annals known from the surrounding cultures, particularly from the reigns of Assyrian kings. They were likely official court histories kept in Samaria and Jerusalem.<\/p>\nIn addition to these explicitly mentioned sources, scholars have suggested the compiler drew on other sources that he does not name.<\/p>\n<h5>Davidic Court History<\/h5>\nSecond Samuel 9–20 is often identified as a unit of material in the composition of the books of Samuel; it is variously called “the court history” or “the succession narrative.” Because of similar vocabulary and outlook, 1 Kings 1–2 are often associated with this material from Samuel. The statement of 1 Kings 2:46, “so the kingdom was now firmly in Solomon’s grip,” is taken to be the end of this record.<\/p>\n<h5>Sources for the House of Ahab<\/h5>\nThe reigns of individual kings are ordinarily given only brief notices; for example, the father of Ahab, Omri, is given eight verses, even though when judged by political and economic significance, he was among the greatest of the northern kings (1 Kgs 16:21-28). However, beginning with the reign of Ahab, the record becomes quite expansive, and extensive coverage is given the dynasty of Ahab through the coup by Jehu (1 Kgs 16—2 Kgs 12). The use of the stereotyped formulas for the reigns is suspended in this material, and the existence of other literature used by the compiler is probable. This material is commonly subdivided into further sources for the lives of Elijah and Elisha and the reign of Ahab.<\/p>\nThe Elijah section covers material in the following chapters: 1 Kings 17–19, including the feeding by the ravens, the incidents with the widow of Zarephath, the drought, the fire on Carmel, and the revelation of God at Sinai; 1 Kings 21, the affair of Naboth’s vineyard; and 2 Kings 1, the death of Ahaziah’s messengers. The reign of Ahab, which gets so much attention in Kings, is primarily a backdrop for the accounts concerning Elijah.<\/p>\nThe Elisha material found in 2 Kings 2–13 may have had an independent literary development from that of the Elijah accounts. It includes the following: chapter 2 (Elisha’s succession to the prophetic office, the purification of a spring, the death of mocking children); chapter 3 (on the campaign against Moab); chapter 4 (the widow’s oil, the Shunammite woman); chapter 5 (Naaman’s leprosy); chapter 6 (the Aramean attempt to capture Elisha); chapter 7 (the famine in Samaria); chapter 8 (the Shunammite’s property, the coup of Hazael); chapter 9 (the anointing of Jehu); and chapter 13 (the death of Elisha). No other portion of the OT takes the sheer delight in the miraculous that is seen in the Elisha narratives.<\/p>\nIn 1 Kings 16 to 2 Kings 13 there are additional incidents not directly related to the biographies of Elijah and Elisha; accounts such as the military campaigns of 1 Kings 20:1-34 and further details of Jehu’s coup (2 Kgs 9:11–10:36) are often attributed to a third source containing accounts of the dynasty of Ahab and his successors. In all three of these possible sources the orientation is toward affairs in the northern kingdom.<\/p>\n<h5>Isaiah Source<\/h5>\nThe account of the reign of Hezekiah contains a section (2 Kgs 18:13–20:19) that is nearly a verbatim citation of material also found in Isaiah (Is 36:1–39:8). The section records the invasion of Sennacherib, the mission of the Rabshakeh, Hezekiah’s prayer, Isaiah’s prophecy, Hezekiah’s illness, the regression of the sun, and the envoys from Merodach-baladan. The material must be regarded as based on the book of Isaiah or some other source used in both Isaiah and Kings.<\/p>\n<h5>A Prophetic Source<\/h5>\nBecause Kings shows great interest in the prophets and their ministries, various scholars have suggested that yet another source was used by the compiler; this would be an independent literary unit containing accounts of the prophets. This source would have contained the records for the material on Ahijah (1 Kgs 11:29-39; 14:1-16), unnamed prophets (ch 12; 20:35-43), Micaiah (22:13-28), and other references.<\/p>\nApart from the sources explicitly mentioned and inferences about their character, the remainder of the sources suggested have only varying degrees of probability. Considerable scholarly effort has gone into identifying and characterizing such sources, but it remains speculative. When considering the sources the compiler may have used, one important caution must be kept in mind. Even if such sources did exist, one cannot have confidence in a reconstruction of the compositional history. Which sources had already been integrated into a larger composition before they were used by the compiler of Kings? We cannot be certain that the life situation out of which these other sources grew has been correctly identified, nor can we know that even the compiler himself was aware of the past history of his sources. Biblical scholarship has expended considerable energy in trying to delineate the past history of the book of Kings, but it has often been at the neglect of the unity of perspective that is the product of the final compiler(s) in whose hands the book received its canonical form.<\/p>\nWhat is important to understanding the book is not the perspective of its various sources (of which the compiler himself may have been unaware), but the perspective of the book as a whole on the history of the kingdoms. It is the outline that the compiler has imposed on the sources that establishes the teaching of the book; his sources are used in accord with his own purposes, a fact that makes the purposes for which the sources had been prepared largely irrelevant to the teaching of the book in its present form. Exploring possible sources, worthwhile in itself, must not eclipse the message of the book as a whole. This is not to imply that the books of Kings are simply a compilation of unaltered sources. The writer(s) undoubtedly exercised a measure of selectivity and literary skill in composing the historical narrative.<\/p>\nOne compositional technique of the compiler is quite prominent in the histories of the divided kingdoms: this is the use of formulaic introductions and conclusions to the various reigns. The formulas for both kingdoms are quite similar, differing only in minor details. For the kings of Judah, the full introductory formula is as follows: (1) year of accession synchronized with the regnal year of the northern king; (2) age of the king at his accession; (3) length of his reign; (4) name of his mother; (5) judgment on the character of the reign. The account of a Judean king’s reign is concluded as follows: (1) a reference to the chronicles of the kings of Judah for further information; (2) a statement regarding the death of the king, including the place of burial; (3) successor: “And his son reigned in his stead” (rsv<\/span>). The full formula for a Judean king can be seen, for example, in the reign of Rehoboam (1 Kgs 14:21-22, 29-31).<\/p>\nThe formulas differ slightly for the kings of Israel; the introduction is as follows: (1) year of succession synchronized with the regnal year of the southern king; (2) length of his reign; (3) location of the royal residence; (4) condemnation for idolatry; (5) name of the king’s father. The account of an Israelite king’s reign ends as follows: (1) a reference to the chronicles of the kings of Israel for further information; (2) a statement regarding his death; (3) a statement of the succession of his son, unless a usurper follows. The full formula for an Israelite king can be seen, for example, in the reign of Baasha (1 Kgs 15:33-34; 16:5-6).<\/p>\nThere is some variation in the use of these patterns, but on the whole, they are consistently followed and provide the basic framework for the history of the divided kingdom. The synchronisms of the reigns provide data for constructing the chronology of the period. The variations in the formulas may reflect the characteristics of the sources the compiler was using or may reflect his own interests. The name of the mother of a Judean king is recorded, but not of an Israelite king, perhaps reflecting concern with a more exact and fuller record of the Davidic succession. The royal residence is presumed to be Jerusalem for the southern kings (though it may be mentioned) but is recorded for the northern kings since it moved several times, from Shechem to Penuel to Tirzah to Samaria. The mention of the king’s father for a northern ruler also reflects the frequent change in dynasties there, as opposed to the dynastic stability of Judah, which is reinforced by mentioning the burial of almost all its kings in the city of David.<\/p>\nTheology and Purpose<\/p>\nThe books of Kings record the history of the covenant people from the end of the reign of David (961 BC<\/span>) through the fall of the southern kingdom (586 BC<\/span>). Yet it is not history written in accord with modern expectations for history textbooks. Rather than concentrating on economic, political, and military themes as they shaped the history of the period, the compiler of Kings is motivated by theological concerns.<\/p>\nEvaluation of the theology and purpose of the books of Kings is made easier by the fact that there is a parallel history for much of Kings found in the books of Chronicles. By comparing the two accounts, especially where the later Chronicler adds or deletes material found in Kings, the interests of both histories are thrown into clearer relief.<\/p>\nThe books of Kings were composed during the exile, likely between 560 and 539 BC<\/span>. Jerusalem had been turned into rubble, and there was no longer a throne of David. Those two pillars of the popular theology—the inviolability of the temple and the throne of David (Jer 7:4; 13:13-14; 22:1-9; see 1 Kgs 8:16, 29)—had tumbled. If Israel’s faith was to survive, the burning questions that had to be answered were “How did it all happen? Can’t God keep his promises to David and to Zion? Have the promises failed?” The writer of Kings aims to deal with the bewilderment of the chosen people in response to the disasters of 722 BC<\/span> (fall of Samaria) and 586 BC<\/span> (fall of Jerusalem). Kings, like the book of Job, is a theodicy, a justification of the ways of God to men.<\/p>\nIn order to answer the question “How did it happen?” the compiler adopts the procedure of recounting the history of the covenant people in light of standards propounded in the Law. For this reason Kings could be called Pentateuchal history, or even more pointedly, Deuteronomic history, for standards propounded only in the book of Deuteronomy in the Pentateuch are used by the compiler to measure the kingdoms. Among the prominent themes selected from Deuteronomy and applied to the kingdoms are the centralization of worship, the institution of the monarchy, the efficacy of the prophetic word, and the outworking of the covenant curses on disobedience.<\/p>\n<h5>Centralization of Worship<\/h5>\nThe primary concern of the writer is the purity of the worship of the Lord. His major criterion for measuring this purity is the attitude of the kings toward centralization of worship in the Jerusalem temple as opposed to the worship of the Lord elsewhere and the continuation of Canaanite cults mingled with Yahwism at the high places. Centralization of worship at the central shrine is called for in Deuteronomy 12. Perhaps “centralization of worship” is a misnomer, for worship was always centered around the tabernacle in the periods prior to the temple; the change that is envisaged in Deuteronomy is not the centralizing of worship but rather the fact that the shrine would no longer be mobile but stationary. For the kings of the northern kingdom, this criterion becomes virtually a stereotyped formula that “he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord and walked in the way of Jeroboam son of Nebat, who sinned and made all Israel sin along with him” (see 1 Kgs 14:16; 15:30; 16:31; 2 Kgs 3:3; 10:31; 13:2, 11; 14:24; 15:9, 18, 24, 28; 17:22). The compiler of Kings sees the rival altars with the golden calves at Dan and Bethel as the great sin of which the northern kings never repented (1 Kgs 12:25–13:34). Rejecting the primacy of Jerusalem, these altars became the rod with which to measure the northern kings. All the kings of Israel are condemned by this standard (except for Shallum, who reigned but a month, and Hoshea, the last of the northern kings)—even Zimri, the murderer of Elah, who ruled only one week before committing suicide in the flames of his own palace (16:9-20). For the kings of Judah, a different standard is used: what their attitude was to the high places where heterodox worship was allowed to flourish in the environs of Jerusalem. Only Hezekiah and Josiah receive the compiler’s unqualified endorsement for following the ways of David (2 Kgs 18:3; 22:2). Six others are commended for their zeal in suppressing idolatry, though they did not remove the high places (Asa, 1 Kgs 15:9-15; Jehoshaphat, 22:43; Jehoash, 2 Kgs 12:2-3; Amaziah, 14:3-4; Azariah, 15:3-4; Jotham, 15:34-35). The remainder of the Judean kings are condemned for their participation in the high places and their desecration of the temple itself. This one theme is the preeminent motif in the book.<\/p>\n<h5>History of the Monarchy<\/h5>\nA second prominent interest for the compiler was to trace the history of the monarchy. Deuteronomy 17:14-20 provides for the day when Israel would ask for a king and charges that king with the basic religious responsibility for the people. This provision for a king, again a feature found only in Deuteronomy, becomes the basis for the compiler’s intense interest in the history of the monarchy, and particularly the religious fidelity of the kings. David becomes the model of the ideal king, the one by whom the others are measured, the one whose sons “continue long in his kingdom in the midst of Israel” (17:20; see also 1 Kgs 15:11; 2 Kgs 18:3; 22:2 for following in the ways of David, and 1 Kgs 14:8; 15:3-5; 2 Kgs 14:3; 16:2 for the reverse). The compiler wanted to show that God had been faithful to David even though David’s sons were not faithful. While both kingdoms had about the same number of kings, the northern kingdom is marked by repeated dynastic changes and regicide through its 200 years, while the dynasty of David is maintained as a lamp in the south through 350 years (1 Kgs 11:13, 32, 36; 15:4-5; 2 Kgs 8:19; 19:34; 20:6). It is the disaster that had befallen the house of David, and the consequent doubts about the promises of God, that prompted the compiler to write.<\/p>\n<h5>Efficacy of the Prophetic Word<\/h5>\nAnother reason why Kings can be called Deuteronomic history is its concern with the efficacy of the prophetic word. There are three passages in the Pentateuch that deal with the institution of the prophetic order: Numbers 12:1-8; Deuteronomy 13:1-5; and Deuteronomy 18:14-22. It is only in Deuteronomy 18 that the test of a true prophet is given: that what he has spoken comes about, that his words are fulfilled. Notice the number of instances where the writer calls attention to the fulfillment of the words of the prophets: 2 Samuel 7:13 in 1 Kings 8:20; 1 Kings 11:29-36 in 12:15; 1 Kings 13:1-3 in 2 Kings 23:16-18; 1 Kings 14:6-12 in 14:17-18 and 15:29; 1 Kings 16:1-4 in 16:7, 11-12; Joshua 6:26 in 1 Kings 16:34; 1 Kings 22:17 in 22:35-38; 1 Kings 21:21-29 in 2 Kings 9:7-10, 30-37 and 10:10-11, 30; 2 Kings 1:6 in 1:17; 2 Kings 21:10-15 in 24:2; 2 Kings 22:15-20 in 23:30. The writer is concerned to show that the words of the prophets were efficacious, powerful words. His concern with the prophetic order is also seen in the material devoted to Elijah and Elisha and to other prophetic figures.<\/p>\n<h5>Fulfillment of the Curses<\/h5>\nAnother aspect of the compiler’s interest in Deuteronomy is seen in his concern to trace the fulfillment of the covenant curses on disobedience. God’s covenant with Israel would issue in curses or blessings depending on the obedience of the people; the compiler of Kings sees the curses inflicted on the two kingdoms because of their failure to meet the demands of the covenant. He takes care to show that most of the curses of Deuteronomy 28:15-68 had some historical realization in the life of the people. Moses had warned that disobedience would “bring a nation against you from afar, from the end of the earth, as the eagle swoops down” (Dt 28:49, nasb<\/span>), and the Assyrians came to Samaria and the Babylonians to Jerusalem (28:52). The siege of Samaria lasted from 724 to 722 BC<\/span>, and the siege of Jerusalem from 588 to 586 BC<\/span>. The dire conditions of the siege would drive the people to devouring their own children; women would feed on their afterbirths. It happened to Israel in the siege of Ben-hadad (2 Kgs 6:24-30). Just as the Lord had delighted to prosper and multiply his people, so he would not refrain from destroying them and scattering them among the peoples of the earth (Dt 28:63-67).<\/p>\nIn these and other ways the writer of Kings set out to write the history of Israel and Judah to solve a theological dilemma. How was one to reconcile the exile with God’s promises to the nation and David? His answer is twofold: (1) the problem was not with God but with the people’s disobedience—God remains just; (2) the end of the state does not equal the end of the people or the house of David. Here the ending of the book is instructive: Evil-merodach releases Jehoiachin from prison, elevates him above the other kings, and provides his rations (2 Kgs 25:27-30). Even during the exile, though cut down to almost nothing, the house of David still enjoys the favor and blessing of God. God has not abandoned his promises; the people should keep hope.<\/p>\nOther themes in Kings also show the theological motivations underlying the compiler’s selection and arrangement of the data, particularly his use of Deuteronomy as a framework for examining the history of the people. Compare the laws governing the observance of Passover in Exodus 12:1-20 and Deuteronomy 16:1-8: whereas the Passover is centered in the family in Exodus, it is celebrated at the sanctuary in Deuteronomy. The writer of Kings is careful to show that the Passover during the reign of Josiah was celebrated in accordance with the requirements of Deuteronomy (2 Kgs 23:21-23). A passage in Deuteronomy is explicitly cited with reference to Amaziah’s keeping the law (Dt 24:16 in 2 Kgs 14:6).<\/p>\n<h5>Contrast with Chronicles<\/h5>\nThe interests of Kings are further highlighted when compared with the parallel accounts in Chronicles. While the writer of Kings worked in the aftermath of the destruction of Jerusalem and had to answer the “how?” and “why?” questions, the Chronicler is part of the restoration community. Here the burning theological questions were not “how?” and “why?” but rather “What continuity do we have with David? Is God still interested in us?” The need is not to account for the exile but rather to relate the postexilic and the preexilic. The building of the second temple and the ordering of worship there show up in increased detail in Chronicles in any matter pertaining to the former temple. Chronicles is a history of Judah and of the Davidic line, reflecting the fact that it alone survives after the exile. Interesting, too, are the things omitted from the account by the Chronicler. Since he is not building a case for an indictment, as was done in Samuel and Kings, he is free to omit references to David’s sin with Bathsheba (2 Sm 11) or to Solomon’s difficulties in gaining the throne (1 Kgs 1–2). Since in his day the northern kingdom had not survived, the Chronicler did not go into detail about the sins of Jeroboam (chs 13–14). Chronicles is interested more in the affairs of the temple and does not show the marked interest in prophetic matters found in Kings, so that the lives of Elijah and Elisha are omitted (1 Kgs 16—2 Kgs 10). Nor does the Chronicler recite the sins that led to the demise of the northern kingdom (2 Kgs 17:1–18:12). In all these examples one can see the interplay of the historical moment and theological concerns of the people and the compilers. Each compiler has selected and arranged the data in accordance with the concerns and needs of the community in which he was a member; comparing the two accounts throws the interests of each into sharp relief.<\/p>\nContent<\/p>\n\nThe books of Kings fall into three parts: (1) the reign of Solomon (1 Kgs 1–11); (2) the history of the divided kingdom (1 Kgs 12–2 Kgs 17); (3) the history of the surviving kingdom in Judah (2 Kgs 18–25).<\/p>\n<h5>The Reign of Solomon (1 Kgs 1–11)<\/h5>\nThe record begins with an account of the court intrigue surrounding Solomon’s accession to the throne, set against the backdrop of the abortive coup by Adonijah (ch 1). The dying David charges Solomon to obey the commandments of God (2:1-4) and also to take vengeance on his enemies (vv 5-9). After David’s death Solomon orders the deaths of Adonijah, Joab, and Shimei, and the banishment of Abiathar, the priest who had supported Adonijah in his bid for the throne (vv 13-46). Enemies eliminated, the kingdom was firmly established by Solomon (v 46).<\/p>\nThe remainder of Solomon’s reign is divided into two parts: Solomon the good, who follows in the ways of his father, David (chs 3–10); and Solomon the bad, whose heart is led astray (ch 11). While sacrificing at Gibeon, Solomon asks God to give him the gift of wisdom to rule—wisdom promptly demonstrated in the quarrel of two prostitutes about a child (ch 3). An account is given of the administrative organization of the kingdom and the incomparable wisdom of Solomon (ch 4). The compiler of Kings gives extensive coverage to the preparations (ch 5), building (chs 6–7), and dedication (ch 8) of the temple. God appeared to Solomon a second time, reminding him to keep his commandments as David had done (9:1-9). Details are given of the king’s building and commercial activities (vv 10-27). The account of the visit by the queen of Sheba is followed with elaboration of Solomon’s splendor (ch 10). But Solomon did not keep God’s commands; seduced to pagan worship by his foreign wives, he was not fully devoted to the Lord as David had been (11:4), and God determined to take away the northern tribes from the rule of his son (vv 11-13). As punishment from the hand of God, Solomon faced rebellion among conquered peoples (vv 14-25) and within Israel in the person of Jeroboam (vv 26-40).<\/p>\n<h5>History of the Divided Kingdom (1 Kgs 12—2 Kgs 17)<\/h5>\n\nThe united monarchy dissolved after the death of Solomon. The northern kingdom (Israel) would exist for about two centuries, would be ruled by 20 kings from nine different dynasties, and would show a history of internal weakness riddled with regicide and usurpation. In contrast, the southern kingdom would last for three and a half centuries and would be ruled by 19 kings of Davidic descent (apart from a short period under the dynastic interloper Athaliah).<\/p>\nThere had been a long history of independent action and even warfare between the northern and southern tribes prior to David and Solomon, so it is no surprise that the division would take place along the lines that it did. The immediate cause, however, was the unwise severity with which Rehoboam replied to the representatives of the northern tribes while negotiating for the kingship. Jeroboam, the popular hero of the earlier insurrection against Solomon, became king in the north. He immediately erected the rival sanctuaries at Dan and Bethel (1 Kgs 12); these rival altars became the measure by which the kings of Israel were condemned for following in the sins of Jeroboam.<\/p>\nFor two generations there would be warfare between Israel and Judah over the border areas in Benjamin claimed by both sides. Fifty years of sporadic fighting on their mutual frontier, interlaced with invasions from the Arameans in the north or the Egyptians in the south, would consume the reigns of Jeroboam, Nadab, Baasha, Elah, and Zimri in Israel and of Rehoboam, Abijam, and Asa in Judah (1 Kgs 13:1–16:20).<\/p>\nThe accession of Omri in Israel introduced a ruling house that would last for a total of four generations and end the dynastic instability of the northern kingdom. Though Kings gives Omri a scant eight verses (1 Kgs 16:21-28), he was among the greatest of the northern kings, forging alliances with the Phoenicians and Judah; for over a century, the Assyrians would call Israel “the house of Omri.”<\/p>\nThe reigns of Omri’s successors, Ahab, Ahaziah, and Jehoram, are treated at disproportionate length, taking almost a third of the total book, 16 of 47 chapters (1 Kgs 17—2 Kgs 10). This is due to the fact that the compiler of Kings incorporated extensive coverage of the lives of Elijah and Elisha, weaving a contrast between good and evil by paralleling the dynasty of Omri with these prophets. Ahab and Jezebel were used as foils for the account of Elijah, so that Ahab became a paradigm of the evil king (e.g., 2 Kgs 21:3).<\/p>\nBecause of this preoccupation with the dynasty of Omri and the lives of Elijah and Elisha, the equivalent period in Judah is not given as extensive coverage. During this period, the northern kingdom appears to have exercised some hegemony over Judah, as attested by the marriage of an Omride (Athaliah, 2 Kgs 8:18, 26) to Jehoram of Judah and the subservient role of Jehoshaphat to Ahab at the battle of Ramoth-gilead (1 Kgs 22). Judah’s fortunes declined in this period when Edom revolted against Jehoram (2 Kgs 8:20-22), costing Judah control over the port at Ezion-geber and consequent economic losses.<\/p>\nIn 842 BC<\/span> Jehu, after being anointed king by a prophet (2 Kgs 9:1-13), led a coup ending the house of Omri and also killing Ahaziah of Judah (vv 14-29). Jehu’s purge also brought the death of Jezebel, Ahab’s family, members of the family of Ahaziah, and the ministers of Baal (9:30–10:36). The consequences were severe politically: the murder of the Phoenician princess Jezebel and the king of Judah cost Israel its allies to the north and south.<\/p>\nJehu’s dynasty had the longest succession of any in Israel, including Jehoahaz, Jehoash, Jeroboam II, and Zechariah, a period spanning 90 years. Jehu’s murder of Ahaziah of Judah set the stage for the one threat to the continuity of the Davidic dynasty. Queen Athaliah, herself an Omride, seized the throne and attempted a purge of Davidic pretenders. She ruled for six years, until the faithful priest Jehoiada staged a countercoup to place the child Joash on the throne of David (ch 11).<\/p>\nIsrael endured a half century of weakness as a result of Jehu’s coup, during which the Arameans had a free hand, reducing the forces of Jehu’s son Jehoahaz to a small army and bodyguard (2 Kgs 13:1-7).<\/p>\nThe reemergence of Assyria early in the ninth century BC<\/span> gave relief to Israel and Judah. Assyrian armies conquered the Arameans; with that threat removed, Israel and Judah enjoyed a dramatic resurgence. Jehoash of Israel, grandson of Jehu, reconquered cities lost to the Arameans (2 Kgs 13:25); Elisha died during his reign (v 20). In the south Amaziah reconquered the Edomites (14:7). Amaziah and Jehoash renewed the warfare between the kingdoms, with the north again victorious (vv 8-14).<\/p>\nUnder Jeroboam II, Israel enjoyed a period of prosperity when the borders of the kingdom reached the same extent as they had under Solomon (2 Kgs 14:23-28). Uzziah (Azariah), his contemporary in Judah, also fortified Jerusalem and undertook a program of offensive operations extending Judah’s sway to the south (14:21-22; 15:1-7).<\/p>\nYet this resurgence was but a brilliant sunset in the history of the two kingdoms. After the death of Jeroboam II, the history is one of successive disasters, culminating in the fall of Israel and the subjugation of Judah to the might of Assyria. The next 30 years in Israel would see four dynasties, three represented by only one king, and repeated regicides as the northern kingdom hastened to its demise. A period of civil war and anarchy would see five kings in just over ten years (2 Kgs 15). Heavy tribute was paid to Tiglath-pileser III in both the north and south (15:19-20; 16:7-10). Israel and the Arameans forged a coalition to throw back the Assyrians and sought to press Ahaz of Judah into the fight; Ahaz appealed to Tiglath-pileser III for help. The coalition was destroyed, and Israel and Judah became vassals. Hoshea defected as soon as he felt safe, looking to Egypt for help, but it was suicide for the northern kingdom. Shalmaneser V retaliated, and the political history of the state of Israel came to an end (17:1-23). The area was resettled with other displaced populations (vv 24-41).<\/p>\nIsrael had faced the Arameans and survived, only to fall to Assyria. And now, similarly, Judah would outlast Assyria, only to fall to Babylon.<\/p>\n<h5>History of the Surviving Kingdom of Judah (2 Kgs 18–25)<\/h5>\nAhaz’s appeal for Assyrian aid cost him his liberty, and Judah became a vassal of the Assyrian Empire. Illegitimate worship flourished under his rule (2 Kgs 16:1-19). Ahaz was succeeded by the first of the outstanding reform kings of Judah: Hezekiah. Much of the account of his reign is given to his rebellion against Sennacherib of Assyria: the rebellion, the Assyrian envoys and threats, Isaiah’s assurances of deliverance, and the destruction of the Assyrian armies (18:9–19:37). Hezekiah’s illness was averted after a sign and oracle from Isaiah (20:1-11). As part of what appears to be negotiations toward an anti-Assyrian alliance, Hezekiah also entertained envoys from Babylon, a decision that the prophet announced would be costly (vv 12-21).<\/p>\nHezekiah was followed by Manasseh, who ruled longer than any other king of Judah (a total of 55 years). His reign was marked by great apostasy—apostasy so severe that the compiler of Kings regarded his reign as sufficient reason for the exile that was unavoidable (2 Kgs 21:1-18; cf. 23:26; 24:3-4; Jer 15:1-4). Manasseh was followed by his son Amon, a carbon copy of his father, who ruled only two years before he was deposed by the people (2 Kings 21:19-26).<\/p>\nThe second great reform king of Judah, Josiah, followed. In his reign the Book of the Law was found while the temple was being refurbished; he led the people in a renewal of the covenant and suppressed illegitimate worship (2 Kgs 22:1–23:14). The Assyrian Empire was in rapid decline, so Josiah extended his borders to the north, destroying the altar at Bethel and the high places throughout Samaria (23:15-20). A great Passover celebration was convened in Jerusalem, and further measures were taken to rectify worship (vv 21-25). Josiah tried to block Pharaoh Neco’s foray to assist Assyria, and he lost his life at Megiddo (vv 26-30).<\/p>\nJosiah was the only king of Judah to have three of his sons succeed him. At his death the people put Jehoahaz on the throne, but Neco removed him three months later and took him to Egypt in chains (2 Kgs 23:31-33), replacing him with another son of Josiah, Eliakim, whose name was changed to Jehoiakim (vv 34-37). During his reign, Nebuchadnezzar conquered Judah, and Jehoiakim became his vassal. Late in his life Jehoiakim rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar. Jehoiakim died, leaving his son Jehoiachin to face retaliation from Babylon (24:1-10). Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem; when the city fell, Jehoiachin, the queen mother, the army, and the leaders of the land were carried away captive. Nebuchadnezzar put Mattaniah (uncle of Jehoiachin and third son of Josiah) on the throne, changing his name to Zedekiah (vv 11-17). Nine years later Zedekiah, too, would rebel against Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar besieged the city for two years and, when it fell, utterly destroyed it. Zedekiah’s sons were killed before his eyes, and then his own eyes were put out, and he was taken to Babylon (24:18–25:21). Nebuchadnezzar appointed Gedaliah to rule as governor from nearby Mizpah; he was assassinated, and the conspirators fled to Egypt (25:22-26).<\/p>\nThe book concludes by showing that God had not forgotten his promise to David, mentioning that in captivity Jehoiachin enjoyed favor from the hand of Evil-merodach, successor of Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kgs 25:27-30).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Chronicles, Books of First and Second.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>KINGS, Books of First and Second<\/h3>\nBooks continuing the history of the covenant people as recorded in Joshua, Judges, and the books of Samuel. The record in Kings begins with the events at the end of David’s reign (1 Kgs 1–2). It continues through the reign of Solomon (chs 3–11); the histories of the divided kingdoms (1 Kgs 12—2 Kgs 17); and the history of the surviving kingdom in the south, through its fall in 586 BC<\/span> and the subsequent kindness shown Jehoiachin by Evil-merodach, king of Babylon, around 561 BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 18–25).<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Authorship and Date<\/p>\n• Sources<\/p>\n• Theology and Purpose<\/p>\n• Content<\/p>\nAuthorship and Date<\/p>\nKings was originally regarded as one book in the Hebrew canon; the division into two books of approximately equal length appeared first in the Septuagint and finally entered the Hebrew Bible in the 15th century AD<\/span>.<\/p>\nThe book itself is anonymous, and information about its author can only be deduced by examining the concerns and perspectives of the work. The Babylonian Talmud (Baba Bathra<\/em> 15a) attributes Kings to Jeremiah. Although this identification could have arisen from the tendency of later Jewish tradition to assign biblical books to prophetic authors, the theory of origin in prophetic circles fits the evidence quite well. Substantial portions are given to the lives of the prophets; 16 of 47 chapters are devoted to the lives of Elijah and Elisha (1 Kgs 17—2 Kgs 10), and there is considerable interest in other prophetic figures such as Ahijah (1 Kgs 11:29-39; 14:1-16), an unnamed man of God (13:1-10), and Micaiah (22:13-28). Possible dependence on Isaiah (2 Kgs 18–20; cf. Is 36–39) and Jeremiah (2 Kgs 24–25; cf. Jer 52) also suggest prophetic origin. The author-compiler also shows intense concern with the efficacy of the prophetic word, frequently calling attention to the fulfillment of words spoken earlier by the prophets.<\/p>\nOne might initially think that such a history would be unlikely for a prophet, but the evidence is to the contrary. The prophets were the guardians of the covenant relationship and are known to have produced accounts used as sources by other biblical historians. The following are among such sources: the acts of Samuel the seer, the acts of Nathan the prophet, the acts of Gad the seer (1 Chr 29:29); the acts of Nathan the prophet, the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, the visions of Iddo the seer (2 Chr 9:29); the chronicles of Shemaiah the prophet and of Iddo the seer (12:15); the annotations of the prophet Iddo (13:22); and the acts of Uzziah by Isaiah the prophet (26:22). Add to this the fact that Kings is positioned in the Hebrew canon in the Former Prophets (Joshua to 2 Kings), and a consistent picture of prophetic origin emerges.<\/p>\nThe date of the final part of the book must be after the last events recorded. Evil-merodach’s kindness toward Jehoiachin (c. 561 BC<\/span>) is the terminus of the book and therefore fixes the earliest date. Since the work shows no knowledge of the restoration period, a date before 539 BC<\/span> is probable. The author’s selection of his data to answer the burning theological questions of the exilic community also suggests a date between 561 and 539 BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nSources<\/p>\nThe compiler of Kings specifically names three of the sources that he used in his work, and biblical scholars have suggested the presence of a number of other sources that may have been cited. Of course, the sources not mentioned specifically by the compiler are only the speculations of those who have studied his work and can have only varying degrees of probability. The sources both specified and alleged are as follows.<\/p>\n<h5>The Book of the Acts of Solomon<\/h5>\nAs 1 Kings 11:41 says, “The rest of the events in Solomon’s reign, including his wisdom, are recorded in The Book of the Acts of Solomon”<\/em> (nlt<\/span>). Presumably additional materials of a biographical nature were included, specifically accounts similar to the judgment between the two mothers (3:16-28) or the visit of the queen of Sheba (10:1-10). There has been debate as to whether these materials were official court records or nonofficial documents. Some scholars have attempted to isolate further materials within this section by identifying descriptions of the buildings as from temple archives (chs 6–7) and lists of administrators as from administrative documents (chs 4–5), but this must remain speculative.<\/p>\n<h5>The Book of the History of the Kings of Israel<\/h5>\nThis source is mentioned 17 times in Kings, usually in the closing formulas at the end of the account of the reign of a northern king. Some idea of the nature of these chronicles can be derived from looking at the type of information to which the compiler refers his readers (see 1 Kgs 14:19; 16:27; 22:39; 2 Kgs 13:12; 14:28). These passages suggest that this source was the official annals covering the reigns of the kings.<\/p>\n<h5>The Book of the History of the Kings of Judah<\/h5>\nThis source is mentioned in 15 passages, and as with the kings of Israel, is found in the concluding formulas to the accounts of the reigns. This source was to be consulted for additional details on individuals’ reigns (for example, see 1 Kgs 15:23; 22:45; 2 Kgs 20:20; 21:17). These sources for the histories of the two kingdoms were probably similar to the annals known from the surrounding cultures, particularly from the reigns of Assyrian kings. They were likely official court histories kept in Samaria and Jerusalem.<\/p>\nIn addition to these explicitly mentioned sources, scholars have suggested the compiler drew on other sources that he does not name.<\/p>\n<h5>Davidic Court History<\/h5>\nSecond Samuel 9–20 is often identified as a unit of material in the composition of the books of Samuel; it is variously called “the court history” or “the succession narrative.” Because of similar vocabulary and outlook, 1 Kings 1–2 are often associated with this material from Samuel. The statement of 1 Kings 2:46, “so the kingdom was now firmly in Solomon’s grip,” is taken to be the end of this record.<\/p>\n<h5>Sources for the House of Ahab<\/h5>\nThe reigns of individual kings are ordinarily given only brief notices; for example, the father of Ahab, Omri, is given eight verses, even though when judged by political and economic significance, he was among the greatest of the northern kings (1 Kgs 16:21-28). However, beginning with the reign of Ahab, the record becomes quite expansive, and extensive coverage is given the dynasty of Ahab through the coup by Jehu (1 Kgs 16—2 Kgs 12). The use of the stereotyped formulas for the reigns is suspended in this material, and the existence of other literature used by the compiler is probable. This material is commonly subdivided into further sources for the lives of Elijah and Elisha and the reign of Ahab.<\/p>\nThe Elijah section covers material in the following chapters: 1 Kings 17–19, including the feeding by the ravens, the incidents with the widow of Zarephath, the drought, the fire on Carmel, and the revelation of God at Sinai; 1 Kings 21, the affair of Naboth’s vineyard; and 2 Kings 1, the death of Ahaziah’s messengers. The reign of Ahab, which gets so much attention in Kings, is primarily a backdrop for the accounts concerning Elijah.<\/p>\nThe Elisha material found in 2 Kings 2–13 may have had an independent literary development from that of the Elijah accounts. It includes the following: chapter 2 (Elisha’s succession to the prophetic office, the purification of a spring, the death of mocking children); chapter 3 (on the campaign against Moab); chapter 4 (the widow’s oil, the Shunammite woman); chapter 5 (Naaman’s leprosy); chapter 6 (the Aramean attempt to capture Elisha); chapter 7 (the famine in Samaria); chapter 8 (the Shunammite’s property, the coup of Hazael); chapter 9 (the anointing of Jehu); and chapter 13 (the death of Elisha). No other portion of the OT takes the sheer delight in the miraculous that is seen in the Elisha narratives.<\/p>\nIn 1 Kings 16 to 2 Kings 13 there are additional incidents not directly related to the biographies of Elijah and Elisha; accounts such as the military campaigns of 1 Kings 20:1-34 and further details of Jehu’s coup (2 Kgs 9:11–10:36) are often attributed to a third source containing accounts of the dynasty of Ahab and his successors. In all three of these possible sources the orientation is toward affairs in the northern kingdom.<\/p>\n<h5>Isaiah Source<\/h5>\nThe account of the reign of Hezekiah contains a section (2 Kgs 18:13–20:19) that is nearly a verbatim citation of material also found in Isaiah (Is 36:1–39:8). The section records the invasion of Sennacherib, the mission of the Rabshakeh, Hezekiah’s prayer, Isaiah’s prophecy, Hezekiah’s illness, the regression of the sun, and the envoys from Merodach-baladan. The material must be regarded as based on the book of Isaiah or some other source used in both Isaiah and Kings.<\/p>\n<h5>A Prophetic Source<\/h5>\nBecause Kings shows great interest in the prophets and their ministries, various scholars have suggested that yet another source was used by the compiler; this would be an independent literary unit containing accounts of the prophets. This source would have contained the records for the material on Ahijah (1 Kgs 11:29-39; 14:1-16), unnamed prophets (ch 12; 20:35-43), Micaiah (22:13-28), and other references.<\/p>\nApart from the sources explicitly mentioned and inferences about their character, the remainder of the sources suggested have only varying degrees of probability. Considerable scholarly effort has gone into identifying and characterizing such sources, but it remains speculative. When considering the sources the compiler may have used, one important caution must be kept in mind. Even if such sources did exist, one cannot have confidence in a reconstruction of the compositional history. Which sources had already been integrated into a larger composition before they were used by the compiler of Kings? We cannot be certain that the life situation out of which these other sources grew has been correctly identified, nor can we know that even the compiler himself was aware of the past history of his sources. Biblical scholarship has expended considerable energy in trying to delineate the past history of the book of Kings, but it has often been at the neglect of the unity of perspective that is the product of the final compiler(s) in whose hands the book received its canonical form.<\/p>\nWhat is important to understanding the book is not the perspective of its various sources (of which the compiler himself may have been unaware), but the perspective of the book as a whole on the history of the kingdoms. It is the outline that the compiler has imposed on the sources that establishes the teaching of the book; his sources are used in accord with his own purposes, a fact that makes the purposes for which the sources had been prepared largely irrelevant to the teaching of the book in its present form. Exploring possible sources, worthwhile in itself, must not eclipse the message of the book as a whole. This is not to imply that the books of Kings are simply a compilation of unaltered sources. The writer(s) undoubtedly exercised a measure of selectivity and literary skill in composing the historical narrative.<\/p>\nOne compositional technique of the compiler is quite prominent in the histories of the divided kingdoms: this is the use of formulaic introductions and conclusions to the various reigns. The formulas for both kingdoms are quite similar, differing only in minor details. For the kings of Judah, the full introductory formula is as follows: (1) year of accession synchronized with the regnal year of the northern king; (2) age of the king at his accession; (3) length of his reign; (4) name of his mother; (5) judgment on the character of the reign. The account of a Judean king’s reign is concluded as follows: (1) a reference to the chronicles of the kings of Judah for further information; (2) a statement regarding the death of the king, including the place of burial; (3) successor: “And his son reigned in his stead” (rsv<\/span>). The full formula for a Judean king can be seen, for example, in the reign of Rehoboam (1 Kgs 14:21-22, 29-31).<\/p>\nThe formulas differ slightly for the kings of Israel; the introduction is as follows: (1) year of succession synchronized with the regnal year of the southern king; (2) length of his reign; (3) location of the royal residence; (4) condemnation for idolatry; (5) name of the king’s father. The account of an Israelite king’s reign ends as follows: (1) a reference to the chronicles of the kings of Israel for further information; (2) a statement regarding his death; (3) a statement of the succession of his son, unless a usurper follows. The full formula for an Israelite king can be seen, for example, in the reign of Baasha (1 Kgs 15:33-34; 16:5-6).<\/p>\nThere is some variation in the use of these patterns, but on the whole, they are consistently followed and provide the basic framework for the history of the divided kingdom. The synchronisms of the reigns provide data for constructing the chronology of the period. The variations in the formulas may reflect the characteristics of the sources the compiler was using or may reflect his own interests. The name of the mother of a Judean king is recorded, but not of an Israelite king, perhaps reflecting concern with a more exact and fuller record of the Davidic succession. The royal residence is presumed to be Jerusalem for the southern kings (though it may be mentioned) but is recorded for the northern kings since it moved several times, from Shechem to Penuel to Tirzah to Samaria. The mention of the king’s father for a northern ruler also reflects the frequent change in dynasties there, as opposed to the dynastic stability of Judah, which is reinforced by mentioning the burial of almost all its kings in the city of David.<\/p>\nTheology and Purpose<\/p>\nThe books of Kings record the history of the covenant people from the end of the reign of David (961 BC<\/span>) through the fall of the southern kingdom (586 BC<\/span>). Yet it is not history written in accord with modern expectations for history textbooks. Rather than concentrating on economic, political, and military themes as they shaped the history of the period, the compiler of Kings is motivated by theological concerns.<\/p>\nEvaluation of the theology and purpose of the books of Kings is made easier by the fact that there is a parallel history for much of Kings found in the books of Chronicles. By comparing the two accounts, especially where the later Chronicler adds or deletes material found in Kings, the interests of both histories are thrown into clearer relief.<\/p>\nThe books of Kings were composed during the exile, likely between 560 and 539 BC<\/span>. Jerusalem had been turned into rubble, and there was no longer a throne of David. Those two pillars of the popular theology—the inviolability of the temple and the throne of David (Jer 7:4; 13:13-14; 22:1-9; see 1 Kgs 8:16, 29)—had tumbled. If Israel’s faith was to survive, the burning questions that had to be answered were “How did it all happen? Can’t God keep his promises to David and to Zion? Have the promises failed?” The writer of Kings aims to deal with the bewilderment of the chosen people in response to the disasters of 722 BC<\/span> (fall of Samaria) and 586 BC<\/span> (fall of Jerusalem). Kings, like the book of Job, is a theodicy, a justification of the ways of God to men.<\/p>\nIn order to answer the question “How did it happen?” the compiler adopts the procedure of recounting the history of the covenant people in light of standards propounded in the Law. For this reason Kings could be called Pentateuchal history, or even more pointedly, Deuteronomic history, for standards propounded only in the book of Deuteronomy in the Pentateuch are used by the compiler to measure the kingdoms. Among the prominent themes selected from Deuteronomy and applied to the kingdoms are the centralization of worship, the institution of the monarchy, the efficacy of the prophetic word, and the outworking of the covenant curses on disobedience.<\/p>\n<h5>Centralization of Worship<\/h5>\nThe primary concern of the writer is the purity of the worship of the Lord. His major criterion for measuring this purity is the attitude of the kings toward centralization of worship in the Jerusalem temple as opposed to the worship of the Lord elsewhere and the continuation of Canaanite cults mingled with Yahwism at the high places. Centralization of worship at the central shrine is called for in Deuteronomy 12. Perhaps “centralization of worship” is a misnomer, for worship was always centered around the tabernacle in the periods prior to the temple; the change that is envisaged in Deuteronomy is not the centralizing of worship but rather the fact that the shrine would no longer be mobile but stationary. For the kings of the northern kingdom, this criterion becomes virtually a stereotyped formula that “he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord and walked in the way of Jeroboam son of Nebat, who sinned and made all Israel sin along with him” (see 1 Kgs 14:16; 15:30; 16:31; 2 Kgs 3:3; 10:31; 13:2, 11; 14:24; 15:9, 18, 24, 28; 17:22). The compiler of Kings sees the rival altars with the golden calves at Dan and Bethel as the great sin of which the northern kings never repented (1 Kgs 12:25–13:34). Rejecting the primacy of Jerusalem, these altars became the rod with which to measure the northern kings. All the kings of Israel are condemned by this standard (except for Shallum, who reigned but a month, and Hoshea, the last of the northern kings)—even Zimri, the murderer of Elah, who ruled only one week before committing suicide in the flames of his own palace (16:9-20). For the kings of Judah, a different standard is used: what their attitude was to the high places where heterodox worship was allowed to flourish in the environs of Jerusalem. Only Hezekiah and Josiah receive the compiler’s unqualified endorsement for following the ways of David (2 Kgs 18:3; 22:2). Six others are commended for their zeal in suppressing idolatry, though they did not remove the high places (Asa, 1 Kgs 15:9-15; Jehoshaphat, 22:43; Jehoash, 2 Kgs 12:2-3; Amaziah, 14:3-4; Azariah, 15:3-4; Jotham, 15:34-35). The remainder of the Judean kings are condemned for their participation in the high places and their desecration of the temple itself. This one theme is the preeminent motif in the book.<\/p>\n<h5>History of the Monarchy<\/h5>\nA second prominent interest for the compiler was to trace the history of the monarchy. Deuteronomy 17:14-20 provides for the day when Israel would ask for a king and charges that king with the basic religious responsibility for the people. This provision for a king, again a feature found only in Deuteronomy, becomes the basis for the compiler’s intense interest in the history of the monarchy, and particularly the religious fidelity of the kings. David becomes the model of the ideal king, the one by whom the others are measured, the one whose sons “continue long in his kingdom in the midst of Israel” (17:20; see also 1 Kgs 15:11; 2 Kgs 18:3; 22:2 for following in the ways of David, and 1 Kgs 14:8; 15:3-5; 2 Kgs 14:3; 16:2 for the reverse). The compiler wanted to show that God had been faithful to David even though David’s sons were not faithful. While both kingdoms had about the same number of kings, the northern kingdom is marked by repeated dynastic changes and regicide through its 200 years, while the dynasty of David is maintained as a lamp in the south through 350 years (1 Kgs 11:13, 32, 36; 15:4-5; 2 Kgs 8:19; 19:34; 20:6). It is the disaster that had befallen the house of David, and the consequent doubts about the promises of God, that prompted the compiler to write.<\/p>\n<h5>Efficacy of the Prophetic Word<\/h5>\nAnother reason why Kings can be called Deuteronomic history is its concern with the efficacy of the prophetic word. There are three passages in the Pentateuch that deal with the institution of the prophetic order: Numbers 12:1-8; Deuteronomy 13:1-5; and Deuteronomy 18:14-22. It is only in Deuteronomy 18 that the test of a true prophet is given: that what he has spoken comes about, that his words are fulfilled. Notice the number of instances where the writer calls attention to the fulfillment of the words of the prophets: 2 Samuel 7:13 in 1 Kings 8:20; 1 Kings 11:29-36 in 12:15; 1 Kings 13:1-3 in 2 Kings 23:16-18; 1 Kings 14:6-12 in 14:17-18 and 15:29; 1 Kings 16:1-4 in 16:7, 11-12; Joshua 6:26 in 1 Kings 16:34; 1 Kings 22:17 in 22:35-38; 1 Kings 21:21-29 in 2 Kings 9:7-10, 30-37 and 10:10-11, 30; 2 Kings 1:6 in 1:17; 2 Kings 21:10-15 in 24:2; 2 Kings 22:15-20 in 23:30. The writer is concerned to show that the words of the prophets were efficacious, powerful words. His concern with the prophetic order is also seen in the material devoted to Elijah and Elisha and to other prophetic figures.<\/p>\n<h5>Fulfillment of the Curses<\/h5>\nAnother aspect of the compiler’s interest in Deuteronomy is seen in his concern to trace the fulfillment of the covenant curses on disobedience. God’s covenant with Israel would issue in curses or blessings depending on the obedience of the people; the compiler of Kings sees the curses inflicted on the two kingdoms because of their failure to meet the demands of the covenant. He takes care to show that most of the curses of Deuteronomy 28:15-68 had some historical realization in the life of the people. Moses had warned that disobedience would “bring a nation against you from afar, from the end of the earth, as the eagle swoops down” (Dt 28:49, nasb<\/span>), and the Assyrians came to Samaria and the Babylonians to Jerusalem (28:52). The siege of Samaria lasted from 724 to 722 BC<\/span>, and the siege of Jerusalem from 588 to 586 BC<\/span>. The dire conditions of the siege would drive the people to devouring their own children; women would feed on their afterbirths. It happened to Israel in the siege of Ben-hadad (2 Kgs 6:24-30). Just as the Lord had delighted to prosper and multiply his people, so he would not refrain from destroying them and scattering them among the peoples of the earth (Dt 28:63-67).<\/p>\nIn these and other ways the writer of Kings set out to write the history of Israel and Judah to solve a theological dilemma. How was one to reconcile the exile with God’s promises to the nation and David? His answer is twofold: (1) the problem was not with God but with the people’s disobedience—God remains just; (2) the end of the state does not equal the end of the people or the house of David. Here the ending of the book is instructive: Evil-merodach releases Jehoiachin from prison, elevates him above the other kings, and provides his rations (2 Kgs 25:27-30). Even during the exile, though cut down to almost nothing, the house of David still enjoys the favor and blessing of God. God has not abandoned his promises; the people should keep hope.<\/p>\nOther themes in Kings also show the theological motivations underlying the compiler’s selection and arrangement of the data, particularly his use of Deuteronomy as a framework for examining the history of the people. Compare the laws governing the observance of Passover in Exodus 12:1-20 and Deuteronomy 16:1-8: whereas the Passover is centered in the family in Exodus, it is celebrated at the sanctuary in Deuteronomy. The writer of Kings is careful to show that the Passover during the reign of Josiah was celebrated in accordance with the requirements of Deuteronomy (2 Kgs 23:21-23). A passage in Deuteronomy is explicitly cited with reference to Amaziah’s keeping the law (Dt 24:16 in 2 Kgs 14:6).<\/p>\n<h5>Contrast with Chronicles<\/h5>\nThe interests of Kings are further highlighted when compared with the parallel accounts in Chronicles. While the writer of Kings worked in the aftermath of the destruction of Jerusalem and had to answer the “how?” and “why?” questions, the Chronicler is part of the restoration community. Here the burning theological questions were not “how?” and “why?” but rather “What continuity do we have with David? Is God still interested in us?” The need is not to account for the exile but rather to relate the postexilic and the preexilic. The building of the second temple and the ordering of worship there show up in increased detail in Chronicles in any matter pertaining to the former temple. Chronicles is a history of Judah and of the Davidic line, reflecting the fact that it alone survives after the exile. Interesting, too, are the things omitted from the account by the Chronicler. Since he is not building a case for an indictment, as was done in Samuel and Kings, he is free to omit references to David’s sin with Bathsheba (2 Sm 11) or to Solomon’s difficulties in gaining the throne (1 Kgs 1–2). Since in his day the northern kingdom had not survived, the Chronicler did not go into detail about the sins of Jeroboam (chs 13–14). Chronicles is interested more in the affairs of the temple and does not show the marked interest in prophetic matters found in Kings, so that the lives of Elijah and Elisha are omitted (1 Kgs 16—2 Kgs 10). Nor does the Chronicler recite the sins that led to the demise of the northern kingdom (2 Kgs 17:1–18:12). In all these examples one can see the interplay of the historical moment and theological concerns of the people and the compilers. Each compiler has selected and arranged the data in accordance with the concerns and needs of the community in which he was a member; comparing the two accounts throws the interests of each into sharp relief.<\/p>\nContent<\/p>\n\nThe books of Kings fall into three parts: (1) the reign of Solomon (1 Kgs 1–11); (2) the history of the divided kingdom (1 Kgs 12–2 Kgs 17); (3) the history of the surviving kingdom in Judah (2 Kgs 18–25).<\/p>\n<h5>The Reign of Solomon (1 Kgs 1–11)<\/h5>\nThe record begins with an account of the court intrigue surrounding Solomon’s accession to the throne, set against the backdrop of the abortive coup by Adonijah (ch 1). The dying David charges Solomon to obey the commandments of God (2:1-4) and also to take vengeance on his enemies (vv 5-9). After David’s death Solomon orders the deaths of Adonijah, Joab, and Shimei, and the banishment of Abiathar, the priest who had supported Adonijah in his bid for the throne (vv 13-46). Enemies eliminated, the kingdom was firmly established by Solomon (v 46).<\/p>\nThe remainder of Solomon’s reign is divided into two parts: Solomon the good, who follows in the ways of his father, David (chs 3–10); and Solomon the bad, whose heart is led astray (ch 11). While sacrificing at Gibeon, Solomon asks God to give him the gift of wisdom to rule—wisdom promptly demonstrated in the quarrel of two prostitutes about a child (ch 3). An account is given of the administrative organization of the kingdom and the incomparable wisdom of Solomon (ch 4). The compiler of Kings gives extensive coverage to the preparations (ch 5), building (chs 6–7), and dedication (ch 8) of the temple. God appeared to Solomon a second time, reminding him to keep his commandments as David had done (9:1-9). Details are given of the king’s building and commercial activities (vv 10-27). The account of the visit by the queen of Sheba is followed with elaboration of Solomon’s splendor (ch 10). But Solomon did not keep God’s commands; seduced to pagan worship by his foreign wives, he was not fully devoted to the Lord as David had been (11:4), and God determined to take away the northern tribes from the rule of his son (vv 11-13). As punishment from the hand of God, Solomon faced rebellion among conquered peoples (vv 14-25) and within Israel in the person of Jeroboam (vv 26-40).<\/p>\n<h5>History of the Divided Kingdom (1 Kgs 12—2 Kgs 17)<\/h5>\n\nThe united monarchy dissolved after the death of Solomon. The northern kingdom (Israel) would exist for about two centuries, would be ruled by 20 kings from nine different dynasties, and would show a history of internal weakness riddled with regicide and usurpation. In contrast, the southern kingdom would last for three and a half centuries and would be ruled by 19 kings of Davidic descent (apart from a short period under the dynastic interloper Athaliah).<\/p>\nThere had been a long history of independent action and even warfare between the northern and southern tribes prior to David and Solomon, so it is no surprise that the division would take place along the lines that it did. The immediate cause, however, was the unwise severity with which Rehoboam replied to the representatives of the northern tribes while negotiating for the kingship. Jeroboam, the popular hero of the earlier insurrection against Solomon, became king in the north. He immediately erected the rival sanctuaries at Dan and Bethel (1 Kgs 12); these rival altars became the measure by which the kings of Israel were condemned for following in the sins of Jeroboam.<\/p>\nFor two generations there would be warfare between Israel and Judah over the border areas in Benjamin claimed by both sides. Fifty years of sporadic fighting on their mutual frontier, interlaced with invasions from the Arameans in the north or the Egyptians in the south, would consume the reigns of Jeroboam, Nadab, Baasha, Elah, and Zimri in Israel and of Rehoboam, Abijam, and Asa in Judah (1 Kgs 13:1–16:20).<\/p>\nThe accession of Omri in Israel introduced a ruling house that would last for a total of four generations and end the dynastic instability of the northern kingdom. Though Kings gives Omri a scant eight verses (1 Kgs 16:21-28), he was among the greatest of the northern kings, forging alliances with the Phoenicians and Judah; for over a century, the Assyrians would call Israel “the house of Omri.”<\/p>\nThe reigns of Omri’s successors, Ahab, Ahaziah, and Jehoram, are treated at disproportionate length, taking almost a third of the total book, 16 of 47 chapters (1 Kgs 17—2 Kgs 10). This is due to the fact that the compiler of Kings incorporated extensive coverage of the lives of Elijah and Elisha, weaving a contrast between good and evil by paralleling the dynasty of Omri with these prophets. Ahab and Jezebel were used as foils for the account of Elijah, so that Ahab became a paradigm of the evil king (e.g., 2 Kgs 21:3).<\/p>\nBecause of this preoccupation with the dynasty of Omri and the lives of Elijah and Elisha, the equivalent period in Judah is not given as extensive coverage. During this period, the northern kingdom appears to have exercised some hegemony over Judah, as attested by the marriage of an Omride (Athaliah, 2 Kgs 8:18, 26) to Jehoram of Judah and the subservient role of Jehoshaphat to Ahab at the battle of Ramoth-gilead (1 Kgs 22). Judah’s fortunes declined in this period when Edom revolted against Jehoram (2 Kgs 8:20-22), costing Judah control over the port at Ezion-geber and consequent economic losses.<\/p>\nIn 842 BC<\/span> Jehu, after being anointed king by a prophet (2 Kgs 9:1-13), led a coup ending the house of Omri and also killing Ahaziah of Judah (vv 14-29). Jehu’s purge also brought the death of Jezebel, Ahab’s family, members of the family of Ahaziah, and the ministers of Baal (9:30–10:36). The consequences were severe politically: the murder of the Phoenician princess Jezebel and the king of Judah cost Israel its allies to the north and south.<\/p>\nJehu’s dynasty had the longest succession of any in Israel, including Jehoahaz, Jehoash, Jeroboam II, and Zechariah, a period spanning 90 years. Jehu’s murder of Ahaziah of Judah set the stage for the one threat to the continuity of the Davidic dynasty. Queen Athaliah, herself an Omride, seized the throne and attempted a purge of Davidic pretenders. She ruled for six years, until the faithful priest Jehoiada staged a countercoup to place the child Joash on the throne of David (ch 11).<\/p>\nIsrael endured a half century of weakness as a result of Jehu’s coup, during which the Arameans had a free hand, reducing the forces of Jehu’s son Jehoahaz to a small army and bodyguard (2 Kgs 13:1-7).<\/p>\nThe reemergence of Assyria early in the ninth century BC<\/span> gave relief to Israel and Judah. Assyrian armies conquered the Arameans; with that threat removed, Israel and Judah enjoyed a dramatic resurgence. Jehoash of Israel, grandson of Jehu, reconquered cities lost to the Arameans (2 Kgs 13:25); Elisha died during his reign (v 20). In the south Amaziah reconquered the Edomites (14:7). Amaziah and Jehoash renewed the warfare between the kingdoms, with the north again victorious (vv 8-14).<\/p>\nUnder Jeroboam II, Israel enjoyed a period of prosperity when the borders of the kingdom reached the same extent as they had under Solomon (2 Kgs 14:23-28). Uzziah (Azariah), his contemporary in Judah, also fortified Jerusalem and undertook a program of offensive operations extending Judah’s sway to the south (14:21-22; 15:1-7).<\/p>\nYet this resurgence was but a brilliant sunset in the history of the two kingdoms. After the death of Jeroboam II, the history is one of successive disasters, culminating in the fall of Israel and the subjugation of Judah to the might of Assyria. The next 30 years in Israel would see four dynasties, three represented by only one king, and repeated regicides as the northern kingdom hastened to its demise. A period of civil war and anarchy would see five kings in just over ten years (2 Kgs 15). Heavy tribute was paid to Tiglath-pileser III in both the north and south (15:19-20; 16:7-10). Israel and the Arameans forged a coalition to throw back the Assyrians and sought to press Ahaz of Judah into the fight; Ahaz appealed to Tiglath-pileser III for help. The coalition was destroyed, and Israel and Judah became vassals. Hoshea defected as soon as he felt safe, looking to Egypt for help, but it was suicide for the northern kingdom. Shalmaneser V retaliated, and the political history of the state of Israel came to an end (17:1-23). The area was resettled with other displaced populations (vv 24-41).<\/p>\nIsrael had faced the Arameans and survived, only to fall to Assyria. And now, similarly, Judah would outlast Assyria, only to fall to Babylon.<\/p>\n<h5>History of the Surviving Kingdom of Judah (2 Kgs 18–25)<\/h5>\nAhaz’s appeal for Assyrian aid cost him his liberty, and Judah became a vassal of the Assyrian Empire. Illegitimate worship flourished under his rule (2 Kgs 16:1-19). Ahaz was succeeded by the first of the outstanding reform kings of Judah: Hezekiah. Much of the account of his reign is given to his rebellion against Sennacherib of Assyria: the rebellion, the Assyrian envoys and threats, Isaiah’s assurances of deliverance, and the destruction of the Assyrian armies (18:9–19:37). Hezekiah’s illness was averted after a sign and oracle from Isaiah (20:1-11). As part of what appears to be negotiations toward an anti-Assyrian alliance, Hezekiah also entertained envoys from Babylon, a decision that the prophet announced would be costly (vv 12-21).<\/p>\nHezekiah was followed by Manasseh, who ruled longer than any other king of Judah (a total of 55 years). His reign was marked by great apostasy—apostasy so severe that the compiler of Kings regarded his reign as sufficient reason for the exile that was unavoidable (2 Kgs 21:1-18; cf. 23:26; 24:3-4; Jer 15:1-4). Manasseh was followed by his son Amon, a carbon copy of his father, who ruled only two years before he was deposed by the people (2 Kings 21:19-26).<\/p>\nThe second great reform king of Judah, Josiah, followed. In his reign the Book of the Law was found while the temple was being refurbished; he led the people in a renewal of the covenant and suppressed illegitimate worship (2 Kgs 22:1–23:14). The Assyrian Empire was in rapid decline, so Josiah extended his borders to the north, destroying the altar at Bethel and the high places throughout Samaria (23:15-20). A great Passover celebration was convened in Jerusalem, and further measures were taken to rectify worship (vv 21-25). Josiah tried to block Pharaoh Neco’s foray to assist Assyria, and he lost his life at Megiddo (vv 26-30).<\/p>\nJosiah was the only king of Judah to have three of his sons succeed him. At his death the people put Jehoahaz on the throne, but Neco removed him three months later and took him to Egypt in chains (2 Kgs 23:31-33), replacing him with another son of Josiah, Eliakim, whose name was changed to Jehoiakim (vv 34-37). During his reign, Nebuchadnezzar conquered Judah, and Jehoiakim became his vassal. Late in his life Jehoiakim rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar. Jehoiakim died, leaving his son Jehoiachin to face retaliation from Babylon (24:1-10). Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem; when the city fell, Jehoiachin, the queen mother, the army, and the leaders of the land were carried away captive. Nebuchadnezzar put Mattaniah (uncle of Jehoiachin and third son of Josiah) on the throne, changing his name to Zedekiah (vv 11-17). Nine years later Zedekiah, too, would rebel against Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar besieged the city for two years and, when it fell, utterly destroyed it. Zedekiah’s sons were killed before his eyes, and then his own eyes were put out, and he was taken to Babylon (24:18–25:21). Nebuchadnezzar appointed Gedaliah to rule as governor from nearby Mizpah; he was assassinated, and the conspirators fled to Egypt (25:22-26).<\/p>\nThe book concludes by showing that God had not forgotten his promise to David, mentioning that in captivity Jehoiachin enjoyed favor from the hand of Evil-merodach, successor of Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kgs 25:27-30).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Chronicles, Books of First and Second.<\/p>","summary_ro":"KINGS, Books of First and Second Books continuing the history of the covenant people as recorded in Joshua, Judges, and the books of Samuel. The record in Kings begins with the events at the end of David’s reign (1 Kgs 1–2). It continues through the reign of Solomon (chs 3–11); the histories of the divided kingdoms (1 Kgs 12—2 Kgs 17); and the history of the surviving kingdom in the south, through its fall in 586 BC and the subsequent kindness shown Jehoiachin by Evil-merodach, king of Babylo...","summary_en":"KINGS, Books of First and Second Books continuing the history of the covenant people as recorded in Joshua, Judges, and the books of Samuel. The record in Kings begins with the events at the end of David’s reign (1 Kgs 1–2). It continues through the reign of Solomon (chs 3–11); the histories of the divided kingdoms (1 Kgs 12—2 Kgs 17); and the history of the surviving kingdom in the south, through its fall in 586 BC and the subsequent kindness shown Jehoiachin by Evil-merodach, king of Babylo...","source":"Articles\/K.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":63751,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Religious Hypocrisy","title_en":"Religious Hypocrisy","content_ro":"<h3>Religious Hypocrisy<\/h3>\nReligious hypocrisy can result from selective obedience, from lip service to God’s law without a change of heart and life to back it up. People who parade their piety for others to see often have little desire to truly obey God.<\/p>\nIsaiah preached to what seemed to be a very religious people. They fasted, said prayers, celebrated holy days, and brought their sacrifices to Jerusalem. Yet God rejected these practices. Why? These acts had value—the Lord himself had prescribed them! But the people’s worship was not from the heart, and it was not accompanied by the personal holiness and social justice that God requires (see, e.g., Lev 19:13-17). The people of Judah had fallen into the trap of religious hypocrisy.<\/p>\nMany years after Isaiah, Jesus confronted this kind of hypocrisy in the Pharisees. He challenged them to be better doers of God’s whole<\/em> revelation rather than just the parts that brought them acclaim (Matt 23:1-36, especially Matt 23:23). The apostles Paul and James also distinguished between mere religiosity and true spirituality (1 Cor 3:1-23; Jas 1:21–2:13). Jesus’ rebuke of the Pharisees also serves as a warning to us: We are not to be like them (see Matt 6:1-18; 1 Pet 2:1). Instead, Jesus calls us to be authentic before God and with others, to obey his entire word, and to go beyond mere formalities and appearances in our devotion to God.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nPs 50:16-23; Prov 15:8; 26:23; Isa 1:11-15; 29:13-15; 58:2-7; Jer 7:4-10; 12:2; Ezek 33:30-31; Hos 8:13; Amos 5:21-24; Mic 3:11; Zech 7:5-6; Mal 2:13-14; Matt 6:1-18; 23:1-36; Titus 1:15-16; Jas 1:21-27; 1 Pet 2:1; 1 Jn 2:4, 9; 4:20<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Religious Hypocrisy<\/h3>\nReligious hypocrisy can result from selective obedience, from lip service to God’s law without a change of heart and life to back it up. People who parade their piety for others to see often have little desire to truly obey God.<\/p>\nIsaiah preached to what seemed to be a very religious people. They fasted, said prayers, celebrated holy days, and brought their sacrifices to Jerusalem. Yet God rejected these practices. Why? These acts had value—the Lord himself had prescribed them! But the people’s worship was not from the heart, and it was not accompanied by the personal holiness and social justice that God requires (see, e.g., Lev 19:13-17). The people of Judah had fallen into the trap of religious hypocrisy.<\/p>\nMany years after Isaiah, Jesus confronted this kind of hypocrisy in the Pharisees. He challenged them to be better doers of God’s whole<\/em> revelation rather than just the parts that brought them acclaim (Matt 23:1-36, especially Matt 23:23). The apostles Paul and James also distinguished between mere religiosity and true spirituality (1 Cor 3:1-23; Jas 1:21–2:13). Jesus’ rebuke of the Pharisees also serves as a warning to us: We are not to be like them (see Matt 6:1-18; 1 Pet 2:1). Instead, Jesus calls us to be authentic before God and with others, to obey his entire word, and to go beyond mere formalities and appearances in our devotion to God.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nPs 50:16-23; Prov 15:8; 26:23; Isa 1:11-15; 29:13-15; 58:2-7; Jer 7:4-10; 12:2; Ezek 33:30-31; Hos 8:13; Amos 5:21-24; Mic 3:11; Zech 7:5-6; Mal 2:13-14; Matt 6:1-18; 23:1-36; Titus 1:15-16; Jas 1:21-27; 1 Pet 2:1; 1 Jn 2:4, 9; 4:20<\/p>","summary_ro":"Religious Hypocrisy Religious hypocrisy can result from selective obedience, from lip service to God’s law without a change of heart and life to back it up. People who parade their piety for others to see often have little desire to truly obey God. Isaiah preached to what seemed to be a very religious people. They fasted, said prayers, celebrated holy days, and brought their sacrifices to Jerusalem. Yet God rejected these practices. Why? These acts had value—the Lord himself had prescribed th...","summary_en":"Religious Hypocrisy Religious hypocrisy can result from selective obedience, from lip service to God’s law without a change of heart and life to back it up. People who parade their piety for others to see often have little desire to truly obey God. Isaiah preached to what seemed to be a very religious people. They fasted, said prayers, celebrated holy days, and brought their sacrifices to Jerusalem. Yet God rejected these practices. Why? These acts had value—the Lord himself had prescribed th...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":64246,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Collapse of Culture","title_en":"The Collapse of Culture","content_ro":"<h3>The Collapse of Culture<\/h3>\nImpressive cultures full of creative and skilled people sometimes fall apart suddenly and completely. While digging, archaeologists often find a layer of ash between strata of remarkable artifacts; the ash indicates the destruction of the culture. This is one of the most disturbing aspects of human history.<\/p>\nIsrael’s history is replete with cycles of courage and success followed by disaster. People of God led Israel into new periods of power (Joshua, Samuel, David, Solomon), but the nation repeatedly fell into worshiping deities other than the one true God. Repeatedly, God’s people fell under judgment as their culture disintegrated and their political independence was replaced with servitude and oppression. The northern kingdom of Israel was especially captivated by the idol-worship of Baal and Asherah. As a result, the Lord turned the northern kingdom over to the Assyrians, who demolished it in 722 BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nIn Jeremiah’s time, the collapse of spiritual and political culture was occurring in the southern kingdom of Judah. Some of the nation’s kings, including Josiah, faithfully followed the covenant ban on idol worship and led the people of Judah back to the Lord. However, many other rulers, including Josiah’s sons, did not carry on such reforms. For example, Jehoiakim had no interest in continuing his father’s revival of devotion to the Lord, seeing it as an impediment to his own political power. He was so hardened toward the Lord that he tried to kill Jeremiah, the Lord’s messenger. Zedekiah was more fearful than hardened, but he also refused to return to the Lord.<\/p>\nThe Lord’s messages through Jeremiah contain strong indictments of Judah’s devotion to Baal (2:8; 7:9; 11:13, 17; 12:16; 19:5; 23:13, 27; 32:29, 35) and condemn the immorality that accompanied this idolatry. Judah’s moral depravity and spiritual rottenness—exemplified by its greed, hate, and violence—were exposed for all to see. Despite their stubborn refusal to turn away from idol worship and back to worship of the one true God, the people of Judah hoped that the Lord would work a miracle by defeating the Babylonian army and sending it back home. They thought that the Temple would magically protect them, not understanding that God was disgusted over what they were doing there, which was speeding their destruction rather than protecting them (7:4-15). They were totally unprepared to face the horror of defeat in war and the destruction of their nation, their capital, and their Temple. They were unaware that their spiritual and moral collapse had already made their doom certain.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nJosh 1:1-9; 11:16-23; 1 Sam 4:1-22; 2 Kgs 17:6-18; 23:1–25:30; Jer 7:4-15; 19:1-7; 24:1-10; 28:10-17; Dan 7:1–8:27<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Collapse of Culture<\/h3>\nImpressive cultures full of creative and skilled people sometimes fall apart suddenly and completely. While digging, archaeologists often find a layer of ash between strata of remarkable artifacts; the ash indicates the destruction of the culture. This is one of the most disturbing aspects of human history.<\/p>\nIsrael’s history is replete with cycles of courage and success followed by disaster. People of God led Israel into new periods of power (Joshua, Samuel, David, Solomon), but the nation repeatedly fell into worshiping deities other than the one true God. Repeatedly, God’s people fell under judgment as their culture disintegrated and their political independence was replaced with servitude and oppression. The northern kingdom of Israel was especially captivated by the idol-worship of Baal and Asherah. As a result, the Lord turned the northern kingdom over to the Assyrians, who demolished it in 722 BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nIn Jeremiah’s time, the collapse of spiritual and political culture was occurring in the southern kingdom of Judah. Some of the nation’s kings, including Josiah, faithfully followed the covenant ban on idol worship and led the people of Judah back to the Lord. However, many other rulers, including Josiah’s sons, did not carry on such reforms. For example, Jehoiakim had no interest in continuing his father’s revival of devotion to the Lord, seeing it as an impediment to his own political power. He was so hardened toward the Lord that he tried to kill Jeremiah, the Lord’s messenger. Zedekiah was more fearful than hardened, but he also refused to return to the Lord.<\/p>\nThe Lord’s messages through Jeremiah contain strong indictments of Judah’s devotion to Baal (2:8; 7:9; 11:13, 17; 12:16; 19:5; 23:13, 27; 32:29, 35) and condemn the immorality that accompanied this idolatry. Judah’s moral depravity and spiritual rottenness—exemplified by its greed, hate, and violence—were exposed for all to see. Despite their stubborn refusal to turn away from idol worship and back to worship of the one true God, the people of Judah hoped that the Lord would work a miracle by defeating the Babylonian army and sending it back home. They thought that the Temple would magically protect them, not understanding that God was disgusted over what they were doing there, which was speeding their destruction rather than protecting them (7:4-15). They were totally unprepared to face the horror of defeat in war and the destruction of their nation, their capital, and their Temple. They were unaware that their spiritual and moral collapse had already made their doom certain.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nJosh 1:1-9; 11:16-23; 1 Sam 4:1-22; 2 Kgs 17:6-18; 23:1–25:30; Jer 7:4-15; 19:1-7; 24:1-10; 28:10-17; Dan 7:1–8:27<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Collapse of Culture Impressive cultures full of creative and skilled people sometimes fall apart suddenly and completely. While digging, archaeologists often find a layer of ash between strata of remarkable artifacts; the ash indicates the destruction of the culture. This is one of the most disturbing aspects of human history. Israel’s history is replete with cycles of courage and success followed by disaster. People of God led Israel into new periods of power (Joshua, Samuel, David, Solo...","summary_en":"The Collapse of Culture Impressive cultures full of creative and skilled people sometimes fall apart suddenly and completely. While digging, archaeologists often find a layer of ash between strata of remarkable artifacts; the ash indicates the destruction of the culture. This is one of the most disturbing aspects of human history. Israel’s history is replete with cycles of courage and success followed by disaster. People of God led Israel into new periods of power (Joshua, Samuel, David, Solo...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":64691,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"God’s Sovereignty over All Nations","title_en":"God’s Sovereignty over All Nations","content_ro":"<h3>God’s Sovereignty over All Nations<\/h3>\nIn the ancient world, nations often considered religion in terms of a national god or gods. The king of Aram, for example, believed Israel’s “gods” were tied to the hills and would not be able to act elsewhere (1 Kgs 20:23). Jephthah demonstrated a pagan heritage by saying that the god Chemosh had given the Ammonites their land (Judg 11:24). The prophet Amos, by contrast, knew that God alone had brought the Philistines from Crete and the Arameans from Kir (Amos 9:7). God had created the entire cosmos, not just Israel (4:13; 5:8), so he was perfectly justified in requiring that nations conduct their affairs with justice and mercy (1:3–2:3).<\/p>\nOne heresy prevalent among the people of Judah and Israel was that, in spite of their sinfulness, God would eventually vindicate them because of his covenant with them (see Jer 7:4; Amos 3:1-2; 9:10). They developed a false theology of the day of the Lord: They thought that God’s intervention in history automatically meant deliverance for them and destruction for their enemies. Amos directly confronted this false notion of privilege (9:7; see also 5:18-20). The day of the Lord would not absolve sinful Israel; rather, God would use it to punish them.<\/p>\nIsrael’s position of privilege among the nations made them more responsible, not less. While the surrounding nations would be punished for their particularly grievous sins, Israel would be punished for all their sins (3:2). The New Testament further develops this theme of the greater responsibility of God’s people: Those who receive much are responsible for much (Luke 12:48; Jas 3:1).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nExod 15:18; Deut 32:8; 1 Chr 29:11-12; 2 Chr 20:6; Pss 2:1-12; 7:6-8; 10:16; 22:28; 47:2; 83:18; 93:1-5; 103:19; Dan 2:20-21, 47; 4:34-37; Amos 9:7; Matt 28:18-20; Acts 17:24-26; 1 Tim 1:17; 6:15; Rev 15:3-4; 17:14; 19:16<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>God’s Sovereignty over All Nations<\/h3>\nIn the ancient world, nations often considered religion in terms of a national god or gods. The king of Aram, for example, believed Israel’s “gods” were tied to the hills and would not be able to act elsewhere (1 Kgs 20:23). Jephthah demonstrated a pagan heritage by saying that the god Chemosh had given the Ammonites their land (Judg 11:24). The prophet Amos, by contrast, knew that God alone had brought the Philistines from Crete and the Arameans from Kir (Amos 9:7). God had created the entire cosmos, not just Israel (4:13; 5:8), so he was perfectly justified in requiring that nations conduct their affairs with justice and mercy (1:3–2:3).<\/p>\nOne heresy prevalent among the people of Judah and Israel was that, in spite of their sinfulness, God would eventually vindicate them because of his covenant with them (see Jer 7:4; Amos 3:1-2; 9:10). They developed a false theology of the day of the Lord: They thought that God’s intervention in history automatically meant deliverance for them and destruction for their enemies. Amos directly confronted this false notion of privilege (9:7; see also 5:18-20). The day of the Lord would not absolve sinful Israel; rather, God would use it to punish them.<\/p>\nIsrael’s position of privilege among the nations made them more responsible, not less. While the surrounding nations would be punished for their particularly grievous sins, Israel would be punished for all their sins (3:2). The New Testament further develops this theme of the greater responsibility of God’s people: Those who receive much are responsible for much (Luke 12:48; Jas 3:1).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nExod 15:18; Deut 32:8; 1 Chr 29:11-12; 2 Chr 20:6; Pss 2:1-12; 7:6-8; 10:16; 22:28; 47:2; 83:18; 93:1-5; 103:19; Dan 2:20-21, 47; 4:34-37; Amos 9:7; Matt 28:18-20; Acts 17:24-26; 1 Tim 1:17; 6:15; Rev 15:3-4; 17:14; 19:16<\/p>","summary_ro":"God’s Sovereignty over All Nations In the ancient world, nations often considered religion in terms of a national god or gods. The king of Aram, for example, believed Israel’s “gods” were tied to the hills and would not be able to act elsewhere (1 Kgs 20:23). Jephthah demonstrated a pagan heritage by saying that the god Chemosh had given the Ammonites their land (Judg 11:24). The prophet Amos, by contrast, knew that God alone had brought the Philistines from Crete and the Arameans from Kir (A...","summary_en":"God’s Sovereignty over All Nations In the ancient world, nations often considered religion in terms of a national god or gods. The king of Aram, for example, believed Israel’s “gods” were tied to the hills and would not be able to act elsewhere (1 Kgs 20:23). Jephthah demonstrated a pagan heritage by saying that the god Chemosh had given the Ammonites their land (Judg 11:24). The prophet Amos, by contrast, knew that God alone had brought the Philistines from Crete and the Arameans from Kir (A...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":91377,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Religious Hypocrisy","title_en":"Religious Hypocrisy","content_ro":"<h3>Religious Hypocrisy<\/h3>\nReligious hypocrisy can result from selective obedience, from lip service to God’s law without a change of heart and life to back it up. People who parade their piety for others to see often have little desire to truly obey God.<\/p>\nIsaiah preached to what seemed to be a very religious people. They fasted, said prayers, celebrated holy days, and brought their sacrifices to Jerusalem. Yet God rejected these practices. Why? These acts had value—the Lord himself had prescribed them! But the people’s worship was not from the heart, and it was not accompanied by the personal holiness and social justice that God requires (see, e.g., Lev 19:13-17). The people of Judah had fallen into the trap of religious hypocrisy.<\/p>\nMany years after Isaiah, Jesus confronted this kind of hypocrisy in the Pharisees. He challenged them to be better doers of God’s whole<\/em> revelation rather than just the parts that brought them acclaim (Matt 23:1-36, especially Matt 23:23). The apostles Paul and James also distinguished between mere religiosity and true spirituality (1 Cor 3:1-23; Jas 1:21–2:13). Jesus’ rebuke of the Pharisees also serves as a warning to us: We are not to be like them (see Matt 6:1-18; 1 Pet 2:1). Instead, Jesus calls us to be authentic before God and with others, to obey his entire word, and to go beyond mere formalities and appearances in our devotion to God.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nPs 50:16-23; Prov 15:8; 26:23; Isa 1:11-15; 29:13-15; 58:2-7; Jer 7:4-10; 12:2; Ezek 33:30-31; Hos 8:13; Amos 5:21-24; Mic 3:11; Zech 7:5-6; Mal 2:13-14; Matt 6:1-18; 23:1-36; Titus 1:15-16; Jas 1:21-27; 1 Pet 2:1; 1 Jn 2:4, 9; 4:20<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Religious Hypocrisy<\/h3>\nReligious hypocrisy can result from selective obedience, from lip service to God’s law without a change of heart and life to back it up. People who parade their piety for others to see often have little desire to truly obey God.<\/p>\nIsaiah preached to what seemed to be a very religious people. They fasted, said prayers, celebrated holy days, and brought their sacrifices to Jerusalem. Yet God rejected these practices. Why? These acts had value—the Lord himself had prescribed them! But the people’s worship was not from the heart, and it was not accompanied by the personal holiness and social justice that God requires (see, e.g., Lev 19:13-17). The people of Judah had fallen into the trap of religious hypocrisy.<\/p>\nMany years after Isaiah, Jesus confronted this kind of hypocrisy in the Pharisees. He challenged them to be better doers of God’s whole<\/em> revelation rather than just the parts that brought them acclaim (Matt 23:1-36, especially Matt 23:23). The apostles Paul and James also distinguished between mere religiosity and true spirituality (1 Cor 3:1-23; Jas 1:21–2:13). Jesus’ rebuke of the Pharisees also serves as a warning to us: We are not to be like them (see Matt 6:1-18; 1 Pet 2:1). Instead, Jesus calls us to be authentic before God and with others, to obey his entire word, and to go beyond mere formalities and appearances in our devotion to God.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nPs 50:16-23; Prov 15:8; 26:23; Isa 1:11-15; 29:13-15; 58:2-7; Jer 7:4-10; 12:2; Ezek 33:30-31; Hos 8:13; Amos 5:21-24; Mic 3:11; Zech 7:5-6; Mal 2:13-14; Matt 6:1-18; 23:1-36; Titus 1:15-16; Jas 1:21-27; 1 Pet 2:1; 1 Jn 2:4, 9; 4:20<\/p>","summary_ro":"Religious Hypocrisy Religious hypocrisy can result from selective obedience, from lip service to God’s law without a change of heart and life to back it up. People who parade their piety for others to see often have little desire to truly obey God. Isaiah preached to what seemed to be a very religious people. They fasted, said prayers, celebrated holy days, and brought their sacrifices to Jerusalem. Yet God rejected these practices. Why? These acts had value—the Lord himself had prescribed th...","summary_en":"Religious Hypocrisy Religious hypocrisy can result from selective obedience, from lip service to God’s law without a change of heart and life to back it up. People who parade their piety for others to see often have little desire to truly obey God. Isaiah preached to what seemed to be a very religious people. They fasted, said prayers, celebrated holy days, and brought their sacrifices to Jerusalem. Yet God rejected these practices. Why? These acts had value—the Lord himself had prescribed th...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":91872,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Collapse of Culture","title_en":"The Collapse of Culture","content_ro":"<h3>The Collapse of Culture<\/h3>\nImpressive cultures full of creative and skilled people sometimes fall apart suddenly and completely. While digging, archaeologists often find a layer of ash between strata of remarkable artifacts; the ash indicates the destruction of the culture. This is one of the most disturbing aspects of human history.<\/p>\nIsrael’s history is replete with cycles of courage and success followed by disaster. People of God led Israel into new periods of power (Joshua, Samuel, David, Solomon), but the nation repeatedly fell into worshiping deities other than the one true God. Repeatedly, God’s people fell under judgment as their culture disintegrated and their political independence was replaced with servitude and oppression. The northern kingdom of Israel was especially captivated by the idol-worship of Baal and Asherah. As a result, the Lord turned the northern kingdom over to the Assyrians, who demolished it in 722 BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nIn Jeremiah’s time, the collapse of spiritual and political culture was occurring in the southern kingdom of Judah. Some of the nation’s kings, including Josiah, faithfully followed the covenant ban on idol worship and led the people of Judah back to the Lord. However, many other rulers, including Josiah’s sons, did not carry on such reforms. For example, Jehoiakim had no interest in continuing his father’s revival of devotion to the Lord, seeing it as an impediment to his own political power. He was so hardened toward the Lord that he tried to kill Jeremiah, the Lord’s messenger. Zedekiah was more fearful than hardened, but he also refused to return to the Lord.<\/p>\nThe Lord’s messages through Jeremiah contain strong indictments of Judah’s devotion to Baal (2:8; 7:9; 11:13, 17; 12:16; 19:5; 23:13, 27; 32:29, 35) and condemn the immorality that accompanied this idolatry. Judah’s moral depravity and spiritual rottenness—exemplified by its greed, hate, and violence—were exposed for all to see. Despite their stubborn refusal to turn away from idol worship and back to worship of the one true God, the people of Judah hoped that the Lord would work a miracle by defeating the Babylonian army and sending it back home. They thought that the Temple would magically protect them, not understanding that God was disgusted over what they were doing there, which was speeding their destruction rather than protecting them (7:4-15). They were totally unprepared to face the horror of defeat in war and the destruction of their nation, their capital, and their Temple. They were unaware that their spiritual and moral collapse had already made their doom certain.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nJosh 1:1-9; 11:16-23; 1 Sam 4:1-22; 2 Kgs 17:6-18; 23:1–25:30; Jer 7:4-15; 19:1-7; 24:1-10; 28:10-17; Dan 7:1–8:27<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Collapse of Culture<\/h3>\nImpressive cultures full of creative and skilled people sometimes fall apart suddenly and completely. While digging, archaeologists often find a layer of ash between strata of remarkable artifacts; the ash indicates the destruction of the culture. This is one of the most disturbing aspects of human history.<\/p>\nIsrael’s history is replete with cycles of courage and success followed by disaster. People of God led Israel into new periods of power (Joshua, Samuel, David, Solomon), but the nation repeatedly fell into worshiping deities other than the one true God. Repeatedly, God’s people fell under judgment as their culture disintegrated and their political independence was replaced with servitude and oppression. The northern kingdom of Israel was especially captivated by the idol-worship of Baal and Asherah. As a result, the Lord turned the northern kingdom over to the Assyrians, who demolished it in 722 BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nIn Jeremiah’s time, the collapse of spiritual and political culture was occurring in the southern kingdom of Judah. Some of the nation’s kings, including Josiah, faithfully followed the covenant ban on idol worship and led the people of Judah back to the Lord. However, many other rulers, including Josiah’s sons, did not carry on such reforms. For example, Jehoiakim had no interest in continuing his father’s revival of devotion to the Lord, seeing it as an impediment to his own political power. He was so hardened toward the Lord that he tried to kill Jeremiah, the Lord’s messenger. Zedekiah was more fearful than hardened, but he also refused to return to the Lord.<\/p>\nThe Lord’s messages through Jeremiah contain strong indictments of Judah’s devotion to Baal (2:8; 7:9; 11:13, 17; 12:16; 19:5; 23:13, 27; 32:29, 35) and condemn the immorality that accompanied this idolatry. Judah’s moral depravity and spiritual rottenness—exemplified by its greed, hate, and violence—were exposed for all to see. Despite their stubborn refusal to turn away from idol worship and back to worship of the one true God, the people of Judah hoped that the Lord would work a miracle by defeating the Babylonian army and sending it back home. They thought that the Temple would magically protect them, not understanding that God was disgusted over what they were doing there, which was speeding their destruction rather than protecting them (7:4-15). They were totally unprepared to face the horror of defeat in war and the destruction of their nation, their capital, and their Temple. They were unaware that their spiritual and moral collapse had already made their doom certain.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nJosh 1:1-9; 11:16-23; 1 Sam 4:1-22; 2 Kgs 17:6-18; 23:1–25:30; Jer 7:4-15; 19:1-7; 24:1-10; 28:10-17; Dan 7:1–8:27<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Collapse of Culture Impressive cultures full of creative and skilled people sometimes fall apart suddenly and completely. While digging, archaeologists often find a layer of ash between strata of remarkable artifacts; the ash indicates the destruction of the culture. This is one of the most disturbing aspects of human history. Israel’s history is replete with cycles of courage and success followed by disaster. People of God led Israel into new periods of power (Joshua, Samuel, David, Solo...","summary_en":"The Collapse of Culture Impressive cultures full of creative and skilled people sometimes fall apart suddenly and completely. While digging, archaeologists often find a layer of ash between strata of remarkable artifacts; the ash indicates the destruction of the culture. This is one of the most disturbing aspects of human history. Israel’s history is replete with cycles of courage and success followed by disaster. People of God led Israel into new periods of power (Joshua, Samuel, David, Solo...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":92317,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"God’s Sovereignty over All Nations","title_en":"God’s Sovereignty over All Nations","content_ro":"<h3>God’s Sovereignty over All Nations<\/h3>\nIn the ancient world, nations often considered religion in terms of a national god or gods. The king of Aram, for example, believed Israel’s “gods” were tied to the hills and would not be able to act elsewhere (1 Kgs 20:23). Jephthah demonstrated a pagan heritage by saying that the god Chemosh had given the Ammonites their land (Judg 11:24). The prophet Amos, by contrast, knew that God alone had brought the Philistines from Crete and the Arameans from Kir (Amos 9:7). God had created the entire cosmos, not just Israel (4:13; 5:8), so he was perfectly justified in requiring that nations conduct their affairs with justice and mercy (1:3–2:3).<\/p>\nOne heresy prevalent among the people of Judah and Israel was that, in spite of their sinfulness, God would eventually vindicate them because of his covenant with them (see Jer 7:4; Amos 3:1-2; 9:10). They developed a false theology of the day of the Lord: They thought that God’s intervention in history automatically meant deliverance for them and destruction for their enemies. Amos directly confronted this false notion of privilege (9:7; see also 5:18-20). The day of the Lord would not absolve sinful Israel; rather, God would use it to punish them.<\/p>\nIsrael’s position of privilege among the nations made them more responsible, not less. While the surrounding nations would be punished for their particularly grievous sins, Israel would be punished for all their sins (3:2). The New Testament further develops this theme of the greater responsibility of God’s people: Those who receive much are responsible for much (Luke 12:48; Jas 3:1).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nExod 15:18; Deut 32:8; 1 Chr 29:11-12; 2 Chr 20:6; Pss 2:1-12; 7:6-8; 10:16; 22:28; 47:2; 83:18; 93:1-5; 103:19; Dan 2:20-21, 47; 4:34-37; Amos 9:7; Matt 28:18-20; Acts 17:24-26; 1 Tim 1:17; 6:15; Rev 15:3-4; 17:14; 19:16<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>God’s Sovereignty over All Nations<\/h3>\nIn the ancient world, nations often considered religion in terms of a national god or gods. The king of Aram, for example, believed Israel’s “gods” were tied to the hills and would not be able to act elsewhere (1 Kgs 20:23). Jephthah demonstrated a pagan heritage by saying that the god Chemosh had given the Ammonites their land (Judg 11:24). The prophet Amos, by contrast, knew that God alone had brought the Philistines from Crete and the Arameans from Kir (Amos 9:7). God had created the entire cosmos, not just Israel (4:13; 5:8), so he was perfectly justified in requiring that nations conduct their affairs with justice and mercy (1:3–2:3).<\/p>\nOne heresy prevalent among the people of Judah and Israel was that, in spite of their sinfulness, God would eventually vindicate them because of his covenant with them (see Jer 7:4; Amos 3:1-2; 9:10). They developed a false theology of the day of the Lord: They thought that God’s intervention in history automatically meant deliverance for them and destruction for their enemies. Amos directly confronted this false notion of privilege (9:7; see also 5:18-20). The day of the Lord would not absolve sinful Israel; rather, God would use it to punish them.<\/p>\nIsrael’s position of privilege among the nations made them more responsible, not less. While the surrounding nations would be punished for their particularly grievous sins, Israel would be punished for all their sins (3:2). The New Testament further develops this theme of the greater responsibility of God’s people: Those who receive much are responsible for much (Luke 12:48; Jas 3:1).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nExod 15:18; Deut 32:8; 1 Chr 29:11-12; 2 Chr 20:6; Pss 2:1-12; 7:6-8; 10:16; 22:28; 47:2; 83:18; 93:1-5; 103:19; Dan 2:20-21, 47; 4:34-37; Amos 9:7; Matt 28:18-20; Acts 17:24-26; 1 Tim 1:17; 6:15; Rev 15:3-4; 17:14; 19:16<\/p>","summary_ro":"God’s Sovereignty over All Nations In the ancient world, nations often considered religion in terms of a national god or gods. The king of Aram, for example, believed Israel’s “gods” were tied to the hills and would not be able to act elsewhere (1 Kgs 20:23). Jephthah demonstrated a pagan heritage by saying that the god Chemosh had given the Ammonites their land (Judg 11:24). The prophet Amos, by contrast, knew that God alone had brought the Philistines from Crete and the Arameans from Kir (A...","summary_en":"God’s Sovereignty over All Nations In the ancient world, nations often considered religion in terms of a national god or gods. The king of Aram, for example, believed Israel’s “gods” were tied to the hills and would not be able to act elsewhere (1 Kgs 20:23). Jephthah demonstrated a pagan heritage by saying that the god Chemosh had given the Ammonites their land (Judg 11:24). The prophet Amos, by contrast, knew that God alone had brought the Philistines from Crete and the Arameans from Kir (A...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":119003,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Religious Hypocrisy","title_en":"Religious Hypocrisy","content_ro":"<h3>Religious Hypocrisy<\/h3>\nReligious hypocrisy can result from selective obedience, from lip service to God’s law without a change of heart and life to back it up. People who parade their piety for others to see often have little desire to truly obey God.<\/p>\nIsaiah preached to what seemed to be a very religious people. They fasted, said prayers, celebrated holy days, and brought their sacrifices to Jerusalem. Yet God rejected these practices. Why? These acts had value—the Lord himself had prescribed them! But the people’s worship was not from the heart, and it was not accompanied by the personal holiness and social justice that God requires (see, e.g., Lev 19:13-17). The people of Judah had fallen into the trap of religious hypocrisy.<\/p>\nMany years after Isaiah, Jesus confronted this kind of hypocrisy in the Pharisees. He challenged them to be better doers of God’s whole<\/em> revelation rather than just the parts that brought them acclaim (Matt 23:1-36, especially Matt 23:23). The apostles Paul and James also distinguished between mere religiosity and true spirituality (1 Cor 3:1-23; Jas 1:21–2:13). Jesus’ rebuke of the Pharisees also serves as a warning to us: We are not to be like them (see Matt 6:1-18; 1 Pet 2:1). Instead, Jesus calls us to be authentic before God and with others, to obey his entire word, and to go beyond mere formalities and appearances in our devotion to God.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nPs 50:16-23; Prov 15:8; 26:23; Isa 1:11-15; 29:13-15; 58:2-7; Jer 7:4-10; 12:2; Ezek 33:30-31; Hos 8:13; Amos 5:21-24; Mic 3:11; Zech 7:5-6; Mal 2:13-14; Matt 6:1-18; 23:1-36; Titus 1:15-16; Jas 1:21-27; 1 Pet 2:1; 1 Jn 2:4, 9; 4:20<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Religious Hypocrisy<\/h3>\nReligious hypocrisy can result from selective obedience, from lip service to God’s law without a change of heart and life to back it up. People who parade their piety for others to see often have little desire to truly obey God.<\/p>\nIsaiah preached to what seemed to be a very religious people. They fasted, said prayers, celebrated holy days, and brought their sacrifices to Jerusalem. Yet God rejected these practices. Why? These acts had value—the Lord himself had prescribed them! But the people’s worship was not from the heart, and it was not accompanied by the personal holiness and social justice that God requires (see, e.g., Lev 19:13-17). The people of Judah had fallen into the trap of religious hypocrisy.<\/p>\nMany years after Isaiah, Jesus confronted this kind of hypocrisy in the Pharisees. He challenged them to be better doers of God’s whole<\/em> revelation rather than just the parts that brought them acclaim (Matt 23:1-36, especially Matt 23:23). The apostles Paul and James also distinguished between mere religiosity and true spirituality (1 Cor 3:1-23; Jas 1:21–2:13). Jesus’ rebuke of the Pharisees also serves as a warning to us: We are not to be like them (see Matt 6:1-18; 1 Pet 2:1). Instead, Jesus calls us to be authentic before God and with others, to obey his entire word, and to go beyond mere formalities and appearances in our devotion to God.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nPs 50:16-23; Prov 15:8; 26:23; Isa 1:11-15; 29:13-15; 58:2-7; Jer 7:4-10; 12:2; Ezek 33:30-31; Hos 8:13; Amos 5:21-24; Mic 3:11; Zech 7:5-6; Mal 2:13-14; Matt 6:1-18; 23:1-36; Titus 1:15-16; Jas 1:21-27; 1 Pet 2:1; 1 Jn 2:4, 9; 4:20<\/p>","summary_ro":"Religious Hypocrisy Religious hypocrisy can result from selective obedience, from lip service to God’s law without a change of heart and life to back it up. People who parade their piety for others to see often have little desire to truly obey God. Isaiah preached to what seemed to be a very religious people. They fasted, said prayers, celebrated holy days, and brought their sacrifices to Jerusalem. Yet God rejected these practices. Why? These acts had value—the Lord himself had prescribed th...","summary_en":"Religious Hypocrisy Religious hypocrisy can result from selective obedience, from lip service to God’s law without a change of heart and life to back it up. People who parade their piety for others to see often have little desire to truly obey God. Isaiah preached to what seemed to be a very religious people. They fasted, said prayers, celebrated holy days, and brought their sacrifices to Jerusalem. Yet God rejected these practices. Why? These acts had value—the Lord himself had prescribed th...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":119498,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Collapse of Culture","title_en":"The Collapse of Culture","content_ro":"<h3>The Collapse of Culture<\/h3>\nImpressive cultures full of creative and skilled people sometimes fall apart suddenly and completely. While digging, archaeologists often find a layer of ash between strata of remarkable artifacts; the ash indicates the destruction of the culture. This is one of the most disturbing aspects of human history.<\/p>\nIsrael’s history is replete with cycles of courage and success followed by disaster. People of God led Israel into new periods of power (Joshua, Samuel, David, Solomon), but the nation repeatedly fell into worshiping deities other than the one true God. Repeatedly, God’s people fell under judgment as their culture disintegrated and their political independence was replaced with servitude and oppression. The northern kingdom of Israel was especially captivated by the idol-worship of Baal and Asherah. As a result, the Lord turned the northern kingdom over to the Assyrians, who demolished it in 722 BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nIn Jeremiah’s time, the collapse of spiritual and political culture was occurring in the southern kingdom of Judah. Some of the nation’s kings, including Josiah, faithfully followed the covenant ban on idol worship and led the people of Judah back to the Lord. However, many other rulers, including Josiah’s sons, did not carry on such reforms. For example, Jehoiakim had no interest in continuing his father’s revival of devotion to the Lord, seeing it as an impediment to his own political power. He was so hardened toward the Lord that he tried to kill Jeremiah, the Lord’s messenger. Zedekiah was more fearful than hardened, but he also refused to return to the Lord.<\/p>\nThe Lord’s messages through Jeremiah contain strong indictments of Judah’s devotion to Baal (2:8; 7:9; 11:13, 17; 12:16; 19:5; 23:13, 27; 32:29, 35) and condemn the immorality that accompanied this idolatry. Judah’s moral depravity and spiritual rottenness—exemplified by its greed, hate, and violence—were exposed for all to see. Despite their stubborn refusal to turn away from idol worship and back to worship of the one true God, the people of Judah hoped that the Lord would work a miracle by defeating the Babylonian army and sending it back home. They thought that the Temple would magically protect them, not understanding that God was disgusted over what they were doing there, which was speeding their destruction rather than protecting them (7:4-15). They were totally unprepared to face the horror of defeat in war and the destruction of their nation, their capital, and their Temple. They were unaware that their spiritual and moral collapse had already made their doom certain.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nJosh 1:1-9; 11:16-23; 1 Sam 4:1-22; 2 Kgs 17:6-18; 23:1–25:30; Jer 7:4-15; 19:1-7; 24:1-10; 28:10-17; Dan 7:1–8:27<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Collapse of Culture<\/h3>\nImpressive cultures full of creative and skilled people sometimes fall apart suddenly and completely. While digging, archaeologists often find a layer of ash between strata of remarkable artifacts; the ash indicates the destruction of the culture. This is one of the most disturbing aspects of human history.<\/p>\nIsrael’s history is replete with cycles of courage and success followed by disaster. People of God led Israel into new periods of power (Joshua, Samuel, David, Solomon), but the nation repeatedly fell into worshiping deities other than the one true God. Repeatedly, God’s people fell under judgment as their culture disintegrated and their political independence was replaced with servitude and oppression. The northern kingdom of Israel was especially captivated by the idol-worship of Baal and Asherah. As a result, the Lord turned the northern kingdom over to the Assyrians, who demolished it in 722 BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nIn Jeremiah’s time, the collapse of spiritual and political culture was occurring in the southern kingdom of Judah. Some of the nation’s kings, including Josiah, faithfully followed the covenant ban on idol worship and led the people of Judah back to the Lord. However, many other rulers, including Josiah’s sons, did not carry on such reforms. For example, Jehoiakim had no interest in continuing his father’s revival of devotion to the Lord, seeing it as an impediment to his own political power. He was so hardened toward the Lord that he tried to kill Jeremiah, the Lord’s messenger. Zedekiah was more fearful than hardened, but he also refused to return to the Lord.<\/p>\nThe Lord’s messages through Jeremiah contain strong indictments of Judah’s devotion to Baal (2:8; 7:9; 11:13, 17; 12:16; 19:5; 23:13, 27; 32:29, 35) and condemn the immorality that accompanied this idolatry. Judah’s moral depravity and spiritual rottenness—exemplified by its greed, hate, and violence—were exposed for all to see. Despite their stubborn refusal to turn away from idol worship and back to worship of the one true God, the people of Judah hoped that the Lord would work a miracle by defeating the Babylonian army and sending it back home. They thought that the Temple would magically protect them, not understanding that God was disgusted over what they were doing there, which was speeding their destruction rather than protecting them (7:4-15). They were totally unprepared to face the horror of defeat in war and the destruction of their nation, their capital, and their Temple. They were unaware that their spiritual and moral collapse had already made their doom certain.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nJosh 1:1-9; 11:16-23; 1 Sam 4:1-22; 2 Kgs 17:6-18; 23:1–25:30; Jer 7:4-15; 19:1-7; 24:1-10; 28:10-17; Dan 7:1–8:27<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Collapse of Culture Impressive cultures full of creative and skilled people sometimes fall apart suddenly and completely. While digging, archaeologists often find a layer of ash between strata of remarkable artifacts; the ash indicates the destruction of the culture. This is one of the most disturbing aspects of human history. Israel’s history is replete with cycles of courage and success followed by disaster. People of God led Israel into new periods of power (Joshua, Samuel, David, Solo...","summary_en":"The Collapse of Culture Impressive cultures full of creative and skilled people sometimes fall apart suddenly and completely. While digging, archaeologists often find a layer of ash between strata of remarkable artifacts; the ash indicates the destruction of the culture. This is one of the most disturbing aspects of human history. Israel’s history is replete with cycles of courage and success followed by disaster. People of God led Israel into new periods of power (Joshua, Samuel, David, Solo...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":119943,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"God’s Sovereignty over All Nations","title_en":"God’s Sovereignty over All Nations","content_ro":"<h3>God’s Sovereignty over All Nations<\/h3>\nIn the ancient world, nations often considered religion in terms of a national god or gods. The king of Aram, for example, believed Israel’s “gods” were tied to the hills and would not be able to act elsewhere (1 Kgs 20:23). Jephthah demonstrated a pagan heritage by saying that the god Chemosh had given the Ammonites their land (Judg 11:24). The prophet Amos, by contrast, knew that God alone had brought the Philistines from Crete and the Arameans from Kir (Amos 9:7). God had created the entire cosmos, not just Israel (4:13; 5:8), so he was perfectly justified in requiring that nations conduct their affairs with justice and mercy (1:3–2:3).<\/p>\nOne heresy prevalent among the people of Judah and Israel was that, in spite of their sinfulness, God would eventually vindicate them because of his covenant with them (see Jer 7:4; Amos 3:1-2; 9:10). They developed a false theology of the day of the Lord: They thought that God’s intervention in history automatically meant deliverance for them and destruction for their enemies. Amos directly confronted this false notion of privilege (9:7; see also 5:18-20). The day of the Lord would not absolve sinful Israel; rather, God would use it to punish them.<\/p>\nIsrael’s position of privilege among the nations made them more responsible, not less. While the surrounding nations would be punished for their particularly grievous sins, Israel would be punished for all their sins (3:2). The New Testament further develops this theme of the greater responsibility of God’s people: Those who receive much are responsible for much (Luke 12:48; Jas 3:1).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nExod 15:18; Deut 32:8; 1 Chr 29:11-12; 2 Chr 20:6; Pss 2:1-12; 7:6-8; 10:16; 22:28; 47:2; 83:18; 93:1-5; 103:19; Dan 2:20-21, 47; 4:34-37; Amos 9:7; Matt 28:18-20; Acts 17:24-26; 1 Tim 1:17; 6:15; Rev 15:3-4; 17:14; 19:16<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>God’s Sovereignty over All Nations<\/h3>\nIn the ancient world, nations often considered religion in terms of a national god or gods. The king of Aram, for example, believed Israel’s “gods” were tied to the hills and would not be able to act elsewhere (1 Kgs 20:23). Jephthah demonstrated a pagan heritage by saying that the god Chemosh had given the Ammonites their land (Judg 11:24). The prophet Amos, by contrast, knew that God alone had brought the Philistines from Crete and the Arameans from Kir (Amos 9:7). God had created the entire cosmos, not just Israel (4:13; 5:8), so he was perfectly justified in requiring that nations conduct their affairs with justice and mercy (1:3–2:3).<\/p>\nOne heresy prevalent among the people of Judah and Israel was that, in spite of their sinfulness, God would eventually vindicate them because of his covenant with them (see Jer 7:4; Amos 3:1-2; 9:10). They developed a false theology of the day of the Lord: They thought that God’s intervention in history automatically meant deliverance for them and destruction for their enemies. Amos directly confronted this false notion of privilege (9:7; see also 5:18-20). The day of the Lord would not absolve sinful Israel; rather, God would use it to punish them.<\/p>\nIsrael’s position of privilege among the nations made them more responsible, not less. While the surrounding nations would be punished for their particularly grievous sins, Israel would be punished for all their sins (3:2). The New Testament further develops this theme of the greater responsibility of God’s people: Those who receive much are responsible for much (Luke 12:48; Jas 3:1).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nExod 15:18; Deut 32:8; 1 Chr 29:11-12; 2 Chr 20:6; Pss 2:1-12; 7:6-8; 10:16; 22:28; 47:2; 83:18; 93:1-5; 103:19; Dan 2:20-21, 47; 4:34-37; Amos 9:7; Matt 28:18-20; Acts 17:24-26; 1 Tim 1:17; 6:15; Rev 15:3-4; 17:14; 19:16<\/p>","summary_ro":"God’s Sovereignty over All Nations In the ancient world, nations often considered religion in terms of a national god or gods. The king of Aram, for example, believed Israel’s “gods” were tied to the hills and would not be able to act elsewhere (1 Kgs 20:23). Jephthah demonstrated a pagan heritage by saying that the god Chemosh had given the Ammonites their land (Judg 11:24). The prophet Amos, by contrast, knew that God alone had brought the Philistines from Crete and the Arameans from Kir (A...","summary_en":"God’s Sovereignty over All Nations In the ancient world, nations often considered religion in terms of a national god or gods. The king of Aram, for example, believed Israel’s “gods” were tied to the hills and would not be able to act elsewhere (1 Kgs 20:23). Jephthah demonstrated a pagan heritage by saying that the god Chemosh had given the Ammonites their land (Judg 11:24). The prophet Amos, by contrast, knew that God alone had brought the Philistines from Crete and the Arameans from Kir (A...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":146629,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Religious Hypocrisy","title_en":"Religious Hypocrisy","content_ro":"<h3>Religious Hypocrisy<\/h3>\nReligious hypocrisy can result from selective obedience, from lip service to God’s law without a change of heart and life to back it up. People who parade their piety for others to see often have little desire to truly obey God.<\/p>\nIsaiah preached to what seemed to be a very religious people. They fasted, said prayers, celebrated holy days, and brought their sacrifices to Jerusalem. Yet God rejected these practices. Why? These acts had value—the Lord himself had prescribed them! But the people’s worship was not from the heart, and it was not accompanied by the personal holiness and social justice that God requires (see, e.g., Lev 19:13-17). The people of Judah had fallen into the trap of religious hypocrisy.<\/p>\nMany years after Isaiah, Jesus confronted this kind of hypocrisy in the Pharisees. He challenged them to be better doers of God’s whole<\/em> revelation rather than just the parts that brought them acclaim (Matt 23:1-36, especially Matt 23:23). The apostles Paul and James also distinguished between mere religiosity and true spirituality (1 Cor 3:1-23; Jas 1:21–2:13). Jesus’ rebuke of the Pharisees also serves as a warning to us: We are not to be like them (see Matt 6:1-18; 1 Pet 2:1). Instead, Jesus calls us to be authentic before God and with others, to obey his entire word, and to go beyond mere formalities and appearances in our devotion to God.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nPs 50:16-23; Prov 15:8; 26:23; Isa 1:11-15; 29:13-15; 58:2-7; Jer 7:4-10; 12:2; Ezek 33:30-31; Hos 8:13; Amos 5:21-24; Mic 3:11; Zech 7:5-6; Mal 2:13-14; Matt 6:1-18; 23:1-36; Titus 1:15-16; Jas 1:21-27; 1 Pet 2:1; 1 Jn 2:4, 9; 4:20<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Religious Hypocrisy<\/h3>\nReligious hypocrisy can result from selective obedience, from lip service to God’s law without a change of heart and life to back it up. People who parade their piety for others to see often have little desire to truly obey God.<\/p>\nIsaiah preached to what seemed to be a very religious people. They fasted, said prayers, celebrated holy days, and brought their sacrifices to Jerusalem. Yet God rejected these practices. Why? These acts had value—the Lord himself had prescribed them! But the people’s worship was not from the heart, and it was not accompanied by the personal holiness and social justice that God requires (see, e.g., Lev 19:13-17). The people of Judah had fallen into the trap of religious hypocrisy.<\/p>\nMany years after Isaiah, Jesus confronted this kind of hypocrisy in the Pharisees. He challenged them to be better doers of God’s whole<\/em> revelation rather than just the parts that brought them acclaim (Matt 23:1-36, especially Matt 23:23). The apostles Paul and James also distinguished between mere religiosity and true spirituality (1 Cor 3:1-23; Jas 1:21–2:13). Jesus’ rebuke of the Pharisees also serves as a warning to us: We are not to be like them (see Matt 6:1-18; 1 Pet 2:1). Instead, Jesus calls us to be authentic before God and with others, to obey his entire word, and to go beyond mere formalities and appearances in our devotion to God.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nPs 50:16-23; Prov 15:8; 26:23; Isa 1:11-15; 29:13-15; 58:2-7; Jer 7:4-10; 12:2; Ezek 33:30-31; Hos 8:13; Amos 5:21-24; Mic 3:11; Zech 7:5-6; Mal 2:13-14; Matt 6:1-18; 23:1-36; Titus 1:15-16; Jas 1:21-27; 1 Pet 2:1; 1 Jn 2:4, 9; 4:20<\/p>","summary_ro":"Religious Hypocrisy Religious hypocrisy can result from selective obedience, from lip service to God’s law without a change of heart and life to back it up. People who parade their piety for others to see often have little desire to truly obey God. Isaiah preached to what seemed to be a very religious people. They fasted, said prayers, celebrated holy days, and brought their sacrifices to Jerusalem. Yet God rejected these practices. Why? These acts had value—the Lord himself had prescribed th...","summary_en":"Religious Hypocrisy Religious hypocrisy can result from selective obedience, from lip service to God’s law without a change of heart and life to back it up. People who parade their piety for others to see often have little desire to truly obey God. Isaiah preached to what seemed to be a very religious people. They fasted, said prayers, celebrated holy days, and brought their sacrifices to Jerusalem. Yet God rejected these practices. Why? These acts had value—the Lord himself had prescribed th...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":147124,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Collapse of Culture","title_en":"The Collapse of Culture","content_ro":"<h3>The Collapse of Culture<\/h3>\nImpressive cultures full of creative and skilled people sometimes fall apart suddenly and completely. While digging, archaeologists often find a layer of ash between strata of remarkable artifacts; the ash indicates the destruction of the culture. This is one of the most disturbing aspects of human history.<\/p>\nIsrael’s history is replete with cycles of courage and success followed by disaster. People of God led Israel into new periods of power (Joshua, Samuel, David, Solomon), but the nation repeatedly fell into worshiping deities other than the one true God. Repeatedly, God’s people fell under judgment as their culture disintegrated and their political independence was replaced with servitude and oppression. The northern kingdom of Israel was especially captivated by the idol-worship of Baal and Asherah. As a result, the Lord turned the northern kingdom over to the Assyrians, who demolished it in 722 BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nIn Jeremiah’s time, the collapse of spiritual and political culture was occurring in the southern kingdom of Judah. Some of the nation’s kings, including Josiah, faithfully followed the covenant ban on idol worship and led the people of Judah back to the Lord. However, many other rulers, including Josiah’s sons, did not carry on such reforms. For example, Jehoiakim had no interest in continuing his father’s revival of devotion to the Lord, seeing it as an impediment to his own political power. He was so hardened toward the Lord that he tried to kill Jeremiah, the Lord’s messenger. Zedekiah was more fearful than hardened, but he also refused to return to the Lord.<\/p>\nThe Lord’s messages through Jeremiah contain strong indictments of Judah’s devotion to Baal (2:8; 7:9; 11:13, 17; 12:16; 19:5; 23:13, 27; 32:29, 35) and condemn the immorality that accompanied this idolatry. Judah’s moral depravity and spiritual rottenness—exemplified by its greed, hate, and violence—were exposed for all to see. Despite their stubborn refusal to turn away from idol worship and back to worship of the one true God, the people of Judah hoped that the Lord would work a miracle by defeating the Babylonian army and sending it back home. They thought that the Temple would magically protect them, not understanding that God was disgusted over what they were doing there, which was speeding their destruction rather than protecting them (7:4-15). They were totally unprepared to face the horror of defeat in war and the destruction of their nation, their capital, and their Temple. They were unaware that their spiritual and moral collapse had already made their doom certain.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nJosh 1:1-9; 11:16-23; 1 Sam 4:1-22; 2 Kgs 17:6-18; 23:1–25:30; Jer 7:4-15; 19:1-7; 24:1-10; 28:10-17; Dan 7:1–8:27<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Collapse of Culture<\/h3>\nImpressive cultures full of creative and skilled people sometimes fall apart suddenly and completely. While digging, archaeologists often find a layer of ash between strata of remarkable artifacts; the ash indicates the destruction of the culture. This is one of the most disturbing aspects of human history.<\/p>\nIsrael’s history is replete with cycles of courage and success followed by disaster. People of God led Israel into new periods of power (Joshua, Samuel, David, Solomon), but the nation repeatedly fell into worshiping deities other than the one true God. Repeatedly, God’s people fell under judgment as their culture disintegrated and their political independence was replaced with servitude and oppression. The northern kingdom of Israel was especially captivated by the idol-worship of Baal and Asherah. As a result, the Lord turned the northern kingdom over to the Assyrians, who demolished it in 722 BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nIn Jeremiah’s time, the collapse of spiritual and political culture was occurring in the southern kingdom of Judah. Some of the nation’s kings, including Josiah, faithfully followed the covenant ban on idol worship and led the people of Judah back to the Lord. However, many other rulers, including Josiah’s sons, did not carry on such reforms. For example, Jehoiakim had no interest in continuing his father’s revival of devotion to the Lord, seeing it as an impediment to his own political power. He was so hardened toward the Lord that he tried to kill Jeremiah, the Lord’s messenger. Zedekiah was more fearful than hardened, but he also refused to return to the Lord.<\/p>\nThe Lord’s messages through Jeremiah contain strong indictments of Judah’s devotion to Baal (2:8; 7:9; 11:13, 17; 12:16; 19:5; 23:13, 27; 32:29, 35) and condemn the immorality that accompanied this idolatry. Judah’s moral depravity and spiritual rottenness—exemplified by its greed, hate, and violence—were exposed for all to see. Despite their stubborn refusal to turn away from idol worship and back to worship of the one true God, the people of Judah hoped that the Lord would work a miracle by defeating the Babylonian army and sending it back home. They thought that the Temple would magically protect them, not understanding that God was disgusted over what they were doing there, which was speeding their destruction rather than protecting them (7:4-15). They were totally unprepared to face the horror of defeat in war and the destruction of their nation, their capital, and their Temple. They were unaware that their spiritual and moral collapse had already made their doom certain.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nJosh 1:1-9; 11:16-23; 1 Sam 4:1-22; 2 Kgs 17:6-18; 23:1–25:30; Jer 7:4-15; 19:1-7; 24:1-10; 28:10-17; Dan 7:1–8:27<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Collapse of Culture Impressive cultures full of creative and skilled people sometimes fall apart suddenly and completely. While digging, archaeologists often find a layer of ash between strata of remarkable artifacts; the ash indicates the destruction of the culture. This is one of the most disturbing aspects of human history. Israel’s history is replete with cycles of courage and success followed by disaster. People of God led Israel into new periods of power (Joshua, Samuel, David, Solo...","summary_en":"The Collapse of Culture Impressive cultures full of creative and skilled people sometimes fall apart suddenly and completely. While digging, archaeologists often find a layer of ash between strata of remarkable artifacts; the ash indicates the destruction of the culture. This is one of the most disturbing aspects of human history. Israel’s history is replete with cycles of courage and success followed by disaster. People of God led Israel into new periods of power (Joshua, Samuel, David, Solo...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":147569,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"God’s Sovereignty over All Nations","title_en":"God’s Sovereignty over All Nations","content_ro":"<h3>God’s Sovereignty over All Nations<\/h3>\nIn the ancient world, nations often considered religion in terms of a national god or gods. The king of Aram, for example, believed Israel’s “gods” were tied to the hills and would not be able to act elsewhere (1 Kgs 20:23). Jephthah demonstrated a pagan heritage by saying that the god Chemosh had given the Ammonites their land (Judg 11:24). The prophet Amos, by contrast, knew that God alone had brought the Philistines from Crete and the Arameans from Kir (Amos 9:7). God had created the entire cosmos, not just Israel (4:13; 5:8), so he was perfectly justified in requiring that nations conduct their affairs with justice and mercy (1:3–2:3).<\/p>\nOne heresy prevalent among the people of Judah and Israel was that, in spite of their sinfulness, God would eventually vindicate them because of his covenant with them (see Jer 7:4; Amos 3:1-2; 9:10). They developed a false theology of the day of the Lord: They thought that God’s intervention in history automatically meant deliverance for them and destruction for their enemies. Amos directly confronted this false notion of privilege (9:7; see also 5:18-20). The day of the Lord would not absolve sinful Israel; rather, God would use it to punish them.<\/p>\nIsrael’s position of privilege among the nations made them more responsible, not less. While the surrounding nations would be punished for their particularly grievous sins, Israel would be punished for all their sins (3:2). The New Testament further develops this theme of the greater responsibility of God’s people: Those who receive much are responsible for much (Luke 12:48; Jas 3:1).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nExod 15:18; Deut 32:8; 1 Chr 29:11-12; 2 Chr 20:6; Pss 2:1-12; 7:6-8; 10:16; 22:28; 47:2; 83:18; 93:1-5; 103:19; Dan 2:20-21, 47; 4:34-37; Amos 9:7; Matt 28:18-20; Acts 17:24-26; 1 Tim 1:17; 6:15; Rev 15:3-4; 17:14; 19:16<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>God’s Sovereignty over All Nations<\/h3>\nIn the ancient world, nations often considered religion in terms of a national god or gods. The king of Aram, for example, believed Israel’s “gods” were tied to the hills and would not be able to act elsewhere (1 Kgs 20:23). Jephthah demonstrated a pagan heritage by saying that the god Chemosh had given the Ammonites their land (Judg 11:24). The prophet Amos, by contrast, knew that God alone had brought the Philistines from Crete and the Arameans from Kir (Amos 9:7). God had created the entire cosmos, not just Israel (4:13; 5:8), so he was perfectly justified in requiring that nations conduct their affairs with justice and mercy (1:3–2:3).<\/p>\nOne heresy prevalent among the people of Judah and Israel was that, in spite of their sinfulness, God would eventually vindicate them because of his covenant with them (see Jer 7:4; Amos 3:1-2; 9:10). They developed a false theology of the day of the Lord: They thought that God’s intervention in history automatically meant deliverance for them and destruction for their enemies. Amos directly confronted this false notion of privilege (9:7; see also 5:18-20). The day of the Lord would not absolve sinful Israel; rather, God would use it to punish them.<\/p>\nIsrael’s position of privilege among the nations made them more responsible, not less. While the surrounding nations would be punished for their particularly grievous sins, Israel would be punished for all their sins (3:2). The New Testament further develops this theme of the greater responsibility of God’s people: Those who receive much are responsible for much (Luke 12:48; Jas 3:1).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nExod 15:18; Deut 32:8; 1 Chr 29:11-12; 2 Chr 20:6; Pss 2:1-12; 7:6-8; 10:16; 22:28; 47:2; 83:18; 93:1-5; 103:19; Dan 2:20-21, 47; 4:34-37; Amos 9:7; Matt 28:18-20; Acts 17:24-26; 1 Tim 1:17; 6:15; Rev 15:3-4; 17:14; 19:16<\/p>","summary_ro":"God’s Sovereignty over All Nations In the ancient world, nations often considered religion in terms of a national god or gods. The king of Aram, for example, believed Israel’s “gods” were tied to the hills and would not be able to act elsewhere (1 Kgs 20:23). Jephthah demonstrated a pagan heritage by saying that the god Chemosh had given the Ammonites their land (Judg 11:24). The prophet Amos, by contrast, knew that God alone had brought the Philistines from Crete and the Arameans from Kir (A...","summary_en":"God’s Sovereignty over All Nations In the ancient world, nations often considered religion in terms of a national god or gods. The king of Aram, for example, believed Israel’s “gods” were tied to the hills and would not be able to act elsewhere (1 Kgs 20:23). Jephthah demonstrated a pagan heritage by saying that the god Chemosh had given the Ammonites their land (Judg 11:24). The prophet Amos, by contrast, knew that God alone had brought the Philistines from Crete and the Arameans from Kir (A...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"5":[{"id":52126,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 7:5","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 7:5","content_ro":"7:5-7<\/strong> Idol worship had harmed the people—spiritually, because idols were delusions; socially, because their behavior destroyed fellowship; and politically, because they did not think foreign armies could conquer them. Unless the people changed, they had no future in the Promised Land (Exod 22:21-24; Deut 4:40; 6:14-15).<\/p>","content_en":"7:5-7<\/strong> Idol worship had harmed the people—spiritually, because idols were delusions; socially, because their behavior destroyed fellowship; and politically, because they did not think foreign armies could conquer them. Unless the people changed, they had no future in the Promised Land (Exod 22:21-24; Deut 4:40; 6:14-15).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:5-7 Idol worship had harmed the people—spiritually, because idols were delusions; socially, because their behavior destroyed fellowship; and politically, because they did not think foreign armies could conquer them. Unless the people changed, they had no future in the Promised Land (Exod 22:21-24; Deut 4:40; 6:14-15).","summary_en":"7:5-7 Idol worship had harmed the people—spiritually, because idols were delusions; socially, because their behavior destroyed fellowship; and politically, because they did not think foreign armies could conquer them. Unless the people changed, they had no future in the Promised Land (Exod 22:21-24; Deut 4:40; 6:14-15).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":79752,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 7:5","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 7:5","content_ro":"7:5-7<\/strong> Idol worship had harmed the people—spiritually, because idols were delusions; socially, because their behavior destroyed fellowship; and politically, because they did not think foreign armies could conquer them. Unless the people changed, they had no future in the Promised Land (Exod 22:21-24; Deut 4:40; 6:14-15).<\/p>","content_en":"7:5-7<\/strong> Idol worship had harmed the people—spiritually, because idols were delusions; socially, because their behavior destroyed fellowship; and politically, because they did not think foreign armies could conquer them. Unless the people changed, they had no future in the Promised Land (Exod 22:21-24; Deut 4:40; 6:14-15).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:5-7 Idol worship had harmed the people—spiritually, because idols were delusions; socially, because their behavior destroyed fellowship; and politically, because they did not think foreign armies could conquer them. Unless the people changed, they had no future in the Promised Land (Exod 22:21-24; Deut 4:40; 6:14-15).","summary_en":"7:5-7 Idol worship had harmed the people—spiritually, because idols were delusions; socially, because their behavior destroyed fellowship; and politically, because they did not think foreign armies could conquer them. Unless the people changed, they had no future in the Promised Land (Exod 22:21-24; Deut 4:40; 6:14-15).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":107378,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 7:5","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 7:5","content_ro":"7:5-7<\/strong> Idol worship had harmed the people—spiritually, because idols were delusions; socially, because their behavior destroyed fellowship; and politically, because they did not think foreign armies could conquer them. Unless the people changed, they had no future in the Promised Land (Exod 22:21-24; Deut 4:40; 6:14-15).<\/p>","content_en":"7:5-7<\/strong> Idol worship had harmed the people—spiritually, because idols were delusions; socially, because their behavior destroyed fellowship; and politically, because they did not think foreign armies could conquer them. Unless the people changed, they had no future in the Promised Land (Exod 22:21-24; Deut 4:40; 6:14-15).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:5-7 Idol worship had harmed the people—spiritually, because idols were delusions; socially, because their behavior destroyed fellowship; and politically, because they did not think foreign armies could conquer them. Unless the people changed, they had no future in the Promised Land (Exod 22:21-24; Deut 4:40; 6:14-15).","summary_en":"7:5-7 Idol worship had harmed the people—spiritually, because idols were delusions; socially, because their behavior destroyed fellowship; and politically, because they did not think foreign armies could conquer them. Unless the people changed, they had no future in the Promised Land (Exod 22:21-24; Deut 4:40; 6:14-15).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":135004,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 7:5","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 7:5","content_ro":"7:5-7<\/strong> Idol worship had harmed the people—spiritually, because idols were delusions; socially, because their behavior destroyed fellowship; and politically, because they did not think foreign armies could conquer them. Unless the people changed, they had no future in the Promised Land (Exod 22:21-24; Deut 4:40; 6:14-15).<\/p>","content_en":"7:5-7<\/strong> Idol worship had harmed the people—spiritually, because idols were delusions; socially, because their behavior destroyed fellowship; and politically, because they did not think foreign armies could conquer them. Unless the people changed, they had no future in the Promised Land (Exod 22:21-24; Deut 4:40; 6:14-15).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:5-7 Idol worship had harmed the people—spiritually, because idols were delusions; socially, because their behavior destroyed fellowship; and politically, because they did not think foreign armies could conquer them. Unless the people changed, they had no future in the Promised Land (Exod 22:21-24; Deut 4:40; 6:14-15).","summary_en":"7:5-7 Idol worship had harmed the people—spiritually, because idols were delusions; socially, because their behavior destroyed fellowship; and politically, because they did not think foreign armies could conquer them. Unless the people changed, they had no future in the Promised Land (Exod 22:21-24; Deut 4:40; 6:14-15).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":64215,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Choice of Life or Death","title_en":"The Choice of Life or Death","content_ro":"<h3>The Choice of Life or Death<\/h3>\nIn Moses’ instructions to the Israelites when they were on the cusp of entering the Promised Land, the people were presented with a choice: Obey the covenant—life as God designed it—and live, or refuse to obey the Creator’s design and die (Deut 30:19). This choice—and its ramifications—resounded throughout God’s covenant dealings with his people.<\/p>\nThe specific terminology of Deuteronomy 30 resurfaces in Jeremiah, in the context of the Babylonian invasion: “Take your choice of life or death” (Jer 21:8). The prophet warned King Zedekiah and his people to submit to the Lord’s instruction. If they did, they would live; if not, they would die. Earlier in Jeremiah’s ministry, the Lord confronted the people of Judah with an opportunity to change and come home to him (3:12–4:4). If they rejected idol worship, admitted their guilt, and confessed that they were rebels, God would cleanse their minds and hearts, and they could live peacefully in the land. However, the people scornfully rejected this offer again and again (7:5-7; 18:8-11; 23:22; 26:13; 27:12-13; 29:32; 35:15; 36:3-7; 44:5). So the Lord repeatedly warned them that if they rejected the path of life, they would experience judgment.<\/p>\nIn Jeremiah’s day, only a few chose life; the majority rebelled and experienced death. In the end, the people led by Zedekiah ignored the Lord, defied the Babylonian army, and indeed suffered judgment. They intentionally rejected the gift of life.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nDeut 11:26-29; 30:15-20; Prov 9:1-18; 11:19; 18:21; Isa 1:19-20; Jer 3:12-15; 4:3-4; 7:5-7; 18:7-11; 21:8-9; 23:22; 26:13; 27:12-18; 35:15; 36:3-7; 44:5; Ezek 18:23-24; Rom 6:23; 8:6; Rev 2:10<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Choice of Life or Death<\/h3>\nIn Moses’ instructions to the Israelites when they were on the cusp of entering the Promised Land, the people were presented with a choice: Obey the covenant—life as God designed it—and live, or refuse to obey the Creator’s design and die (Deut 30:19). This choice—and its ramifications—resounded throughout God’s covenant dealings with his people.<\/p>\nThe specific terminology of Deuteronomy 30 resurfaces in Jeremiah, in the context of the Babylonian invasion: “Take your choice of life or death” (Jer 21:8). The prophet warned King Zedekiah and his people to submit to the Lord’s instruction. If they did, they would live; if not, they would die. Earlier in Jeremiah’s ministry, the Lord confronted the people of Judah with an opportunity to change and come home to him (3:12–4:4). If they rejected idol worship, admitted their guilt, and confessed that they were rebels, God would cleanse their minds and hearts, and they could live peacefully in the land. However, the people scornfully rejected this offer again and again (7:5-7; 18:8-11; 23:22; 26:13; 27:12-13; 29:32; 35:15; 36:3-7; 44:5). So the Lord repeatedly warned them that if they rejected the path of life, they would experience judgment.<\/p>\nIn Jeremiah’s day, only a few chose life; the majority rebelled and experienced death. In the end, the people led by Zedekiah ignored the Lord, defied the Babylonian army, and indeed suffered judgment. They intentionally rejected the gift of life.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nDeut 11:26-29; 30:15-20; Prov 9:1-18; 11:19; 18:21; Isa 1:19-20; Jer 3:12-15; 4:3-4; 7:5-7; 18:7-11; 21:8-9; 23:22; 26:13; 27:12-18; 35:15; 36:3-7; 44:5; Ezek 18:23-24; Rom 6:23; 8:6; Rev 2:10<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Choice of Life or Death In Moses’ instructions to the Israelites when they were on the cusp of entering the Promised Land, the people were presented with a choice: Obey the covenant—life as God designed it—and live, or refuse to obey the Creator’s design and die (Deut 30:19). This choice—and its ramifications—resounded throughout God’s covenant dealings with his people. The specific terminology of Deuteronomy 30 resurfaces in Jeremiah, in the context of the Babylonian invasion: “Take your...","summary_en":"The Choice of Life or Death In Moses’ instructions to the Israelites when they were on the cusp of entering the Promised Land, the people were presented with a choice: Obey the covenant—life as God designed it—and live, or refuse to obey the Creator’s design and die (Deut 30:19). This choice—and its ramifications—resounded throughout God’s covenant dealings with his people. The specific terminology of Deuteronomy 30 resurfaces in Jeremiah, in the context of the Babylonian invasion: “Take your...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":91841,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Choice of Life or Death","title_en":"The Choice of Life or Death","content_ro":"<h3>The Choice of Life or Death<\/h3>\nIn Moses’ instructions to the Israelites when they were on the cusp of entering the Promised Land, the people were presented with a choice: Obey the covenant—life as God designed it—and live, or refuse to obey the Creator’s design and die (Deut 30:19). This choice—and its ramifications—resounded throughout God’s covenant dealings with his people.<\/p>\nThe specific terminology of Deuteronomy 30 resurfaces in Jeremiah, in the context of the Babylonian invasion: “Take your choice of life or death” (Jer 21:8). The prophet warned King Zedekiah and his people to submit to the Lord’s instruction. If they did, they would live; if not, they would die. Earlier in Jeremiah’s ministry, the Lord confronted the people of Judah with an opportunity to change and come home to him (3:12–4:4). If they rejected idol worship, admitted their guilt, and confessed that they were rebels, God would cleanse their minds and hearts, and they could live peacefully in the land. However, the people scornfully rejected this offer again and again (7:5-7; 18:8-11; 23:22; 26:13; 27:12-13; 29:32; 35:15; 36:3-7; 44:5). So the Lord repeatedly warned them that if they rejected the path of life, they would experience judgment.<\/p>\nIn Jeremiah’s day, only a few chose life; the majority rebelled and experienced death. In the end, the people led by Zedekiah ignored the Lord, defied the Babylonian army, and indeed suffered judgment. They intentionally rejected the gift of life.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nDeut 11:26-29; 30:15-20; Prov 9:1-18; 11:19; 18:21; Isa 1:19-20; Jer 3:12-15; 4:3-4; 7:5-7; 18:7-11; 21:8-9; 23:22; 26:13; 27:12-18; 35:15; 36:3-7; 44:5; Ezek 18:23-24; Rom 6:23; 8:6; Rev 2:10<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Choice of Life or Death<\/h3>\nIn Moses’ instructions to the Israelites when they were on the cusp of entering the Promised Land, the people were presented with a choice: Obey the covenant—life as God designed it—and live, or refuse to obey the Creator’s design and die (Deut 30:19). This choice—and its ramifications—resounded throughout God’s covenant dealings with his people.<\/p>\nThe specific terminology of Deuteronomy 30 resurfaces in Jeremiah, in the context of the Babylonian invasion: “Take your choice of life or death” (Jer 21:8). The prophet warned King Zedekiah and his people to submit to the Lord’s instruction. If they did, they would live; if not, they would die. Earlier in Jeremiah’s ministry, the Lord confronted the people of Judah with an opportunity to change and come home to him (3:12–4:4). If they rejected idol worship, admitted their guilt, and confessed that they were rebels, God would cleanse their minds and hearts, and they could live peacefully in the land. However, the people scornfully rejected this offer again and again (7:5-7; 18:8-11; 23:22; 26:13; 27:12-13; 29:32; 35:15; 36:3-7; 44:5). So the Lord repeatedly warned them that if they rejected the path of life, they would experience judgment.<\/p>\nIn Jeremiah’s day, only a few chose life; the majority rebelled and experienced death. In the end, the people led by Zedekiah ignored the Lord, defied the Babylonian army, and indeed suffered judgment. They intentionally rejected the gift of life.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nDeut 11:26-29; 30:15-20; Prov 9:1-18; 11:19; 18:21; Isa 1:19-20; Jer 3:12-15; 4:3-4; 7:5-7; 18:7-11; 21:8-9; 23:22; 26:13; 27:12-18; 35:15; 36:3-7; 44:5; Ezek 18:23-24; Rom 6:23; 8:6; Rev 2:10<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Choice of Life or Death In Moses’ instructions to the Israelites when they were on the cusp of entering the Promised Land, the people were presented with a choice: Obey the covenant—life as God designed it—and live, or refuse to obey the Creator’s design and die (Deut 30:19). This choice—and its ramifications—resounded throughout God’s covenant dealings with his people. The specific terminology of Deuteronomy 30 resurfaces in Jeremiah, in the context of the Babylonian invasion: “Take your...","summary_en":"The Choice of Life or Death In Moses’ instructions to the Israelites when they were on the cusp of entering the Promised Land, the people were presented with a choice: Obey the covenant—life as God designed it—and live, or refuse to obey the Creator’s design and die (Deut 30:19). This choice—and its ramifications—resounded throughout God’s covenant dealings with his people. The specific terminology of Deuteronomy 30 resurfaces in Jeremiah, in the context of the Babylonian invasion: “Take your...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":119467,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Choice of Life or Death","title_en":"The Choice of Life or Death","content_ro":"<h3>The Choice of Life or Death<\/h3>\nIn Moses’ instructions to the Israelites when they were on the cusp of entering the Promised Land, the people were presented with a choice: Obey the covenant—life as God designed it—and live, or refuse to obey the Creator’s design and die (Deut 30:19). This choice—and its ramifications—resounded throughout God’s covenant dealings with his people.<\/p>\nThe specific terminology of Deuteronomy 30 resurfaces in Jeremiah, in the context of the Babylonian invasion: “Take your choice of life or death” (Jer 21:8). The prophet warned King Zedekiah and his people to submit to the Lord’s instruction. If they did, they would live; if not, they would die. Earlier in Jeremiah’s ministry, the Lord confronted the people of Judah with an opportunity to change and come home to him (3:12–4:4). If they rejected idol worship, admitted their guilt, and confessed that they were rebels, God would cleanse their minds and hearts, and they could live peacefully in the land. However, the people scornfully rejected this offer again and again (7:5-7; 18:8-11; 23:22; 26:13; 27:12-13; 29:32; 35:15; 36:3-7; 44:5). So the Lord repeatedly warned them that if they rejected the path of life, they would experience judgment.<\/p>\nIn Jeremiah’s day, only a few chose life; the majority rebelled and experienced death. In the end, the people led by Zedekiah ignored the Lord, defied the Babylonian army, and indeed suffered judgment. They intentionally rejected the gift of life.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nDeut 11:26-29; 30:15-20; Prov 9:1-18; 11:19; 18:21; Isa 1:19-20; Jer 3:12-15; 4:3-4; 7:5-7; 18:7-11; 21:8-9; 23:22; 26:13; 27:12-18; 35:15; 36:3-7; 44:5; Ezek 18:23-24; Rom 6:23; 8:6; Rev 2:10<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Choice of Life or Death<\/h3>\nIn Moses’ instructions to the Israelites when they were on the cusp of entering the Promised Land, the people were presented with a choice: Obey the covenant—life as God designed it—and live, or refuse to obey the Creator’s design and die (Deut 30:19). This choice—and its ramifications—resounded throughout God’s covenant dealings with his people.<\/p>\nThe specific terminology of Deuteronomy 30 resurfaces in Jeremiah, in the context of the Babylonian invasion: “Take your choice of life or death” (Jer 21:8). The prophet warned King Zedekiah and his people to submit to the Lord’s instruction. If they did, they would live; if not, they would die. Earlier in Jeremiah’s ministry, the Lord confronted the people of Judah with an opportunity to change and come home to him (3:12–4:4). If they rejected idol worship, admitted their guilt, and confessed that they were rebels, God would cleanse their minds and hearts, and they could live peacefully in the land. However, the people scornfully rejected this offer again and again (7:5-7; 18:8-11; 23:22; 26:13; 27:12-13; 29:32; 35:15; 36:3-7; 44:5). So the Lord repeatedly warned them that if they rejected the path of life, they would experience judgment.<\/p>\nIn Jeremiah’s day, only a few chose life; the majority rebelled and experienced death. In the end, the people led by Zedekiah ignored the Lord, defied the Babylonian army, and indeed suffered judgment. They intentionally rejected the gift of life.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nDeut 11:26-29; 30:15-20; Prov 9:1-18; 11:19; 18:21; Isa 1:19-20; Jer 3:12-15; 4:3-4; 7:5-7; 18:7-11; 21:8-9; 23:22; 26:13; 27:12-18; 35:15; 36:3-7; 44:5; Ezek 18:23-24; Rom 6:23; 8:6; Rev 2:10<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Choice of Life or Death In Moses’ instructions to the Israelites when they were on the cusp of entering the Promised Land, the people were presented with a choice: Obey the covenant—life as God designed it—and live, or refuse to obey the Creator’s design and die (Deut 30:19). This choice—and its ramifications—resounded throughout God’s covenant dealings with his people. The specific terminology of Deuteronomy 30 resurfaces in Jeremiah, in the context of the Babylonian invasion: “Take your...","summary_en":"The Choice of Life or Death In Moses’ instructions to the Israelites when they were on the cusp of entering the Promised Land, the people were presented with a choice: Obey the covenant—life as God designed it—and live, or refuse to obey the Creator’s design and die (Deut 30:19). This choice—and its ramifications—resounded throughout God’s covenant dealings with his people. The specific terminology of Deuteronomy 30 resurfaces in Jeremiah, in the context of the Babylonian invasion: “Take your...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":147093,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Choice of Life or Death","title_en":"The Choice of Life or Death","content_ro":"<h3>The Choice of Life or Death<\/h3>\nIn Moses’ instructions to the Israelites when they were on the cusp of entering the Promised Land, the people were presented with a choice: Obey the covenant—life as God designed it—and live, or refuse to obey the Creator’s design and die (Deut 30:19). This choice—and its ramifications—resounded throughout God’s covenant dealings with his people.<\/p>\nThe specific terminology of Deuteronomy 30 resurfaces in Jeremiah, in the context of the Babylonian invasion: “Take your choice of life or death” (Jer 21:8). The prophet warned King Zedekiah and his people to submit to the Lord’s instruction. If they did, they would live; if not, they would die. Earlier in Jeremiah’s ministry, the Lord confronted the people of Judah with an opportunity to change and come home to him (3:12–4:4). If they rejected idol worship, admitted their guilt, and confessed that they were rebels, God would cleanse their minds and hearts, and they could live peacefully in the land. However, the people scornfully rejected this offer again and again (7:5-7; 18:8-11; 23:22; 26:13; 27:12-13; 29:32; 35:15; 36:3-7; 44:5). So the Lord repeatedly warned them that if they rejected the path of life, they would experience judgment.<\/p>\nIn Jeremiah’s day, only a few chose life; the majority rebelled and experienced death. In the end, the people led by Zedekiah ignored the Lord, defied the Babylonian army, and indeed suffered judgment. They intentionally rejected the gift of life.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nDeut 11:26-29; 30:15-20; Prov 9:1-18; 11:19; 18:21; Isa 1:19-20; Jer 3:12-15; 4:3-4; 7:5-7; 18:7-11; 21:8-9; 23:22; 26:13; 27:12-18; 35:15; 36:3-7; 44:5; Ezek 18:23-24; Rom 6:23; 8:6; Rev 2:10<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Choice of Life or Death<\/h3>\nIn Moses’ instructions to the Israelites when they were on the cusp of entering the Promised Land, the people were presented with a choice: Obey the covenant—life as God designed it—and live, or refuse to obey the Creator’s design and die (Deut 30:19). This choice—and its ramifications—resounded throughout God’s covenant dealings with his people.<\/p>\nThe specific terminology of Deuteronomy 30 resurfaces in Jeremiah, in the context of the Babylonian invasion: “Take your choice of life or death” (Jer 21:8). The prophet warned King Zedekiah and his people to submit to the Lord’s instruction. If they did, they would live; if not, they would die. Earlier in Jeremiah’s ministry, the Lord confronted the people of Judah with an opportunity to change and come home to him (3:12–4:4). If they rejected idol worship, admitted their guilt, and confessed that they were rebels, God would cleanse their minds and hearts, and they could live peacefully in the land. However, the people scornfully rejected this offer again and again (7:5-7; 18:8-11; 23:22; 26:13; 27:12-13; 29:32; 35:15; 36:3-7; 44:5). So the Lord repeatedly warned them that if they rejected the path of life, they would experience judgment.<\/p>\nIn Jeremiah’s day, only a few chose life; the majority rebelled and experienced death. In the end, the people led by Zedekiah ignored the Lord, defied the Babylonian army, and indeed suffered judgment. They intentionally rejected the gift of life.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nDeut 11:26-29; 30:15-20; Prov 9:1-18; 11:19; 18:21; Isa 1:19-20; Jer 3:12-15; 4:3-4; 7:5-7; 18:7-11; 21:8-9; 23:22; 26:13; 27:12-18; 35:15; 36:3-7; 44:5; Ezek 18:23-24; Rom 6:23; 8:6; Rev 2:10<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Choice of Life or Death In Moses’ instructions to the Israelites when they were on the cusp of entering the Promised Land, the people were presented with a choice: Obey the covenant—life as God designed it—and live, or refuse to obey the Creator’s design and die (Deut 30:19). This choice—and its ramifications—resounded throughout God’s covenant dealings with his people. The specific terminology of Deuteronomy 30 resurfaces in Jeremiah, in the context of the Babylonian invasion: “Take your...","summary_en":"The Choice of Life or Death In Moses’ instructions to the Israelites when they were on the cusp of entering the Promised Land, the people were presented with a choice: Obey the covenant—life as God designed it—and live, or refuse to obey the Creator’s design and die (Deut 30:19). This choice—and its ramifications—resounded throughout God’s covenant dealings with his people. The specific terminology of Deuteronomy 30 resurfaces in Jeremiah, in the context of the Babylonian invasion: “Take your...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"6":[{"id":11904,"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>\nIn 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>\nThose 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>\nAs 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>\nAs 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>\nWith 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>\nDuring 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>\nThe 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 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>\nEmphasis 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>\nThe 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>\nIn 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>\nIn 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>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Status of Family Members<\/p>\n• Marital Security<\/p>\n• Position of Children<\/p>\n• The Rights of Children<\/p>\n• Daily Life of the Hebrew Family<\/p>\n• In New Testament Times<\/p>\nStatus of Family Members<\/p>\nFrom 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>\nA 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>\nAn 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>\nDespite 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>\nNevertheless, 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>\nIn 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>\nThe 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>\nThe 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>\nMarital Security<\/p>\nThe 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>\nThe 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>\nIf 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>\nA 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>\nIt 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>\nA 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>\nIf 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>\nThe 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>\nPosition of Children<\/p>\nChildren 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>\nFor 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>\nIn 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>\nThere 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>\nThe Rights of Children<\/p>\nThe 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>\nThe 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>\nIn 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>\nDaily Life of the Hebrew Family<\/p>\nIn 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>\nThe 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>\nThe 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>\nThe 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>\nWith 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>\nA 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>\nAs 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>\nAs 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>\nChildren 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>\nYoung 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>\nMealtimes 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>\nFeast 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>\nDaylight 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>\nIn New Testament Times<\/p>\nBy 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>\nThe 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>\nSee also<\/em> Education; Marriage, Marriage Customs; Sex, Sexuality; Widow; Woman.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>FAMILY LIFE AND RELATIONS<\/h3>\nIn 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>\nThose 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>\nAs 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>\nAs 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>\nWith 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>\nDuring 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>\nThe 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 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>\nEmphasis 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>\nThe 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>\nIn 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>\nIn 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>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Status of Family Members<\/p>\n• Marital Security<\/p>\n• Position of Children<\/p>\n• The Rights of Children<\/p>\n• Daily Life of the Hebrew Family<\/p>\n• In New Testament Times<\/p>\nStatus of Family Members<\/p>\nFrom 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>\nA 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>\nAn 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>\nDespite 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>\nNevertheless, 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>\nIn 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>\nThe 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>\nThe 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>\nMarital Security<\/p>\nThe 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>\nThe 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>\nIf 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>\nA 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>\nIt 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>\nA 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>\nIf 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>\nThe 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>\nPosition of Children<\/p>\nChildren 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>\nFor 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>\nIn 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>\nThere 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>\nThe Rights of Children<\/p>\nThe 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>\nThe 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>\nIn 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>\nDaily Life of the Hebrew Family<\/p>\nIn 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>\nThe 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>\nThe 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>\nThe 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>\nWith 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>\nA 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>\nAs 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>\nAs 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>\nChildren 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>\nYoung 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>\nMealtimes 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>\nFeast 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>\nDaylight 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>\nIn New Testament Times<\/p>\nBy 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>\nThe 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>\nSee 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":28642,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Orphan","title_en":"Orphan","content_ro":"<h3>ORPHAN<\/h3>\nWord coming from a Hebrew root meaning “to be alone” or “bereaved,” often rendered as “fatherless.” The idea describes any person who is without legal standing in the covenant community of Israel, who is unprotected or needy, and who is especially exposed to oppression. It also speaks of one who is bereft of one or both earthly parents (cf. Lam 5:3).<\/p>\nSince God has a special concern for the fatherless (Ex 22:22-24; Dt 10:18; Pss 10:14, 18; 27:10; 68:5; 146:9; Is 1:17; Hos 14:3), OT legislation made special provision for them by protecting their rights of inheritance (Nm 27:7-11; Dt 24:17; Prv 23:10), ensuring their freedom to glean the fields and vineyards (Dt 24:19-21), allowing their participation in the great annual feasts (16:11, 14), and allotting them a portion of the tithe crops collected every three years (14:29; 26:12). Strong condemnation awaits those who oppress them (Dt 24:17; 27:19; Mal 3:5).<\/p>\nWhile the orphans of Israel were sometimes aided by friends and relatives (Jb 29:12; 31:17), there was general failure to meet the requirements of the law, as is witnessed by the accusations of the inspired writers (Jb 6:27; 22:9; 24:3, 9; Ps 94:6; Is 1:23; 10:2; Jer 5:28; Ez 22:7). Consequently, the prophets never tire of pleading the orphan’s cause (Jer 7:6; 22:3; Zec 7:10).<\/p>\nThe word is used only twice in the NT—once in a general sense to describe those who are “desolate” or “comfortless” (Jn 14:18), and once in the specific sense to describe the “fatherless” (Jas 1:27). In the spirit of an OT prophet, James declares that true religion involves the care of orphans.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>ORPHAN<\/h3>\nWord coming from a Hebrew root meaning “to be alone” or “bereaved,” often rendered as “fatherless.” The idea describes any person who is without legal standing in the covenant community of Israel, who is unprotected or needy, and who is especially exposed to oppression. It also speaks of one who is bereft of one or both earthly parents (cf. Lam 5:3).<\/p>\nSince God has a special concern for the fatherless (Ex 22:22-24; Dt 10:18; Pss 10:14, 18; 27:10; 68:5; 146:9; Is 1:17; Hos 14:3), OT legislation made special provision for them by protecting their rights of inheritance (Nm 27:7-11; Dt 24:17; Prv 23:10), ensuring their freedom to glean the fields and vineyards (Dt 24:19-21), allowing their participation in the great annual feasts (16:11, 14), and allotting them a portion of the tithe crops collected every three years (14:29; 26:12). Strong condemnation awaits those who oppress them (Dt 24:17; 27:19; Mal 3:5).<\/p>\nWhile the orphans of Israel were sometimes aided by friends and relatives (Jb 29:12; 31:17), there was general failure to meet the requirements of the law, as is witnessed by the accusations of the inspired writers (Jb 6:27; 22:9; 24:3, 9; Ps 94:6; Is 1:23; 10:2; Jer 5:28; Ez 22:7). Consequently, the prophets never tire of pleading the orphan’s cause (Jer 7:6; 22:3; Zec 7:10).<\/p>\nThe word is used only twice in the NT—once in a general sense to describe those who are “desolate” or “comfortless” (Jn 14:18), and once in the specific sense to describe the “fatherless” (Jas 1:27). In the spirit of an OT prophet, James declares that true religion involves the care of orphans.<\/p>","summary_ro":"ORPHAN Word coming from a Hebrew root meaning “to be alone” or “bereaved,” often rendered as “fatherless.” The idea describes any person who is without legal standing in the covenant community of Israel, who is unprotected or needy, and who is especially exposed to oppression. It also speaks of one who is bereft of one or both earthly parents (cf. Lam 5:3). Since God has a special concern for the fatherless (Ex 22:22-24; Dt 10:18; Pss 10:14, 18; 27:10; 68:5; 146:9; Is 1:17; Hos 14:3), OT legi...","summary_en":"ORPHAN Word coming from a Hebrew root meaning “to be alone” or “bereaved,” often rendered as “fatherless.” The idea describes any person who is without legal standing in the covenant community of Israel, who is unprotected or needy, and who is especially exposed to oppression. It also speaks of one who is bereft of one or both earthly parents (cf. Lam 5:3). Since God has a special concern for the fatherless (Ex 22:22-24; Dt 10:18; Pss 10:14, 18; 27:10; 68:5; 146:9; Is 1:17; Hos 14:3), OT legi...","source":"Articles\/O.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"8":[{"id":52127,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 7:8","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 7:8","content_ro":"7:8-10<\/strong> steal, murder, commit adultery, lie:<\/em> The people’s behavior violated most of the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:3-7, 13-17). • burn incense . . . chant:<\/em> Israel’s relationship with God did not depend on any magical, ritual connection with him. It depended on their keeping the terms of his covenant. The things they were doing violated the terms of that relationship and denied the Lord’s holy character.<\/p>","content_en":"7:8-10<\/strong> steal, murder, commit adultery, lie:<\/em> The people’s behavior violated most of the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:3-7, 13-17). • burn incense . . . chant:<\/em> Israel’s relationship with God did not depend on any magical, ritual connection with him. It depended on their keeping the terms of his covenant. The things they were doing violated the terms of that relationship and denied the Lord’s holy character.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:8-10 steal, murder, commit adultery, lie: The people’s behavior violated most of the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:3-7, 13-17). • burn incense . . . chant: Israel’s relationship with God did not depend on any magical, ritual connection with him. It depended on their keeping the terms of his covenant. The things they were doing violated the terms of that relationship and denied the Lord’s holy character.","summary_en":"7:8-10 steal, murder, commit adultery, lie: The people’s behavior violated most of the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:3-7, 13-17). • burn incense . . . chant: Israel’s relationship with God did not depend on any magical, ritual connection with him. It depended on their keeping the terms of his covenant. The things they were doing violated the terms of that relationship and denied the Lord’s holy character.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":79753,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 7:8","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 7:8","content_ro":"7:8-10<\/strong> steal, murder, commit adultery, lie:<\/em> The people’s behavior violated most of the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:3-7, 13-17). • burn incense . . . chant:<\/em> Israel’s relationship with God did not depend on any magical, ritual connection with him. It depended on their keeping the terms of his covenant. The things they were doing violated the terms of that relationship and denied the Lord’s holy character.<\/p>","content_en":"7:8-10<\/strong> steal, murder, commit adultery, lie:<\/em> The people’s behavior violated most of the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:3-7, 13-17). • burn incense . . . chant:<\/em> Israel’s relationship with God did not depend on any magical, ritual connection with him. It depended on their keeping the terms of his covenant. The things they were doing violated the terms of that relationship and denied the Lord’s holy character.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:8-10 steal, murder, commit adultery, lie: The people’s behavior violated most of the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:3-7, 13-17). • burn incense . . . chant: Israel’s relationship with God did not depend on any magical, ritual connection with him. It depended on their keeping the terms of his covenant. The things they were doing violated the terms of that relationship and denied the Lord’s holy character.","summary_en":"7:8-10 steal, murder, commit adultery, lie: The people’s behavior violated most of the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:3-7, 13-17). • burn incense . . . chant: Israel’s relationship with God did not depend on any magical, ritual connection with him. It depended on their keeping the terms of his covenant. The things they were doing violated the terms of that relationship and denied the Lord’s holy character.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":107379,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 7:8","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 7:8","content_ro":"7:8-10<\/strong> steal, murder, commit adultery, lie:<\/em> The people’s behavior violated most of the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:3-7, 13-17). • burn incense . . . chant:<\/em> Israel’s relationship with God did not depend on any magical, ritual connection with him. It depended on their keeping the terms of his covenant. The things they were doing violated the terms of that relationship and denied the Lord’s holy character.<\/p>","content_en":"7:8-10<\/strong> steal, murder, commit adultery, lie:<\/em> The people’s behavior violated most of the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:3-7, 13-17). • burn incense . . . chant:<\/em> Israel’s relationship with God did not depend on any magical, ritual connection with him. It depended on their keeping the terms of his covenant. The things they were doing violated the terms of that relationship and denied the Lord’s holy character.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:8-10 steal, murder, commit adultery, lie: The people’s behavior violated most of the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:3-7, 13-17). • burn incense . . . chant: Israel’s relationship with God did not depend on any magical, ritual connection with him. It depended on their keeping the terms of his covenant. The things they were doing violated the terms of that relationship and denied the Lord’s holy character.","summary_en":"7:8-10 steal, murder, commit adultery, lie: The people’s behavior violated most of the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:3-7, 13-17). • burn incense . . . chant: Israel’s relationship with God did not depend on any magical, ritual connection with him. It depended on their keeping the terms of his covenant. The things they were doing violated the terms of that relationship and denied the Lord’s holy character.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":135005,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 7:8","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 7:8","content_ro":"7:8-10<\/strong> steal, murder, commit adultery, lie:<\/em> The people’s behavior violated most of the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:3-7, 13-17). • burn incense . . . chant:<\/em> Israel’s relationship with God did not depend on any magical, ritual connection with him. It depended on their keeping the terms of his covenant. The things they were doing violated the terms of that relationship and denied the Lord’s holy character.<\/p>","content_en":"7:8-10<\/strong> steal, murder, commit adultery, lie:<\/em> The people’s behavior violated most of the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:3-7, 13-17). • burn incense . . . chant:<\/em> Israel’s relationship with God did not depend on any magical, ritual connection with him. It depended on their keeping the terms of his covenant. The things they were doing violated the terms of that relationship and denied the Lord’s holy character.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:8-10 steal, murder, commit adultery, lie: The people’s behavior violated most of the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:3-7, 13-17). • burn incense . . . chant: Israel’s relationship with God did not depend on any magical, ritual connection with him. It depended on their keeping the terms of his covenant. The things they were doing violated the terms of that relationship and denied the Lord’s holy character.","summary_en":"7:8-10 steal, murder, commit adultery, lie: The people’s behavior violated most of the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:3-7, 13-17). • burn incense . . . chant: Israel’s relationship with God did not depend on any magical, ritual connection with him. It depended on their keeping the terms of his covenant. The things they were doing violated the terms of that relationship and denied the Lord’s holy character.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"9":[{"id":64237,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Collapse of Culture","title_en":"The Collapse of Culture","content_ro":"<h3>The Collapse of Culture<\/h3>\nImpressive cultures full of creative and skilled people sometimes fall apart suddenly and completely. While digging, archaeologists often find a layer of ash between strata of remarkable artifacts; the ash indicates the destruction of the culture. This is one of the most disturbing aspects of human history.<\/p>\nIsrael’s history is replete with cycles of courage and success followed by disaster. People of God led Israel into new periods of power (Joshua, Samuel, David, Solomon), but the nation repeatedly fell into worshiping deities other than the one true God. Repeatedly, God’s people fell under judgment as their culture disintegrated and their political independence was replaced with servitude and oppression. The northern kingdom of Israel was especially captivated by the idol-worship of Baal and Asherah. As a result, the Lord turned the northern kingdom over to the Assyrians, who demolished it in 722 BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nIn Jeremiah’s time, the collapse of spiritual and political culture was occurring in the southern kingdom of Judah. Some of the nation’s kings, including Josiah, faithfully followed the covenant ban on idol worship and led the people of Judah back to the Lord. However, many other rulers, including Josiah’s sons, did not carry on such reforms. For example, Jehoiakim had no interest in continuing his father’s revival of devotion to the Lord, seeing it as an impediment to his own political power. He was so hardened toward the Lord that he tried to kill Jeremiah, the Lord’s messenger. Zedekiah was more fearful than hardened, but he also refused to return to the Lord.<\/p>\nThe Lord’s messages through Jeremiah contain strong indictments of Judah’s devotion to Baal (2:8; 7:9; 11:13, 17; 12:16; 19:5; 23:13, 27; 32:29, 35) and condemn the immorality that accompanied this idolatry. Judah’s moral depravity and spiritual rottenness—exemplified by its greed, hate, and violence—were exposed for all to see. Despite their stubborn refusal to turn away from idol worship and back to worship of the one true God, the people of Judah hoped that the Lord would work a miracle by defeating the Babylonian army and sending it back home. They thought that the Temple would magically protect them, not understanding that God was disgusted over what they were doing there, which was speeding their destruction rather than protecting them (7:4-15). They were totally unprepared to face the horror of defeat in war and the destruction of their nation, their capital, and their Temple. They were unaware that their spiritual and moral collapse had already made their doom certain.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nJosh 1:1-9; 11:16-23; 1 Sam 4:1-22; 2 Kgs 17:6-18; 23:1–25:30; Jer 7:4-15; 19:1-7; 24:1-10; 28:10-17; Dan 7:1–8:27<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Collapse of Culture<\/h3>\nImpressive cultures full of creative and skilled people sometimes fall apart suddenly and completely. While digging, archaeologists often find a layer of ash between strata of remarkable artifacts; the ash indicates the destruction of the culture. This is one of the most disturbing aspects of human history.<\/p>\nIsrael’s history is replete with cycles of courage and success followed by disaster. People of God led Israel into new periods of power (Joshua, Samuel, David, Solomon), but the nation repeatedly fell into worshiping deities other than the one true God. Repeatedly, God’s people fell under judgment as their culture disintegrated and their political independence was replaced with servitude and oppression. The northern kingdom of Israel was especially captivated by the idol-worship of Baal and Asherah. As a result, the Lord turned the northern kingdom over to the Assyrians, who demolished it in 722 BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nIn Jeremiah’s time, the collapse of spiritual and political culture was occurring in the southern kingdom of Judah. Some of the nation’s kings, including Josiah, faithfully followed the covenant ban on idol worship and led the people of Judah back to the Lord. However, many other rulers, including Josiah’s sons, did not carry on such reforms. For example, Jehoiakim had no interest in continuing his father’s revival of devotion to the Lord, seeing it as an impediment to his own political power. He was so hardened toward the Lord that he tried to kill Jeremiah, the Lord’s messenger. Zedekiah was more fearful than hardened, but he also refused to return to the Lord.<\/p>\nThe Lord’s messages through Jeremiah contain strong indictments of Judah’s devotion to Baal (2:8; 7:9; 11:13, 17; 12:16; 19:5; 23:13, 27; 32:29, 35) and condemn the immorality that accompanied this idolatry. Judah’s moral depravity and spiritual rottenness—exemplified by its greed, hate, and violence—were exposed for all to see. Despite their stubborn refusal to turn away from idol worship and back to worship of the one true God, the people of Judah hoped that the Lord would work a miracle by defeating the Babylonian army and sending it back home. They thought that the Temple would magically protect them, not understanding that God was disgusted over what they were doing there, which was speeding their destruction rather than protecting them (7:4-15). They were totally unprepared to face the horror of defeat in war and the destruction of their nation, their capital, and their Temple. They were unaware that their spiritual and moral collapse had already made their doom certain.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nJosh 1:1-9; 11:16-23; 1 Sam 4:1-22; 2 Kgs 17:6-18; 23:1–25:30; Jer 7:4-15; 19:1-7; 24:1-10; 28:10-17; Dan 7:1–8:27<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Collapse of Culture Impressive cultures full of creative and skilled people sometimes fall apart suddenly and completely. While digging, archaeologists often find a layer of ash between strata of remarkable artifacts; the ash indicates the destruction of the culture. This is one of the most disturbing aspects of human history. Israel’s history is replete with cycles of courage and success followed by disaster. People of God led Israel into new periods of power (Joshua, Samuel, David, Solo...","summary_en":"The Collapse of Culture Impressive cultures full of creative and skilled people sometimes fall apart suddenly and completely. While digging, archaeologists often find a layer of ash between strata of remarkable artifacts; the ash indicates the destruction of the culture. This is one of the most disturbing aspects of human history. Israel’s history is replete with cycles of courage and success followed by disaster. People of God led Israel into new periods of power (Joshua, Samuel, David, Solo...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":91863,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Collapse of Culture","title_en":"The Collapse of Culture","content_ro":"<h3>The Collapse of Culture<\/h3>\nImpressive cultures full of creative and skilled people sometimes fall apart suddenly and completely. While digging, archaeologists often find a layer of ash between strata of remarkable artifacts; the ash indicates the destruction of the culture. This is one of the most disturbing aspects of human history.<\/p>\nIsrael’s history is replete with cycles of courage and success followed by disaster. People of God led Israel into new periods of power (Joshua, Samuel, David, Solomon), but the nation repeatedly fell into worshiping deities other than the one true God. Repeatedly, God’s people fell under judgment as their culture disintegrated and their political independence was replaced with servitude and oppression. The northern kingdom of Israel was especially captivated by the idol-worship of Baal and Asherah. As a result, the Lord turned the northern kingdom over to the Assyrians, who demolished it in 722 BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nIn Jeremiah’s time, the collapse of spiritual and political culture was occurring in the southern kingdom of Judah. Some of the nation’s kings, including Josiah, faithfully followed the covenant ban on idol worship and led the people of Judah back to the Lord. However, many other rulers, including Josiah’s sons, did not carry on such reforms. For example, Jehoiakim had no interest in continuing his father’s revival of devotion to the Lord, seeing it as an impediment to his own political power. He was so hardened toward the Lord that he tried to kill Jeremiah, the Lord’s messenger. Zedekiah was more fearful than hardened, but he also refused to return to the Lord.<\/p>\nThe Lord’s messages through Jeremiah contain strong indictments of Judah’s devotion to Baal (2:8; 7:9; 11:13, 17; 12:16; 19:5; 23:13, 27; 32:29, 35) and condemn the immorality that accompanied this idolatry. Judah’s moral depravity and spiritual rottenness—exemplified by its greed, hate, and violence—were exposed for all to see. Despite their stubborn refusal to turn away from idol worship and back to worship of the one true God, the people of Judah hoped that the Lord would work a miracle by defeating the Babylonian army and sending it back home. They thought that the Temple would magically protect them, not understanding that God was disgusted over what they were doing there, which was speeding their destruction rather than protecting them (7:4-15). They were totally unprepared to face the horror of defeat in war and the destruction of their nation, their capital, and their Temple. They were unaware that their spiritual and moral collapse had already made their doom certain.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nJosh 1:1-9; 11:16-23; 1 Sam 4:1-22; 2 Kgs 17:6-18; 23:1–25:30; Jer 7:4-15; 19:1-7; 24:1-10; 28:10-17; Dan 7:1–8:27<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Collapse of Culture<\/h3>\nImpressive cultures full of creative and skilled people sometimes fall apart suddenly and completely. While digging, archaeologists often find a layer of ash between strata of remarkable artifacts; the ash indicates the destruction of the culture. This is one of the most disturbing aspects of human history.<\/p>\nIsrael’s history is replete with cycles of courage and success followed by disaster. People of God led Israel into new periods of power (Joshua, Samuel, David, Solomon), but the nation repeatedly fell into worshiping deities other than the one true God. Repeatedly, God’s people fell under judgment as their culture disintegrated and their political independence was replaced with servitude and oppression. The northern kingdom of Israel was especially captivated by the idol-worship of Baal and Asherah. As a result, the Lord turned the northern kingdom over to the Assyrians, who demolished it in 722 BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nIn Jeremiah’s time, the collapse of spiritual and political culture was occurring in the southern kingdom of Judah. Some of the nation’s kings, including Josiah, faithfully followed the covenant ban on idol worship and led the people of Judah back to the Lord. However, many other rulers, including Josiah’s sons, did not carry on such reforms. For example, Jehoiakim had no interest in continuing his father’s revival of devotion to the Lord, seeing it as an impediment to his own political power. He was so hardened toward the Lord that he tried to kill Jeremiah, the Lord’s messenger. Zedekiah was more fearful than hardened, but he also refused to return to the Lord.<\/p>\nThe Lord’s messages through Jeremiah contain strong indictments of Judah’s devotion to Baal (2:8; 7:9; 11:13, 17; 12:16; 19:5; 23:13, 27; 32:29, 35) and condemn the immorality that accompanied this idolatry. Judah’s moral depravity and spiritual rottenness—exemplified by its greed, hate, and violence—were exposed for all to see. Despite their stubborn refusal to turn away from idol worship and back to worship of the one true God, the people of Judah hoped that the Lord would work a miracle by defeating the Babylonian army and sending it back home. They thought that the Temple would magically protect them, not understanding that God was disgusted over what they were doing there, which was speeding their destruction rather than protecting them (7:4-15). They were totally unprepared to face the horror of defeat in war and the destruction of their nation, their capital, and their Temple. They were unaware that their spiritual and moral collapse had already made their doom certain.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nJosh 1:1-9; 11:16-23; 1 Sam 4:1-22; 2 Kgs 17:6-18; 23:1–25:30; Jer 7:4-15; 19:1-7; 24:1-10; 28:10-17; Dan 7:1–8:27<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Collapse of Culture Impressive cultures full of creative and skilled people sometimes fall apart suddenly and completely. While digging, archaeologists often find a layer of ash between strata of remarkable artifacts; the ash indicates the destruction of the culture. This is one of the most disturbing aspects of human history. Israel’s history is replete with cycles of courage and success followed by disaster. People of God led Israel into new periods of power (Joshua, Samuel, David, Solo...","summary_en":"The Collapse of Culture Impressive cultures full of creative and skilled people sometimes fall apart suddenly and completely. While digging, archaeologists often find a layer of ash between strata of remarkable artifacts; the ash indicates the destruction of the culture. This is one of the most disturbing aspects of human history. Israel’s history is replete with cycles of courage and success followed by disaster. People of God led Israel into new periods of power (Joshua, Samuel, David, Solo...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":119489,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Collapse of Culture","title_en":"The Collapse of Culture","content_ro":"<h3>The Collapse of Culture<\/h3>\nImpressive cultures full of creative and skilled people sometimes fall apart suddenly and completely. While digging, archaeologists often find a layer of ash between strata of remarkable artifacts; the ash indicates the destruction of the culture. This is one of the most disturbing aspects of human history.<\/p>\nIsrael’s history is replete with cycles of courage and success followed by disaster. People of God led Israel into new periods of power (Joshua, Samuel, David, Solomon), but the nation repeatedly fell into worshiping deities other than the one true God. Repeatedly, God’s people fell under judgment as their culture disintegrated and their political independence was replaced with servitude and oppression. The northern kingdom of Israel was especially captivated by the idol-worship of Baal and Asherah. As a result, the Lord turned the northern kingdom over to the Assyrians, who demolished it in 722 BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nIn Jeremiah’s time, the collapse of spiritual and political culture was occurring in the southern kingdom of Judah. Some of the nation’s kings, including Josiah, faithfully followed the covenant ban on idol worship and led the people of Judah back to the Lord. However, many other rulers, including Josiah’s sons, did not carry on such reforms. For example, Jehoiakim had no interest in continuing his father’s revival of devotion to the Lord, seeing it as an impediment to his own political power. He was so hardened toward the Lord that he tried to kill Jeremiah, the Lord’s messenger. Zedekiah was more fearful than hardened, but he also refused to return to the Lord.<\/p>\nThe Lord’s messages through Jeremiah contain strong indictments of Judah’s devotion to Baal (2:8; 7:9; 11:13, 17; 12:16; 19:5; 23:13, 27; 32:29, 35) and condemn the immorality that accompanied this idolatry. Judah’s moral depravity and spiritual rottenness—exemplified by its greed, hate, and violence—were exposed for all to see. Despite their stubborn refusal to turn away from idol worship and back to worship of the one true God, the people of Judah hoped that the Lord would work a miracle by defeating the Babylonian army and sending it back home. They thought that the Temple would magically protect them, not understanding that God was disgusted over what they were doing there, which was speeding their destruction rather than protecting them (7:4-15). They were totally unprepared to face the horror of defeat in war and the destruction of their nation, their capital, and their Temple. They were unaware that their spiritual and moral collapse had already made their doom certain.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nJosh 1:1-9; 11:16-23; 1 Sam 4:1-22; 2 Kgs 17:6-18; 23:1–25:30; Jer 7:4-15; 19:1-7; 24:1-10; 28:10-17; Dan 7:1–8:27<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Collapse of Culture<\/h3>\nImpressive cultures full of creative and skilled people sometimes fall apart suddenly and completely. While digging, archaeologists often find a layer of ash between strata of remarkable artifacts; the ash indicates the destruction of the culture. This is one of the most disturbing aspects of human history.<\/p>\nIsrael’s history is replete with cycles of courage and success followed by disaster. People of God led Israel into new periods of power (Joshua, Samuel, David, Solomon), but the nation repeatedly fell into worshiping deities other than the one true God. Repeatedly, God’s people fell under judgment as their culture disintegrated and their political independence was replaced with servitude and oppression. The northern kingdom of Israel was especially captivated by the idol-worship of Baal and Asherah. As a result, the Lord turned the northern kingdom over to the Assyrians, who demolished it in 722 BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nIn Jeremiah’s time, the collapse of spiritual and political culture was occurring in the southern kingdom of Judah. Some of the nation’s kings, including Josiah, faithfully followed the covenant ban on idol worship and led the people of Judah back to the Lord. However, many other rulers, including Josiah’s sons, did not carry on such reforms. For example, Jehoiakim had no interest in continuing his father’s revival of devotion to the Lord, seeing it as an impediment to his own political power. He was so hardened toward the Lord that he tried to kill Jeremiah, the Lord’s messenger. Zedekiah was more fearful than hardened, but he also refused to return to the Lord.<\/p>\nThe Lord’s messages through Jeremiah contain strong indictments of Judah’s devotion to Baal (2:8; 7:9; 11:13, 17; 12:16; 19:5; 23:13, 27; 32:29, 35) and condemn the immorality that accompanied this idolatry. Judah’s moral depravity and spiritual rottenness—exemplified by its greed, hate, and violence—were exposed for all to see. Despite their stubborn refusal to turn away from idol worship and back to worship of the one true God, the people of Judah hoped that the Lord would work a miracle by defeating the Babylonian army and sending it back home. They thought that the Temple would magically protect them, not understanding that God was disgusted over what they were doing there, which was speeding their destruction rather than protecting them (7:4-15). They were totally unprepared to face the horror of defeat in war and the destruction of their nation, their capital, and their Temple. They were unaware that their spiritual and moral collapse had already made their doom certain.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nJosh 1:1-9; 11:16-23; 1 Sam 4:1-22; 2 Kgs 17:6-18; 23:1–25:30; Jer 7:4-15; 19:1-7; 24:1-10; 28:10-17; Dan 7:1–8:27<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Collapse of Culture Impressive cultures full of creative and skilled people sometimes fall apart suddenly and completely. While digging, archaeologists often find a layer of ash between strata of remarkable artifacts; the ash indicates the destruction of the culture. This is one of the most disturbing aspects of human history. Israel’s history is replete with cycles of courage and success followed by disaster. People of God led Israel into new periods of power (Joshua, Samuel, David, Solo...","summary_en":"The Collapse of Culture Impressive cultures full of creative and skilled people sometimes fall apart suddenly and completely. While digging, archaeologists often find a layer of ash between strata of remarkable artifacts; the ash indicates the destruction of the culture. This is one of the most disturbing aspects of human history. Israel’s history is replete with cycles of courage and success followed by disaster. People of God led Israel into new periods of power (Joshua, Samuel, David, Solo...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":147115,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Collapse of Culture","title_en":"The Collapse of Culture","content_ro":"<h3>The Collapse of Culture<\/h3>\nImpressive cultures full of creative and skilled people sometimes fall apart suddenly and completely. While digging, archaeologists often find a layer of ash between strata of remarkable artifacts; the ash indicates the destruction of the culture. This is one of the most disturbing aspects of human history.<\/p>\nIsrael’s history is replete with cycles of courage and success followed by disaster. People of God led Israel into new periods of power (Joshua, Samuel, David, Solomon), but the nation repeatedly fell into worshiping deities other than the one true God. Repeatedly, God’s people fell under judgment as their culture disintegrated and their political independence was replaced with servitude and oppression. The northern kingdom of Israel was especially captivated by the idol-worship of Baal and Asherah. As a result, the Lord turned the northern kingdom over to the Assyrians, who demolished it in 722 BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nIn Jeremiah’s time, the collapse of spiritual and political culture was occurring in the southern kingdom of Judah. Some of the nation’s kings, including Josiah, faithfully followed the covenant ban on idol worship and led the people of Judah back to the Lord. However, many other rulers, including Josiah’s sons, did not carry on such reforms. For example, Jehoiakim had no interest in continuing his father’s revival of devotion to the Lord, seeing it as an impediment to his own political power. He was so hardened toward the Lord that he tried to kill Jeremiah, the Lord’s messenger. Zedekiah was more fearful than hardened, but he also refused to return to the Lord.<\/p>\nThe Lord’s messages through Jeremiah contain strong indictments of Judah’s devotion to Baal (2:8; 7:9; 11:13, 17; 12:16; 19:5; 23:13, 27; 32:29, 35) and condemn the immorality that accompanied this idolatry. Judah’s moral depravity and spiritual rottenness—exemplified by its greed, hate, and violence—were exposed for all to see. Despite their stubborn refusal to turn away from idol worship and back to worship of the one true God, the people of Judah hoped that the Lord would work a miracle by defeating the Babylonian army and sending it back home. They thought that the Temple would magically protect them, not understanding that God was disgusted over what they were doing there, which was speeding their destruction rather than protecting them (7:4-15). They were totally unprepared to face the horror of defeat in war and the destruction of their nation, their capital, and their Temple. They were unaware that their spiritual and moral collapse had already made their doom certain.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nJosh 1:1-9; 11:16-23; 1 Sam 4:1-22; 2 Kgs 17:6-18; 23:1–25:30; Jer 7:4-15; 19:1-7; 24:1-10; 28:10-17; Dan 7:1–8:27<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Collapse of Culture<\/h3>\nImpressive cultures full of creative and skilled people sometimes fall apart suddenly and completely. While digging, archaeologists often find a layer of ash between strata of remarkable artifacts; the ash indicates the destruction of the culture. This is one of the most disturbing aspects of human history.<\/p>\nIsrael’s history is replete with cycles of courage and success followed by disaster. People of God led Israel into new periods of power (Joshua, Samuel, David, Solomon), but the nation repeatedly fell into worshiping deities other than the one true God. Repeatedly, God’s people fell under judgment as their culture disintegrated and their political independence was replaced with servitude and oppression. The northern kingdom of Israel was especially captivated by the idol-worship of Baal and Asherah. As a result, the Lord turned the northern kingdom over to the Assyrians, who demolished it in 722 BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nIn Jeremiah’s time, the collapse of spiritual and political culture was occurring in the southern kingdom of Judah. Some of the nation’s kings, including Josiah, faithfully followed the covenant ban on idol worship and led the people of Judah back to the Lord. However, many other rulers, including Josiah’s sons, did not carry on such reforms. For example, Jehoiakim had no interest in continuing his father’s revival of devotion to the Lord, seeing it as an impediment to his own political power. He was so hardened toward the Lord that he tried to kill Jeremiah, the Lord’s messenger. Zedekiah was more fearful than hardened, but he also refused to return to the Lord.<\/p>\nThe Lord’s messages through Jeremiah contain strong indictments of Judah’s devotion to Baal (2:8; 7:9; 11:13, 17; 12:16; 19:5; 23:13, 27; 32:29, 35) and condemn the immorality that accompanied this idolatry. Judah’s moral depravity and spiritual rottenness—exemplified by its greed, hate, and violence—were exposed for all to see. Despite their stubborn refusal to turn away from idol worship and back to worship of the one true God, the people of Judah hoped that the Lord would work a miracle by defeating the Babylonian army and sending it back home. They thought that the Temple would magically protect them, not understanding that God was disgusted over what they were doing there, which was speeding their destruction rather than protecting them (7:4-15). They were totally unprepared to face the horror of defeat in war and the destruction of their nation, their capital, and their Temple. They were unaware that their spiritual and moral collapse had already made their doom certain.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nJosh 1:1-9; 11:16-23; 1 Sam 4:1-22; 2 Kgs 17:6-18; 23:1–25:30; Jer 7:4-15; 19:1-7; 24:1-10; 28:10-17; Dan 7:1–8:27<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Collapse of Culture Impressive cultures full of creative and skilled people sometimes fall apart suddenly and completely. While digging, archaeologists often find a layer of ash between strata of remarkable artifacts; the ash indicates the destruction of the culture. This is one of the most disturbing aspects of human history. Israel’s history is replete with cycles of courage and success followed by disaster. People of God led Israel into new periods of power (Joshua, Samuel, David, Solo...","summary_en":"The Collapse of Culture Impressive cultures full of creative and skilled people sometimes fall apart suddenly and completely. While digging, archaeologists often find a layer of ash between strata of remarkable artifacts; the ash indicates the destruction of the culture. This is one of the most disturbing aspects of human history. Israel’s history is replete with cycles of courage and success followed by disaster. People of God led Israel into new periods of power (Joshua, Samuel, David, Solo...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"10":[{"id":31735,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"False Prophets","title_en":"False Prophets","content_ro":"<h3>PROPHETS, False<\/span><\/h3>\nSpokesmen, heralds, or messengers falsely speaking for, or on behalf of, someone else. The false prophet was often motivated not by loyalty to God but by a desire for popularity. This was the main difference between Jeremiah and his contemporaries. While Jeremiah was foretelling doom (Jer 4:19), the false prophets were assuring the people of peace (6:14; 8:11). The people preferred it that way; they said, “Don’t tell us the truth. Tell us nice things. Tell us lies” (Is 30:10, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nThe false prophet’s message frequently appealed to national pride: Israel was God’s people; God’s temple was in their midst; therefore, all would be well (Jer 7:10). Jeremiah, however, warned them not to be fooled into thinking that just because they had the temple they would never suffer (vv 12-15). Such confrontation between the prophet of God and the national cult is exemplified in Amos’s encounter with Amaziah the priest of Bethel, who accused Amos of conspiring against Israel (Am 7:10-13). Yet Amos was proved right when the northern kingdom fell to the Assyrians in 722 BC<\/span> and the Jews were taken into exile.<\/p>\nThe message of the false prophet was usually spurred by self-interest and given to please the people. It was not necessarily his intention to speak falsely, yet when spoken with wrong motivation, his message was often in error. This sometimes means that even a true prophet could become false and occasionally a false prophet could be used of God for the right purpose. For example, Balaam, a non-Israelite with whom God entrusted a vision, found himself in the difficult position of having to please Balak, who had hired him, and the God of Israel, who spoke to him (Nm 22–23). A fascinating story is told in 1 Kings 13 of two nameless prophets—one true and the other false—who abruptly change roles when the lying prophet speaks truth and the true prophet is proven false by disobedience. In the case of Jeremiah in confrontation with Hananiah the son of Azzur, the two prophets meet in the temple to pitch prophecy against prophecy. Hananiah was proved false, though he appeared as a legitimate prophet from Gibeon (Jer 28:1). He prophesied the very thing the people in Jerusalem wanted to hear, namely, the imminent fall of Babylon. Subsequent events, however, proved this thinking wishful. We may therefore say that false prophecy is self-centered, wrongly motivated, and detached from reality.<\/p>\nThe concept of the false prophet is carried over into the NT. Our Lord warns against those who disguise themselves as harmless sheep but are in fact wolves ready for the kill. Jesus also warned his disciples that false christs would arise who would try to deceive God’s elect (Mt 24:24). The early church must have been plagued by such pseudoprophets, for the apostolic letters further warn against such men (cf. 2 Pt 2:1; 1 Jn 4:1). In the context of these letters “prophets” and “teachers” are interchangeable, though the original text speaks of them as “false prophets.” While pretending to be Christians, they are deceptive teachers because their instruction is perverse. These people even perform miracles, but with the help of evil spirits, not the Spirit of Christ (cf. Rv 13:11-15).<\/p>\nFalse prophets, fraudulent spirits, and wrong teachings are recurring problems in the church. Believers should constantly stand guard against those who cleverly lie about the truth (cf. Eph 4:14-16); they should discern the spirits of prophets to determine whether they are from the evil one or from God (1 Cor 12:10-11). We are told not to believe everyone who claims that his or her message is from God, but to “test” the spirits to see whether their message is from the Holy Spirit and whether it agrees with the truth that Jesus is the Son of God in human form (cf. 1 Jn 4:1-3).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Antichrist; False Christs, False Messiahs; Prophecy; Prophet, Prophetess.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>PROPHETS, False<\/span><\/h3>\nSpokesmen, heralds, or messengers falsely speaking for, or on behalf of, someone else. The false prophet was often motivated not by loyalty to God but by a desire for popularity. This was the main difference between Jeremiah and his contemporaries. While Jeremiah was foretelling doom (Jer 4:19), the false prophets were assuring the people of peace (6:14; 8:11). The people preferred it that way; they said, “Don’t tell us the truth. Tell us nice things. Tell us lies” (Is 30:10, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nThe false prophet’s message frequently appealed to national pride: Israel was God’s people; God’s temple was in their midst; therefore, all would be well (Jer 7:10). Jeremiah, however, warned them not to be fooled into thinking that just because they had the temple they would never suffer (vv 12-15). Such confrontation between the prophet of God and the national cult is exemplified in Amos’s encounter with Amaziah the priest of Bethel, who accused Amos of conspiring against Israel (Am 7:10-13). Yet Amos was proved right when the northern kingdom fell to the Assyrians in 722 BC<\/span> and the Jews were taken into exile.<\/p>\nThe message of the false prophet was usually spurred by self-interest and given to please the people. It was not necessarily his intention to speak falsely, yet when spoken with wrong motivation, his message was often in error. This sometimes means that even a true prophet could become false and occasionally a false prophet could be used of God for the right purpose. For example, Balaam, a non-Israelite with whom God entrusted a vision, found himself in the difficult position of having to please Balak, who had hired him, and the God of Israel, who spoke to him (Nm 22–23). A fascinating story is told in 1 Kings 13 of two nameless prophets—one true and the other false—who abruptly change roles when the lying prophet speaks truth and the true prophet is proven false by disobedience. In the case of Jeremiah in confrontation with Hananiah the son of Azzur, the two prophets meet in the temple to pitch prophecy against prophecy. Hananiah was proved false, though he appeared as a legitimate prophet from Gibeon (Jer 28:1). He prophesied the very thing the people in Jerusalem wanted to hear, namely, the imminent fall of Babylon. Subsequent events, however, proved this thinking wishful. We may therefore say that false prophecy is self-centered, wrongly motivated, and detached from reality.<\/p>\nThe concept of the false prophet is carried over into the NT. Our Lord warns against those who disguise themselves as harmless sheep but are in fact wolves ready for the kill. Jesus also warned his disciples that false christs would arise who would try to deceive God’s elect (Mt 24:24). The early church must have been plagued by such pseudoprophets, for the apostolic letters further warn against such men (cf. 2 Pt 2:1; 1 Jn 4:1). In the context of these letters “prophets” and “teachers” are interchangeable, though the original text speaks of them as “false prophets.” While pretending to be Christians, they are deceptive teachers because their instruction is perverse. These people even perform miracles, but with the help of evil spirits, not the Spirit of Christ (cf. Rv 13:11-15).<\/p>\nFalse prophets, fraudulent spirits, and wrong teachings are recurring problems in the church. Believers should constantly stand guard against those who cleverly lie about the truth (cf. Eph 4:14-16); they should discern the spirits of prophets to determine whether they are from the evil one or from God (1 Cor 12:10-11). We are told not to believe everyone who claims that his or her message is from God, but to “test” the spirits to see whether their message is from the Holy Spirit and whether it agrees with the truth that Jesus is the Son of God in human form (cf. 1 Jn 4:1-3).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Antichrist; False Christs, False Messiahs; Prophecy; Prophet, Prophetess.<\/p>","summary_ro":"PROPHETS, False Spokesmen, heralds, or messengers falsely speaking for, or on behalf of, someone else. The false prophet was often motivated not by loyalty to God but by a desire for popularity. This was the main difference between Jeremiah and his contemporaries. While Jeremiah was foretelling doom (Jer 4:19), the false prophets were assuring the people of peace (6:14; 8:11). The people preferred it that way; they said, “Don’t tell us the truth. Tell us nice things. Tell us lies” (Is 30:10, ...","summary_en":"PROPHETS, False Spokesmen, heralds, or messengers falsely speaking for, or on behalf of, someone else. The false prophet was often motivated not by loyalty to God but by a desire for popularity. This was the main difference between Jeremiah and his contemporaries. While Jeremiah was foretelling doom (Jer 4:19), the false prophets were assuring the people of peace (6:14; 8:11). The people preferred it that way; they said, “Don’t tell us the truth. Tell us nice things. Tell us lies” (Is 30:10, ...","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"11":[{"id":26221,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Money Changer","title_en":"Money Changer","content_ro":"<h3>MONEY CHANGER<\/h3>\nAncient profession that undertook many of the services performed by the modern banker, particularly in the area of exchanging the currency of one country or province into that of another, or of exchanging small coins for coins of greater value or vice versa. Naturally, a fee was charged for such a service.<\/p>\nStandardized coinage as such does not go back beyond the seventh century BC<\/span>. In earlier periods pieces of silver were weighed out in payment for commodities (Gn 20:16; 37:28; Jgs 17:2). Once the standardized coin was adopted in Asia Minor the idea was copied in other lands, but since coins differed from country to country, equivalents had to be worked out by the money changers.<\/p>\nThe need for such procedures was particularly important in Palestine, where every adult male Jew had to pay a half-shekel offering (Ex 30:11-16). Jews from various countries who came to pay this sum might bring a variety of types of coinage. Temple authorities had to authorize a coin appropriate for the purpose. This was the silver Tyrian half-shekel or tetradrachma (cf. Mt 17:27, where Peter was told to pay the temple tax for Jesus and himself with the coin he found in the mouth of a fish). The Mishnah states (Sheqalim<\/em> 1:3) that money changers operated in the provinces on the 15th of the month of Adar (the month before the Passover) to collect this tax. Ten days before the Passover the money changers moved to the temple courts to assist Jews from foreign countries.<\/p>\nJesus encountered the money changers in the temple courtyard when he “cleansed the temple” (Mt 21:12-13; Mk 11:15-16; Lk 19:45-46; Jn 2:13-22). The reason for this action has been a matter of debate. Worshipers needed to procure the half-shekel to pay their tax. But they needed also to purchase birds, animals, or cake offerings in some cases. This wholesale activity in buying and money changing seemed inappropriate in the temple precincts, which constituted a sacred area (cf. Mk 11:16), although Jesus evidently approved the payment of the temple tax as such (Mt 8:4; 17:24-26; Mk 1:44; Lk 5:14). There is also the possibility that the charge made by money changers and by those who sold sacrificial birds and animals was exorbitant, whether for their own profit or for the profit of the temple authorities. Such operations could be carried on at a suitable distance from the sacred area so that the haggling and noise associated with such activities in an Eastern setting did not unnecessarily disturb the prayer and the offering of sacrifices carried on in the temple courts (cf. Jer 7:11).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Coins; Money.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MONEY CHANGER<\/h3>\nAncient profession that undertook many of the services performed by the modern banker, particularly in the area of exchanging the currency of one country or province into that of another, or of exchanging small coins for coins of greater value or vice versa. Naturally, a fee was charged for such a service.<\/p>\nStandardized coinage as such does not go back beyond the seventh century BC<\/span>. In earlier periods pieces of silver were weighed out in payment for commodities (Gn 20:16; 37:28; Jgs 17:2). Once the standardized coin was adopted in Asia Minor the idea was copied in other lands, but since coins differed from country to country, equivalents had to be worked out by the money changers.<\/p>\nThe need for such procedures was particularly important in Palestine, where every adult male Jew had to pay a half-shekel offering (Ex 30:11-16). Jews from various countries who came to pay this sum might bring a variety of types of coinage. Temple authorities had to authorize a coin appropriate for the purpose. This was the silver Tyrian half-shekel or tetradrachma (cf. Mt 17:27, where Peter was told to pay the temple tax for Jesus and himself with the coin he found in the mouth of a fish). The Mishnah states (Sheqalim<\/em> 1:3) that money changers operated in the provinces on the 15th of the month of Adar (the month before the Passover) to collect this tax. Ten days before the Passover the money changers moved to the temple courts to assist Jews from foreign countries.<\/p>\nJesus encountered the money changers in the temple courtyard when he “cleansed the temple” (Mt 21:12-13; Mk 11:15-16; Lk 19:45-46; Jn 2:13-22). The reason for this action has been a matter of debate. Worshipers needed to procure the half-shekel to pay their tax. But they needed also to purchase birds, animals, or cake offerings in some cases. This wholesale activity in buying and money changing seemed inappropriate in the temple precincts, which constituted a sacred area (cf. Mk 11:16), although Jesus evidently approved the payment of the temple tax as such (Mt 8:4; 17:24-26; Mk 1:44; Lk 5:14). There is also the possibility that the charge made by money changers and by those who sold sacrificial birds and animals was exorbitant, whether for their own profit or for the profit of the temple authorities. Such operations could be carried on at a suitable distance from the sacred area so that the haggling and noise associated with such activities in an Eastern setting did not unnecessarily disturb the prayer and the offering of sacrifices carried on in the temple courts (cf. Jer 7:11).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Coins; Money.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MONEY CHANGER Ancient profession that undertook many of the services performed by the modern banker, particularly in the area of exchanging the currency of one country or province into that of another, or of exchanging small coins for coins of greater value or vice versa. Naturally, a fee was charged for such a service. Standardized coinage as such does not go back beyond the seventh century BC. In earlier periods pieces of silver were weighed out in payment for commodities (Gn 20:16; 37:28; ...","summary_en":"MONEY CHANGER Ancient profession that undertook many of the services performed by the modern banker, particularly in the area of exchanging the currency of one country or province into that of another, or of exchanging small coins for coins of greater value or vice versa. Naturally, a fee was charged for such a service. Standardized coinage as such does not go back beyond the seventh century BC. In earlier periods pieces of silver were weighed out in payment for commodities (Gn 20:16; 37:28; ...","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":52128,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 7:11","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 7:11","content_ro":"7:11<\/strong> a den of thieves:<\/em> See 5:29-31; Matt 21:13; Mark 11:17; Luke 19:46.<\/p>","content_en":"7:11<\/strong> a den of thieves:<\/em> See 5:29-31; Matt 21:13; Mark 11:17; Luke 19:46.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:11 a den of thieves: See 5:29-31; Matt 21:13; Mark 11:17; Luke 19:46.","summary_en":"7:11 a den of thieves: See 5:29-31; Matt 21:13; Mark 11:17; Luke 19:46.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":79754,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 7:11","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 7:11","content_ro":"7:11<\/strong> a den of thieves:<\/em> See 5:29-31; Matt 21:13; Mark 11:17; Luke 19:46.<\/p>","content_en":"7:11<\/strong> a den of thieves:<\/em> See 5:29-31; Matt 21:13; Mark 11:17; Luke 19:46.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:11 a den of thieves: See 5:29-31; Matt 21:13; Mark 11:17; Luke 19:46.","summary_en":"7:11 a den of thieves: See 5:29-31; Matt 21:13; Mark 11:17; Luke 19:46.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":107380,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 7:11","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 7:11","content_ro":"7:11<\/strong> a den of thieves:<\/em> See 5:29-31; Matt 21:13; Mark 11:17; Luke 19:46.<\/p>","content_en":"7:11<\/strong> a den of thieves:<\/em> See 5:29-31; Matt 21:13; Mark 11:17; Luke 19:46.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:11 a den of thieves: See 5:29-31; Matt 21:13; Mark 11:17; Luke 19:46.","summary_en":"7:11 a den of thieves: See 5:29-31; Matt 21:13; Mark 11:17; Luke 19:46.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":135006,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 7:11","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 7:11","content_ro":"7:11<\/strong> a den of thieves:<\/em> See 5:29-31; Matt 21:13; Mark 11:17; Luke 19:46.<\/p>","content_en":"7:11<\/strong> a den of thieves:<\/em> See 5:29-31; Matt 21:13; Mark 11:17; Luke 19:46.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:11 a den of thieves: See 5:29-31; Matt 21:13; Mark 11:17; Luke 19:46.","summary_en":"7:11 a den of thieves: See 5:29-31; Matt 21:13; Mark 11:17; Luke 19:46.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"12":[{"id":31736,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"False Prophets","title_en":"False Prophets","content_ro":"<h3>PROPHETS, False<\/span><\/h3>\nSpokesmen, heralds, or messengers falsely speaking for, or on behalf of, someone else. The false prophet was often motivated not by loyalty to God but by a desire for popularity. This was the main difference between Jeremiah and his contemporaries. While Jeremiah was foretelling doom (Jer 4:19), the false prophets were assuring the people of peace (6:14; 8:11). The people preferred it that way; they said, “Don’t tell us the truth. Tell us nice things. Tell us lies” (Is 30:10, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nThe false prophet’s message frequently appealed to national pride: Israel was God’s people; God’s temple was in their midst; therefore, all would be well (Jer 7:10). Jeremiah, however, warned them not to be fooled into thinking that just because they had the temple they would never suffer (vv 12-15). Such confrontation between the prophet of God and the national cult is exemplified in Amos’s encounter with Amaziah the priest of Bethel, who accused Amos of conspiring against Israel (Am 7:10-13). Yet Amos was proved right when the northern kingdom fell to the Assyrians in 722 BC<\/span> and the Jews were taken into exile.<\/p>\nThe message of the false prophet was usually spurred by self-interest and given to please the people. It was not necessarily his intention to speak falsely, yet when spoken with wrong motivation, his message was often in error. This sometimes means that even a true prophet could become false and occasionally a false prophet could be used of God for the right purpose. For example, Balaam, a non-Israelite with whom God entrusted a vision, found himself in the difficult position of having to please Balak, who had hired him, and the God of Israel, who spoke to him (Nm 22–23). A fascinating story is told in 1 Kings 13 of two nameless prophets—one true and the other false—who abruptly change roles when the lying prophet speaks truth and the true prophet is proven false by disobedience. In the case of Jeremiah in confrontation with Hananiah the son of Azzur, the two prophets meet in the temple to pitch prophecy against prophecy. Hananiah was proved false, though he appeared as a legitimate prophet from Gibeon (Jer 28:1). He prophesied the very thing the people in Jerusalem wanted to hear, namely, the imminent fall of Babylon. Subsequent events, however, proved this thinking wishful. We may therefore say that false prophecy is self-centered, wrongly motivated, and detached from reality.<\/p>\nThe concept of the false prophet is carried over into the NT. Our Lord warns against those who disguise themselves as harmless sheep but are in fact wolves ready for the kill. Jesus also warned his disciples that false christs would arise who would try to deceive God’s elect (Mt 24:24). The early church must have been plagued by such pseudoprophets, for the apostolic letters further warn against such men (cf. 2 Pt 2:1; 1 Jn 4:1). In the context of these letters “prophets” and “teachers” are interchangeable, though the original text speaks of them as “false prophets.” While pretending to be Christians, they are deceptive teachers because their instruction is perverse. These people even perform miracles, but with the help of evil spirits, not the Spirit of Christ (cf. Rv 13:11-15).<\/p>\nFalse prophets, fraudulent spirits, and wrong teachings are recurring problems in the church. Believers should constantly stand guard against those who cleverly lie about the truth (cf. Eph 4:14-16); they should discern the spirits of prophets to determine whether they are from the evil one or from God (1 Cor 12:10-11). We are told not to believe everyone who claims that his or her message is from God, but to “test” the spirits to see whether their message is from the Holy Spirit and whether it agrees with the truth that Jesus is the Son of God in human form (cf. 1 Jn 4:1-3).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Antichrist; False Christs, False Messiahs; Prophecy; Prophet, Prophetess.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>PROPHETS, False<\/span><\/h3>\nSpokesmen, heralds, or messengers falsely speaking for, or on behalf of, someone else. The false prophet was often motivated not by loyalty to God but by a desire for popularity. This was the main difference between Jeremiah and his contemporaries. While Jeremiah was foretelling doom (Jer 4:19), the false prophets were assuring the people of peace (6:14; 8:11). The people preferred it that way; they said, “Don’t tell us the truth. Tell us nice things. Tell us lies” (Is 30:10, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nThe false prophet’s message frequently appealed to national pride: Israel was God’s people; God’s temple was in their midst; therefore, all would be well (Jer 7:10). Jeremiah, however, warned them not to be fooled into thinking that just because they had the temple they would never suffer (vv 12-15). Such confrontation between the prophet of God and the national cult is exemplified in Amos’s encounter with Amaziah the priest of Bethel, who accused Amos of conspiring against Israel (Am 7:10-13). Yet Amos was proved right when the northern kingdom fell to the Assyrians in 722 BC<\/span> and the Jews were taken into exile.<\/p>\nThe message of the false prophet was usually spurred by self-interest and given to please the people. It was not necessarily his intention to speak falsely, yet when spoken with wrong motivation, his message was often in error. This sometimes means that even a true prophet could become false and occasionally a false prophet could be used of God for the right purpose. For example, Balaam, a non-Israelite with whom God entrusted a vision, found himself in the difficult position of having to please Balak, who had hired him, and the God of Israel, who spoke to him (Nm 22–23). A fascinating story is told in 1 Kings 13 of two nameless prophets—one true and the other false—who abruptly change roles when the lying prophet speaks truth and the true prophet is proven false by disobedience. In the case of Jeremiah in confrontation with Hananiah the son of Azzur, the two prophets meet in the temple to pitch prophecy against prophecy. Hananiah was proved false, though he appeared as a legitimate prophet from Gibeon (Jer 28:1). He prophesied the very thing the people in Jerusalem wanted to hear, namely, the imminent fall of Babylon. Subsequent events, however, proved this thinking wishful. We may therefore say that false prophecy is self-centered, wrongly motivated, and detached from reality.<\/p>\nThe concept of the false prophet is carried over into the NT. Our Lord warns against those who disguise themselves as harmless sheep but are in fact wolves ready for the kill. Jesus also warned his disciples that false christs would arise who would try to deceive God’s elect (Mt 24:24). The early church must have been plagued by such pseudoprophets, for the apostolic letters further warn against such men (cf. 2 Pt 2:1; 1 Jn 4:1). In the context of these letters “prophets” and “teachers” are interchangeable, though the original text speaks of them as “false prophets.” While pretending to be Christians, they are deceptive teachers because their instruction is perverse. These people even perform miracles, but with the help of evil spirits, not the Spirit of Christ (cf. Rv 13:11-15).<\/p>\nFalse prophets, fraudulent spirits, and wrong teachings are recurring problems in the church. Believers should constantly stand guard against those who cleverly lie about the truth (cf. Eph 4:14-16); they should discern the spirits of prophets to determine whether they are from the evil one or from God (1 Cor 12:10-11). We are told not to believe everyone who claims that his or her message is from God, but to “test” the spirits to see whether their message is from the Holy Spirit and whether it agrees with the truth that Jesus is the Son of God in human form (cf. 1 Jn 4:1-3).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Antichrist; False Christs, False Messiahs; Prophecy; Prophet, Prophetess.<\/p>","summary_ro":"PROPHETS, False Spokesmen, heralds, or messengers falsely speaking for, or on behalf of, someone else. The false prophet was often motivated not by loyalty to God but by a desire for popularity. This was the main difference between Jeremiah and his contemporaries. While Jeremiah was foretelling doom (Jer 4:19), the false prophets were assuring the people of peace (6:14; 8:11). The people preferred it that way; they said, “Don’t tell us the truth. Tell us nice things. Tell us lies” (Is 30:10, ...","summary_en":"PROPHETS, False Spokesmen, heralds, or messengers falsely speaking for, or on behalf of, someone else. The false prophet was often motivated not by loyalty to God but by a desire for popularity. This was the main difference between Jeremiah and his contemporaries. While Jeremiah was foretelling doom (Jer 4:19), the false prophets were assuring the people of peace (6:14; 8:11). The people preferred it that way; they said, “Don’t tell us the truth. Tell us nice things. Tell us lies” (Is 30:10, ...","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":33718,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Samuel (Person)","title_en":"Samuel (Person)","content_ro":"<h3>SAMUEL (Person<\/span>)<\/h3>\nLast of the judges, his name means “name of God” or “his name is El” (El is the name of the God of strength and power). The play on words in 1 Samuel 1:20 (cf. Ex 2:10) is not intended to be an explanation of the meaning of Samuel’s name; Hannah’s words recall only her prayer and the circumstances surrounding her son’s birth.<\/p>\nPersonal History<\/p>\nSamuel’s parents were a devout couple who went annually to the sanctuary at Shiloh (1 Sm 1:3). His father, Elkanah, was a Levite (1 Chr 6:26) and a resident in Ramah, territory of Ephraim. His mother, Hannah, was unable to bear children early in their marriage. Elkanah had a second wife, Peninnah.<\/p>\nOn a visit to Shiloh, Hannah prayed in the sanctuary (1 Sm 1:6-11), vowing that, if the Lord would give her a son, she would dedicate him as a Nazirite (Nm 6:1-21) to God’s service for life. The Lord heard Hannah’s prayer and granted her request. She had no other children until after Samuel’s dedication.<\/p>\nWhen Samuel was presented to Eli and began his service in the sanctuary, he bowed before the Lord and “worshiped the Lord<\/span> there” (1 Sm 1:28). Three ingredients—a feeling of worth, a knowledge of his parents’ love (cf. 2:19), and a sense of purpose—laid the foundation of his personality and his future accomplishments.<\/p>\nFurther proof of Samuel’s valuable early training is evidenced in 1 Samuel 2. Eli’s sons had followed the licentious practices of the pagan religions about them. Eli was old, indulgent, and powerless to restrain them. Samuel neither developed irreverence for Eli nor followed his sons in the path of evil. God determined to judge Eli and his house for their sins. When God announced his purpose to Samuel, Samuel responded with reverence and respect. His personal and spiritual growth indicated that he had been marked out as a future prophet of the Lord.<\/p>\n When everyone did what was right in his or her own eyes (cf. Jgs 17:6; 21:25), God allowed an adjacent nation to serve as his instrument to chasten his people, until a judge arose to deliver them. When the Philistines again invaded the land (1 Sm 4–6), the Israelites mustered their army at Ebenezer, only to be defeated. Believing that the ark of the covenant would guarantee success, they sent to Shiloh for it. The next day the Israelites were again defeated and the ark captured. When this news reached Eli, he fell from his stool and died.<\/p>\nTwenty years elapsed before Samuel’s name is mentioned again (1 Sm 7:2-3). Evidently, following the destruction of Shiloh (cf. Jer 7:12-14; 26:6, 9; Ps 78:60), he lived in Ramah and went on annual preaching missions that included Bethel, Gilgal, and Mizpah, “judging” the people in these places (cf. Dt 16:18-22; 17:8-13). Samuel probably also founded “schools of the prophets” during this period. Schools were established at Bethel (1 Sm 10:5; 2 Kgs 2:3), Gilgal (2 Kgs 4:38), Ramah (1 Sm 19:20), and elsewhere (2 Kgs 2:5), perhaps as a natural outgrowth of Samuel’s ministry.<\/p>\nAfter a 20-year ministry, Samuel thought it timely to move toward spiritual and national unification. He convened a meeting at Mizpah (1 Sm 7). There, with a symbolic rite expressive of deep humiliation and in keeping with the libations of a treaty, the Israelites poured out water on the ground, fasted, and prayed.<\/p>\nThe Philistines mistook the nature of the convocation and decided to attack the defenseless worshipers, who entreated Samuel to pray for them. He offered a sacrifice and the Lord sent a violent thunderstorm, causing the invaders to flee in panic. The pursuing Israelites won a significant victory at Ebenezer (1 Sm 7:12).<\/p>\nIn Samuel’s declining years, the elders rejected his leadership in favor of a king (1 Sm 8). Following earnest prayer, he received new direction from the Lord, acceded to their request, and later anointed Saul prince over God’s people. Samuel then summoned the Israelites to Mizpah, where God’s choice was made official, and Saul was hailed as king. Following Saul’s victory over Nahash (ch 11), Samuel at Gilgal confirmed Saul’s kingship. Thereafter, Samuel retired to Ramah to train men to carry on his ministry.<\/p>\nSamuel twice had to reprove Saul, first for impatience and disobedience (1 Sm 13:5-14), and then for disobeying the express command of the Lord (15:20-23), who rejected him as king. Samuel was then sent to the home of Jesse in Bethlehem, where he anointed David as the chosen one of the Lord (16:1-13).<\/p>\nIn 1 Samuel 25:1 is a brief account of Samuel’s passing, when all Israel gathered together and mourned for him. He was buried in Ramah. The only subsequent mention of Samuel is in 1 Samuel 28. Summoned by the witch of Endor at Saul’s request, Samuel announced that on the following day Saul and his sons would die in battle (vv 4-19).<\/p>\nCharacter<\/p>\nSamuel overcame many problems through piety, perseverance, and dedication to the service of the Lord. His overriding concern was for the good of his people. Wise and courageous, he boldly rebuked king, elders, and people when necessary, always from the sure ground of the revealed will of God.<\/p>\nWhile Samuel served as judge and priest, he was preeminently a prophet. Through his ministry the spiritual life of the Israelites improved. In inaugurating the monarchy, he led the people from tribal disunity to national solidarity. He appointed gatekeepers to the tent of meeting (1 Chr 9:17-26), organized observance of the Passover so memorably that it was still spoken about in Josiah’s day (2 Chr 35:18), put into writing how a king and his kingdom should be (1 Sm 10:25), and penned “The Chronicles of Samuel the Seer” (1 Chr 29:29).<\/p>\nSamuel well deserves a place among the great men of faith (Heb 11:32). He was the last of the judges (1 Sm 7:6, 15-17) and the first of the prophets (1 Sm 3:20; Acts 3:24; 13:20).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Samuel, Books of First and Second.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SAMUEL (Person<\/span>)<\/h3>\nLast of the judges, his name means “name of God” or “his name is El” (El is the name of the God of strength and power). The play on words in 1 Samuel 1:20 (cf. Ex 2:10) is not intended to be an explanation of the meaning of Samuel’s name; Hannah’s words recall only her prayer and the circumstances surrounding her son’s birth.<\/p>\nPersonal History<\/p>\nSamuel’s parents were a devout couple who went annually to the sanctuary at Shiloh (1 Sm 1:3). His father, Elkanah, was a Levite (1 Chr 6:26) and a resident in Ramah, territory of Ephraim. His mother, Hannah, was unable to bear children early in their marriage. Elkanah had a second wife, Peninnah.<\/p>\nOn a visit to Shiloh, Hannah prayed in the sanctuary (1 Sm 1:6-11), vowing that, if the Lord would give her a son, she would dedicate him as a Nazirite (Nm 6:1-21) to God’s service for life. The Lord heard Hannah’s prayer and granted her request. She had no other children until after Samuel’s dedication.<\/p>\nWhen Samuel was presented to Eli and began his service in the sanctuary, he bowed before the Lord and “worshiped the Lord<\/span> there” (1 Sm 1:28). Three ingredients—a feeling of worth, a knowledge of his parents’ love (cf. 2:19), and a sense of purpose—laid the foundation of his personality and his future accomplishments.<\/p>\nFurther proof of Samuel’s valuable early training is evidenced in 1 Samuel 2. Eli’s sons had followed the licentious practices of the pagan religions about them. Eli was old, indulgent, and powerless to restrain them. Samuel neither developed irreverence for Eli nor followed his sons in the path of evil. God determined to judge Eli and his house for their sins. When God announced his purpose to Samuel, Samuel responded with reverence and respect. His personal and spiritual growth indicated that he had been marked out as a future prophet of the Lord.<\/p>\n When everyone did what was right in his or her own eyes (cf. Jgs 17:6; 21:25), God allowed an adjacent nation to serve as his instrument to chasten his people, until a judge arose to deliver them. When the Philistines again invaded the land (1 Sm 4–6), the Israelites mustered their army at Ebenezer, only to be defeated. Believing that the ark of the covenant would guarantee success, they sent to Shiloh for it. The next day the Israelites were again defeated and the ark captured. When this news reached Eli, he fell from his stool and died.<\/p>\nTwenty years elapsed before Samuel’s name is mentioned again (1 Sm 7:2-3). Evidently, following the destruction of Shiloh (cf. Jer 7:12-14; 26:6, 9; Ps 78:60), he lived in Ramah and went on annual preaching missions that included Bethel, Gilgal, and Mizpah, “judging” the people in these places (cf. Dt 16:18-22; 17:8-13). Samuel probably also founded “schools of the prophets” during this period. Schools were established at Bethel (1 Sm 10:5; 2 Kgs 2:3), Gilgal (2 Kgs 4:38), Ramah (1 Sm 19:20), and elsewhere (2 Kgs 2:5), perhaps as a natural outgrowth of Samuel’s ministry.<\/p>\nAfter a 20-year ministry, Samuel thought it timely to move toward spiritual and national unification. He convened a meeting at Mizpah (1 Sm 7). There, with a symbolic rite expressive of deep humiliation and in keeping with the libations of a treaty, the Israelites poured out water on the ground, fasted, and prayed.<\/p>\nThe Philistines mistook the nature of the convocation and decided to attack the defenseless worshipers, who entreated Samuel to pray for them. He offered a sacrifice and the Lord sent a violent thunderstorm, causing the invaders to flee in panic. The pursuing Israelites won a significant victory at Ebenezer (1 Sm 7:12).<\/p>\nIn Samuel’s declining years, the elders rejected his leadership in favor of a king (1 Sm 8). Following earnest prayer, he received new direction from the Lord, acceded to their request, and later anointed Saul prince over God’s people. Samuel then summoned the Israelites to Mizpah, where God’s choice was made official, and Saul was hailed as king. Following Saul’s victory over Nahash (ch 11), Samuel at Gilgal confirmed Saul’s kingship. Thereafter, Samuel retired to Ramah to train men to carry on his ministry.<\/p>\nSamuel twice had to reprove Saul, first for impatience and disobedience (1 Sm 13:5-14), and then for disobeying the express command of the Lord (15:20-23), who rejected him as king. Samuel was then sent to the home of Jesse in Bethlehem, where he anointed David as the chosen one of the Lord (16:1-13).<\/p>\nIn 1 Samuel 25:1 is a brief account of Samuel’s passing, when all Israel gathered together and mourned for him. He was buried in Ramah. The only subsequent mention of Samuel is in 1 Samuel 28. Summoned by the witch of Endor at Saul’s request, Samuel announced that on the following day Saul and his sons would die in battle (vv 4-19).<\/p>\nCharacter<\/p>\nSamuel overcame many problems through piety, perseverance, and dedication to the service of the Lord. His overriding concern was for the good of his people. Wise and courageous, he boldly rebuked king, elders, and people when necessary, always from the sure ground of the revealed will of God.<\/p>\nWhile Samuel served as judge and priest, he was preeminently a prophet. Through his ministry the spiritual life of the Israelites improved. In inaugurating the monarchy, he led the people from tribal disunity to national solidarity. He appointed gatekeepers to the tent of meeting (1 Chr 9:17-26), organized observance of the Passover so memorably that it was still spoken about in Josiah’s day (2 Chr 35:18), put into writing how a king and his kingdom should be (1 Sm 10:25), and penned “The Chronicles of Samuel the Seer” (1 Chr 29:29).<\/p>\nSamuel well deserves a place among the great men of faith (Heb 11:32). He was the last of the judges (1 Sm 7:6, 15-17) and the first of the prophets (1 Sm 3:20; Acts 3:24; 13:20).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Samuel, Books of First and Second.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SAMUEL (Person) Last of the judges, his name means “name of God” or “his name is El” (El is the name of the God of strength and power). The play on words in 1 Samuel 1:20 (cf. Ex 2:10) is not intended to be an explanation of the meaning of Samuel’s name; Hannah’s words recall only her prayer and the circumstances surrounding her son’s birth. Personal History Samuel’s parents were a devout couple who went annually to the sanctuary at Shiloh (1 Sm 1:3). His father, Elkanah, was a Levite (1 Chr ...","summary_en":"SAMUEL (Person) Last of the judges, his name means “name of God” or “his name is El” (El is the name of the God of strength and power). The play on words in 1 Samuel 1:20 (cf. Ex 2:10) is not intended to be an explanation of the meaning of Samuel’s name; Hannah’s words recall only her prayer and the circumstances surrounding her son’s birth. Personal History Samuel’s parents were a devout couple who went annually to the sanctuary at Shiloh (1 Sm 1:3). His father, Elkanah, was a Levite (1 Chr ...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":52129,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 7:12","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 7:12","content_ro":"7:12-15<\/strong> God had allowed the Philistines to capture the Ark of the Covenant and destroy the Tabernacle at Shiloh when the people tried to use the Ark as a magical talisman (1 Sam 4:1-11). In the same way, he would allow the Babylonians to destroy the Temple.<\/p>","content_en":"7:12-15<\/strong> God had allowed the Philistines to capture the Ark of the Covenant and destroy the Tabernacle at Shiloh when the people tried to use the Ark as a magical talisman (1 Sam 4:1-11). In the same way, he would allow the Babylonians to destroy the Temple.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:12-15 God had allowed the Philistines to capture the Ark of the Covenant and destroy the Tabernacle at Shiloh when the people tried to use the Ark as a magical talisman (1 Sam 4:1-11). In the same way, he would allow the Babylonians to destroy the Temple.","summary_en":"7:12-15 God had allowed the Philistines to capture the Ark of the Covenant and destroy the Tabernacle at Shiloh when the people tried to use the Ark as a magical talisman (1 Sam 4:1-11). In the same way, he would allow the Babylonians to destroy the Temple.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":52130,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 7:12","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 7:12","content_ro":"7:12<\/strong> Shiloh<\/em> was a hill located halfway between Shechem and Jerusalem. The Tabernacle<\/em> had been set up there after the conquest of Canaan led by Joshua (Josh 18:1, 6-19; Judg 18:31). It remained the center of worship for the tribes of Israel until Shiloh was destroyed about 1045 BC<\/span> by the Philistine army (see Jer 26:6; Ps 78:60).<\/p>","content_en":"7:12<\/strong> Shiloh<\/em> was a hill located halfway between Shechem and Jerusalem. The Tabernacle<\/em> had been set up there after the conquest of Canaan led by Joshua (Josh 18:1, 6-19; Judg 18:31). It remained the center of worship for the tribes of Israel until Shiloh was destroyed about 1045 BC<\/span> by the Philistine army (see Jer 26:6; Ps 78:60).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:12 Shiloh was a hill located halfway between Shechem and Jerusalem. The Tabernacle had been set up there after the conquest of Canaan led by Joshua (Josh 18:1, 6-19; Judg 18:31). It remained the center of worship for the tribes of Israel until Shiloh was destroyed about 1045 BC by the Philistine army (see Jer 26:6; Ps 78:60).","summary_en":"7:12 Shiloh was a hill located halfway between Shechem and Jerusalem. The Tabernacle had been set up there after the conquest of Canaan led by Joshua (Josh 18:1, 6-19; Judg 18:31). It remained the center of worship for the tribes of Israel until Shiloh was destroyed about 1045 BC by the Philistine army (see Jer 26:6; Ps 78:60).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":79755,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 7:12","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 7:12","content_ro":"7:12-15<\/strong> God had allowed the Philistines to capture the Ark of the Covenant and destroy the Tabernacle at Shiloh when the people tried to use the Ark as a magical talisman (1 Sam 4:1-11). In the same way, he would allow the Babylonians to destroy the Temple.<\/p>","content_en":"7:12-15<\/strong> God had allowed the Philistines to capture the Ark of the Covenant and destroy the Tabernacle at Shiloh when the people tried to use the Ark as a magical talisman (1 Sam 4:1-11). In the same way, he would allow the Babylonians to destroy the Temple.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:12-15 God had allowed the Philistines to capture the Ark of the Covenant and destroy the Tabernacle at Shiloh when the people tried to use the Ark as a magical talisman (1 Sam 4:1-11). In the same way, he would allow the Babylonians to destroy the Temple.","summary_en":"7:12-15 God had allowed the Philistines to capture the Ark of the Covenant and destroy the Tabernacle at Shiloh when the people tried to use the Ark as a magical talisman (1 Sam 4:1-11). In the same way, he would allow the Babylonians to destroy the Temple.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":79756,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 7:12","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 7:12","content_ro":"7:12<\/strong> Shiloh<\/em> was a hill located halfway between Shechem and Jerusalem. The Tabernacle<\/em> had been set up there after the conquest of Canaan led by Joshua (Josh 18:1, 6-19; Judg 18:31). It remained the center of worship for the tribes of Israel until Shiloh was destroyed about 1045 BC<\/span> by the Philistine army (see Jer 26:6; Ps 78:60).<\/p>","content_en":"7:12<\/strong> Shiloh<\/em> was a hill located halfway between Shechem and Jerusalem. The Tabernacle<\/em> had been set up there after the conquest of Canaan led by Joshua (Josh 18:1, 6-19; Judg 18:31). It remained the center of worship for the tribes of Israel until Shiloh was destroyed about 1045 BC<\/span> by the Philistine army (see Jer 26:6; Ps 78:60).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:12 Shiloh was a hill located halfway between Shechem and Jerusalem. The Tabernacle had been set up there after the conquest of Canaan led by Joshua (Josh 18:1, 6-19; Judg 18:31). It remained the center of worship for the tribes of Israel until Shiloh was destroyed about 1045 BC by the Philistine army (see Jer 26:6; Ps 78:60).","summary_en":"7:12 Shiloh was a hill located halfway between Shechem and Jerusalem. The Tabernacle had been set up there after the conquest of Canaan led by Joshua (Josh 18:1, 6-19; Judg 18:31). It remained the center of worship for the tribes of Israel until Shiloh was destroyed about 1045 BC by the Philistine army (see Jer 26:6; Ps 78:60).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":107381,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 7:12","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 7:12","content_ro":"7:12-15<\/strong> God had allowed the Philistines to capture the Ark of the Covenant and destroy the Tabernacle at Shiloh when the people tried to use the Ark as a magical talisman (1 Sam 4:1-11). In the same way, he would allow the Babylonians to destroy the Temple.<\/p>","content_en":"7:12-15<\/strong> God had allowed the Philistines to capture the Ark of the Covenant and destroy the Tabernacle at Shiloh when the people tried to use the Ark as a magical talisman (1 Sam 4:1-11). In the same way, he would allow the Babylonians to destroy the Temple.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:12-15 God had allowed the Philistines to capture the Ark of the Covenant and destroy the Tabernacle at Shiloh when the people tried to use the Ark as a magical talisman (1 Sam 4:1-11). In the same way, he would allow the Babylonians to destroy the Temple.","summary_en":"7:12-15 God had allowed the Philistines to capture the Ark of the Covenant and destroy the Tabernacle at Shiloh when the people tried to use the Ark as a magical talisman (1 Sam 4:1-11). In the same way, he would allow the Babylonians to destroy the Temple.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":107382,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 7:12","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 7:12","content_ro":"7:12<\/strong> Shiloh<\/em> was a hill located halfway between Shechem and Jerusalem. The Tabernacle<\/em> had been set up there after the conquest of Canaan led by Joshua (Josh 18:1, 6-19; Judg 18:31). It remained the center of worship for the tribes of Israel until Shiloh was destroyed about 1045 BC<\/span> by the Philistine army (see Jer 26:6; Ps 78:60).<\/p>","content_en":"7:12<\/strong> Shiloh<\/em> was a hill located halfway between Shechem and Jerusalem. The Tabernacle<\/em> had been set up there after the conquest of Canaan led by Joshua (Josh 18:1, 6-19; Judg 18:31). It remained the center of worship for the tribes of Israel until Shiloh was destroyed about 1045 BC<\/span> by the Philistine army (see Jer 26:6; Ps 78:60).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:12 Shiloh was a hill located halfway between Shechem and Jerusalem. The Tabernacle had been set up there after the conquest of Canaan led by Joshua (Josh 18:1, 6-19; Judg 18:31). It remained the center of worship for the tribes of Israel until Shiloh was destroyed about 1045 BC by the Philistine army (see Jer 26:6; Ps 78:60).","summary_en":"7:12 Shiloh was a hill located halfway between Shechem and Jerusalem. The Tabernacle had been set up there after the conquest of Canaan led by Joshua (Josh 18:1, 6-19; Judg 18:31). It remained the center of worship for the tribes of Israel until Shiloh was destroyed about 1045 BC by the Philistine army (see Jer 26:6; Ps 78:60).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":135007,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 7:12","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 7:12","content_ro":"7:12-15<\/strong> God had allowed the Philistines to capture the Ark of the Covenant and destroy the Tabernacle at Shiloh when the people tried to use the Ark as a magical talisman (1 Sam 4:1-11). In the same way, he would allow the Babylonians to destroy the Temple.<\/p>","content_en":"7:12-15<\/strong> God had allowed the Philistines to capture the Ark of the Covenant and destroy the Tabernacle at Shiloh when the people tried to use the Ark as a magical talisman (1 Sam 4:1-11). In the same way, he would allow the Babylonians to destroy the Temple.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:12-15 God had allowed the Philistines to capture the Ark of the Covenant and destroy the Tabernacle at Shiloh when the people tried to use the Ark as a magical talisman (1 Sam 4:1-11). In the same way, he would allow the Babylonians to destroy the Temple.","summary_en":"7:12-15 God had allowed the Philistines to capture the Ark of the Covenant and destroy the Tabernacle at Shiloh when the people tried to use the Ark as a magical talisman (1 Sam 4:1-11). In the same way, he would allow the Babylonians to destroy the Temple.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":135008,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 7:12","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 7:12","content_ro":"7:12<\/strong> Shiloh<\/em> was a hill located halfway between Shechem and Jerusalem. The Tabernacle<\/em> had been set up there after the conquest of Canaan led by Joshua (Josh 18:1, 6-19; Judg 18:31). It remained the center of worship for the tribes of Israel until Shiloh was destroyed about 1045 BC<\/span> by the Philistine army (see Jer 26:6; Ps 78:60).<\/p>","content_en":"7:12<\/strong> Shiloh<\/em> was a hill located halfway between Shechem and Jerusalem. The Tabernacle<\/em> had been set up there after the conquest of Canaan led by Joshua (Josh 18:1, 6-19; Judg 18:31). It remained the center of worship for the tribes of Israel until Shiloh was destroyed about 1045 BC<\/span> by the Philistine army (see Jer 26:6; Ps 78:60).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:12 Shiloh was a hill located halfway between Shechem and Jerusalem. The Tabernacle had been set up there after the conquest of Canaan led by Joshua (Josh 18:1, 6-19; Judg 18:31). It remained the center of worship for the tribes of Israel until Shiloh was destroyed about 1045 BC by the Philistine army (see Jer 26:6; Ps 78:60).","summary_en":"7:12 Shiloh was a hill located halfway between Shechem and Jerusalem. The Tabernacle had been set up there after the conquest of Canaan led by Joshua (Josh 18:1, 6-19; Judg 18:31). It remained the center of worship for the tribes of Israel until Shiloh was destroyed about 1045 BC by the Philistine army (see Jer 26:6; Ps 78:60).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"13":[{"id":52131,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 7:13","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 7:13","content_ro":"7:13-15<\/strong> The people of the northern kingdom had previously done what Judah was now doing. God had sent many prophets who spoke<\/em> and called out<\/em> to them (2 Kgs 17:22-23; 2 Chr 36:15-16), but they would not listen<\/em> and refused to answer<\/em>. The Lord had spared Jerusalem and the Temple when the northern tribes were taken into exile by the Assyrians in 722 BC<\/span>; this time, the Temple would be destroyed.<\/p>","content_en":"7:13-15<\/strong> The people of the northern kingdom had previously done what Judah was now doing. God had sent many prophets who spoke<\/em> and called out<\/em> to them (2 Kgs 17:22-23; 2 Chr 36:15-16), but they would not listen<\/em> and refused to answer<\/em>. The Lord had spared Jerusalem and the Temple when the northern tribes were taken into exile by the Assyrians in 722 BC<\/span>; this time, the Temple would be destroyed.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:13-15 The people of the northern kingdom had previously done what Judah was now doing. God had sent many prophets who spoke and called out to them (2 Kgs 17:22-23; 2 Chr 36:15-16), but they would not listen and refused to answer. The Lord had spared Jerusalem and the Temple when the northern tribes were taken into exile by the Assyrians in 722 BC; this time, the Temple would be destroyed.","summary_en":"7:13-15 The people of the northern kingdom had previously done what Judah was now doing. God had sent many prophets who spoke and called out to them (2 Kgs 17:22-23; 2 Chr 36:15-16), but they would not listen and refused to answer. The Lord had spared Jerusalem and the Temple when the northern tribes were taken into exile by the Assyrians in 722 BC; this time, the Temple would be destroyed.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":79757,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 7:13","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 7:13","content_ro":"7:13-15<\/strong> The people of the northern kingdom had previously done what Judah was now doing. God had sent many prophets who spoke<\/em> and called out<\/em> to them (2 Kgs 17:22-23; 2 Chr 36:15-16), but they would not listen<\/em> and refused to answer<\/em>. The Lord had spared Jerusalem and the Temple when the northern tribes were taken into exile by the Assyrians in 722 BC<\/span>; this time, the Temple would be destroyed.<\/p>","content_en":"7:13-15<\/strong> The people of the northern kingdom had previously done what Judah was now doing. God had sent many prophets who spoke<\/em> and called out<\/em> to them (2 Kgs 17:22-23; 2 Chr 36:15-16), but they would not listen<\/em> and refused to answer<\/em>. The Lord had spared Jerusalem and the Temple when the northern tribes were taken into exile by the Assyrians in 722 BC<\/span>; this time, the Temple would be destroyed.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:13-15 The people of the northern kingdom had previously done what Judah was now doing. God had sent many prophets who spoke and called out to them (2 Kgs 17:22-23; 2 Chr 36:15-16), but they would not listen and refused to answer. The Lord had spared Jerusalem and the Temple when the northern tribes were taken into exile by the Assyrians in 722 BC; this time, the Temple would be destroyed.","summary_en":"7:13-15 The people of the northern kingdom had previously done what Judah was now doing. God had sent many prophets who spoke and called out to them (2 Kgs 17:22-23; 2 Chr 36:15-16), but they would not listen and refused to answer. The Lord had spared Jerusalem and the Temple when the northern tribes were taken into exile by the Assyrians in 722 BC; this time, the Temple would be destroyed.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":107383,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 7:13","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 7:13","content_ro":"7:13-15<\/strong> The people of the northern kingdom had previously done what Judah was now doing. God had sent many prophets who spoke<\/em> and called out<\/em> to them (2 Kgs 17:22-23; 2 Chr 36:15-16), but they would not listen<\/em> and refused to answer<\/em>. The Lord had spared Jerusalem and the Temple when the northern tribes were taken into exile by the Assyrians in 722 BC<\/span>; this time, the Temple would be destroyed.<\/p>","content_en":"7:13-15<\/strong> The people of the northern kingdom had previously done what Judah was now doing. God had sent many prophets who spoke<\/em> and called out<\/em> to them (2 Kgs 17:22-23; 2 Chr 36:15-16), but they would not listen<\/em> and refused to answer<\/em>. The Lord had spared Jerusalem and the Temple when the northern tribes were taken into exile by the Assyrians in 722 BC<\/span>; this time, the Temple would be destroyed.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:13-15 The people of the northern kingdom had previously done what Judah was now doing. God had sent many prophets who spoke and called out to them (2 Kgs 17:22-23; 2 Chr 36:15-16), but they would not listen and refused to answer. The Lord had spared Jerusalem and the Temple when the northern tribes were taken into exile by the Assyrians in 722 BC; this time, the Temple would be destroyed.","summary_en":"7:13-15 The people of the northern kingdom had previously done what Judah was now doing. God had sent many prophets who spoke and called out to them (2 Kgs 17:22-23; 2 Chr 36:15-16), but they would not listen and refused to answer. The Lord had spared Jerusalem and the Temple when the northern tribes were taken into exile by the Assyrians in 722 BC; this time, the Temple would be destroyed.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":135009,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 7:13","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 7:13","content_ro":"7:13-15<\/strong> The people of the northern kingdom had previously done what Judah was now doing. God had sent many prophets who spoke<\/em> and called out<\/em> to them (2 Kgs 17:22-23; 2 Chr 36:15-16), but they would not listen<\/em> and refused to answer<\/em>. The Lord had spared Jerusalem and the Temple when the northern tribes were taken into exile by the Assyrians in 722 BC<\/span>; this time, the Temple would be destroyed.<\/p>","content_en":"7:13-15<\/strong> The people of the northern kingdom had previously done what Judah was now doing. God had sent many prophets who spoke<\/em> and called out<\/em> to them (2 Kgs 17:22-23; 2 Chr 36:15-16), but they would not listen<\/em> and refused to answer<\/em>. The Lord had spared Jerusalem and the Temple when the northern tribes were taken into exile by the Assyrians in 722 BC<\/span>; this time, the Temple would be destroyed.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:13-15 The people of the northern kingdom had previously done what Judah was now doing. God had sent many prophets who spoke and called out to them (2 Kgs 17:22-23; 2 Chr 36:15-16), but they would not listen and refused to answer. The Lord had spared Jerusalem and the Temple when the northern tribes were taken into exile by the Assyrians in 722 BC; this time, the Temple would be destroyed.","summary_en":"7:13-15 The people of the northern kingdom had previously done what Judah was now doing. God had sent many prophets who spoke and called out to them (2 Kgs 17:22-23; 2 Chr 36:15-16), but they would not listen and refused to answer. The Lord had spared Jerusalem and the Temple when the northern tribes were taken into exile by the Assyrians in 722 BC; this time, the Temple would be destroyed.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"14":[{"id":33772,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Books of First and Second Samuel","title_en":"Books of First and Second Samuel","content_ro":"<h3>SAMUEL, Books of First and Second<\/h3>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Name<\/p>\n• Author and Date<\/p>\n• Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n• Content<\/p>\nName<\/p>\nFirst and Second Samuel derive their names from the individual whom God used to establish kingship in Israel. Samuel is the most prominent figure in the early narratives of 1 Samuel. His key role in leading the nation of Israel through the transition from the period of the judges to that of the monarchy warrants the use of his name as the title for the book.<\/p>\nThese books, however, have not always been so designated, nor was the material originally divided into two books. As far as is known, the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT dating from the third century BC<\/span>) translators were the first to separate the material of Samuel into two books (they made a similar division in the material of Kings). The Hebrew original of these books was written, as is characteristic of Hebrew, with symbols only for consonants and none for vowels. When translated into Greek, it was necessary to use symbols for both vowels and consonants, thus greatly lengthening the manuscript. Presumably the practical consideration of the length of the scroll was the cause for dividing the material of both Samuel and Kings into two books (scrolls) instead of retaining just one. The Septuagint translators, recognizing the continuity of content and emphasis in Samuel and Kings, designated what is now known as 1 and 2 Samuel as “The First and Second Books of Kingdoms” and then designated what now is known as 1 and 2 Kings as “The Third and Fourth Books of Kingdoms.” The Latin Vulgate (the Latin translation of the Bible prepared by Jerome in the late fourth century AD<\/span>) slightly modified the Septuagint titles to “First, Second, Third, and Fourth Kings.” These titles were utilized all through the Middle Ages and were modified into our present titles by the Protestant Reformers in the 16th century AD<\/span> in agreement with Jewish rabbinic tradition. The Reformers, however, retained the division into two books, and this has been followed in modern English versions.<\/p>\nAuthor and Date<\/p>\nEven though Samuel is prominent in the early part of the book, and the book bears his name in our English versions, it is clear that he is not the author of the entirety of 1 and 2 Samuel. Samuel’s death is recorded in 1 Samuel 25:1, prior to the time of the accession of David to the throne in place of Saul. Who wrote the material of 1 and 2 Samuel if it was not Samuel? On the basis of the statement in 1 Chronicles 29:29, it has been suggested by some that Samuel composed the early narratives of the book and that his work was later supplemented by the writings of the prophets Nathan and Gad. Others have suggested one of David’s contemporaries, such as Ahimaaz (2 Sm 15:27, 36; 17:17), Hushai (2 Sm 15:32; 16:16), or Zabud (1 Kgs 4:5). Presumably, these men would have had access to the writings of Samuel, Nathan, and Gad, as well as to other sources (see 2 Sm 1:18) pertaining to the life and reigns of Saul and David. Who the real author was, however, cannot be determined from available evidence. Whoever it was, it is clear that he lived after the death of Solomon and the division of the kingdom in 930 BC<\/span> (see references to “Israel in Judah” in 1 Sm 11:8; 17:52; 18:16; 2 Sm 5:5; 24:1-9; and “kings of Judah” in 1 Sm 27:6). Thus, 1 and 2 Samuel was published in its final form sometime after 930 BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n\nPurpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\nThe theme binding together the narratives of 1 and 2 Samuel pertains to the relationship between kingship and the covenant. Kingship as requested by the people was a denial of the covenant; kingship as instituted by Samuel was compatible with the covenant; kingship as practiced by Saul failed to correspond to the covenantal idea; and kingship as practiced by David was an imperfect but true representation of the ideal of the covenantal king.<\/p>\nIt has often been pointed out that there is ambivalence in the description of the establishment of kingship in Israel (1 Sm 8–12), because in some places it seems to be suggested that kingship is improper for Israel, while in other places it seems to be suggested that kingship was God’s will for his people. Resolution to this tension is provided in 1 Samuel 12, when Samuel inaugurates Saul as Israel’s first king in the context of a covenant renewal ceremony by which Israel renews its allegiance to the Lord. Here it becomes clear that kingship in itself was not wrong for Israel; God desired Israel to have a king. But kingship of the type Israel desired (“like the other nations”) and for the reasons she wanted a king (to give a sense of national security and lead her to victory in battle) involved a denial of the Lord as her ultimate sovereign. Samuel defined the role of the king in Israel and presented Saul to the people in a ceremony in which they renewed their allegiance to the Lord. The monarchy in Israel was first established in a form that was compatible with the covenant. The king in Israel, as every other citizen of the nation, was to be subject to the law of the Lord and to the word of the prophet. From this perspective, the author depicts the reign of Saul as failing to correspond to the covenantal requirements, while the reign of David, although imperfect, reflected the covenantal ideal.<\/p>\nThere are at least two other important themes recorded in 1 and 2 Samuel. The first of these is that David conquers and acquires the land promised to Abraham. It is in the time of David that Israel’s borders are extended from Egypt to the Euphrates, as had been promised. A second event of major significance for the remainder of the Bible is David’s selection of Jerusalem to be the political and religious center of Israel.<\/p>\nContent<\/p>\n<h5>Samuel (1 Sm 1–7)<\/h5>\n<h6>Samuel’s Youth (1 Sm 1–3)<\/h6>\nGod granted the request of Hannah for a son after a long period of barrenness. She named her son Samuel (a wordplay on the Hebrew expression “heard of God”) and dedicated him to the service of the Lord—with Eli the priest at the tabernacle in Shiloh. Hannah’s beautiful song of praise to God, who hears and answers prayer (2:1-10), exalts the sovereignty of God and prophetically anticipates not only the establishment of kingship in Israel but ultimately the highest fulfillment of the royal office in Christ himself (v 10). The evil practices of the sons of the priest Eli are described in verses 11-26. These men not only used their office for personal gain (vv 12-17) but also committed immoral acts with the women serving at the entrance to the tabernacle (v 22). Although Eli rebuked his sons (vv 22-25), his warnings were too little too late. It was in this lax environment that Samuel grew up (vv 18-21, 26).<\/p>\nIn 1 Samuel 2:27-36, an unnamed prophet pronounced judgment on Eli and his priestly line. The prediction of the imminent death of Hophni and Phinehas, Eli’s sons, was fulfilled when the Philistines took the ark and destroyed the tabernacle at Shiloh (4:11; Jer 7:14). In 1 Samuel 3:1–4:1, Samuel is called to be a prophet, and he too is given a message of judgment for the house of Eli (3:11-14). As the reliability of Samuel’s words are attested, it is recognized by the people that he was a true prophet of the Lord (3:19–4:1).<\/p>\n\n<h6>The Loss and Return of the Ark (1 Sm 4–6)<\/h6>\nIn a battle with the Philistines, the prophecy of 2:27-36 and 3:11-14 was partially fulfilled. The Israelites were defeated, the ark was taken, and Hophni and Phinehas were killed. Upon hearing the report of these calamities, Eli also died (4:17-18). The Philistines placed the ark of the Lord in the temple of their god Dagon in Ashdod (5:1-2). However, when the idol of Dagon broke in pieces and fell before the ark and a plague broke out in Ashdod, the ark was moved to Gath. When the plague broke out in Gath, it was moved to Ekron. When the plague erupted in Ekron, the Philistines were compelled to return the ark to Israel—as a test, it was placed on a cart pulled by two nursing cows. These cows, going against their motherly instincts, left their penned-up calves and headed for the Israelite border and the town of Beth-shemesh (6:1-21). By this the Lord demonstrated that the victory over the Israelites and the capture of the ark could not be attributed to the Philistines’ god Dagon.<\/p>\n<h6>The Defeat of the Philistines (1 Sm 7)<\/h6>\nTwenty years went by. Samuel assured the people of deliverance from Philistine oppression if they would confess their sin and turn from the worship of Baals and Ashtaroths. He called for a national assembly at Mizpah to renew allegiance to the Lord. While the Israelites were assembled, the Philistines attacked and the Lord gave the Israelites a miraculous victory, thereby demonstrating that obedience to covenant obligations would ensure national security (see Ex 23:22; Dt 20:1-4).<\/p>\n<h5>Kingship Established in Israel (1 Sm 8–12)<\/h5>\n<h6>The People Request a King (1 Sm 8:1-22)<\/h6>\nWhen Samuel was an old man, the elders of the nation approached him and requested that he give them a king. Samuel immediately perceived that their request was tantamount to a rejection of the Lord, who was their King, for the people desired a king “like the other nations”—as a symbol of national unity and military security. Nevertheless, the Lord told Samuel to give the people a king. At the same time, however, he told Samuel to warn the people concerning what having a king “like the nations” would mean. The warning, descriptive of the practices of contemporary Canaanite kings, fell on deaf ears; the people persisted in their desire for a king.<\/p>\n<h6>Samuel Privately Anoints Saul (1 Sm 9:1–10:16)<\/h6>\nThe narrative of Saul’s search for the lost donkeys of his father and his encounter with Samuel in the process of his search is given to explain how Samuel and Saul first met, and how the Lord indicated to Samuel who the person was that he was to anoint as Israel’s first king (9:16-17). After Samuel privately anointed Saul (10:1), he was given three signs to confirm that his new calling came from the Lord.<\/p>\n<h6>Saul Publicly Chosen by Lot at Mizpah (1 Sm 10:17-27)<\/h6>\nAfter the private designation and anointing of Saul to be king (9:1–10:16), Samuel convened a national assembly at Mizpah to make the Lord’s choice known to the people (10:20-24) and to define the king’s task (v 25). Again, at this assembly, Samuel emphasized that the people had rejected the Lord in requesting a king because they sought a king for the wrong reasons and failed to recognize the Lord’s past faithfulness in delivering them from their enemies. But again it was clear that the time for kingship in Israel had come and it was the Lord’s desire to give the people a king. Samuel’s explanation of the “regulations of the kingship” was an important step in resolving the tension between, on the one hand, Israel’s sin in desiring a king, and on the other, the Lord’s intent to give them a king. This document, which was preserved at the tabernacle, probably contained an enlarged version of the “law of the king” in Deuteronomy 17:14-20 and spelled out regulations governing the role of the king in Israel for the benefit of both the king and the people. This document undoubtedly distinguished Israelite kingship from that of the kings of the surrounding nations.<\/p>\n<h6>Saul Leads Israel to Victory over the Ammonites (1 Sm 11:1-13)<\/h6>\nWhen Nahash, king of the Ammonites, attacked Jabesh-gilead, a town east of the Jordan in the territory of Manasseh, Saul left his farmwork to lead a volunteer army in support of the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead. The victory over the Ammonites under Saul’s leadership placed another seal of divine approval on his selection to be king. Saul attributed the victory to the Lord rather than to his own military strategies.<\/p>\n<h6>Saul Inaugurated as King (1 Sm 11:14–12:25)<\/h6>\nThe victory at Jabesh-gilead prompted Samuel to call for a national assembly at Gilgal to renew the kingdom and make Saul king (11:14-15). At the Gilgal assembly, Samuel led the people in confessing the sin of their initial request for a king and in renewing their allegiance to the Lord. In the context of this covenant renewal ceremony, Saul was formally inaugurated in his office as king. By inaugurating Saul in this manner, Samuel effectively provided for covenantal continuity in the transition from the period of the judges to that of the monarchy.<\/p>\n<h5>Saul Rejected as King (1 Sm 13–15)<\/h5>\n<h6>Saul’s Disobedience (1 Sm 13:1-22)<\/h6>\nWhen Saul was threatened with an imminent attack from the Philistines, he gathered troops at Gilgal and awaited Samuel, as he had been instructed (10:8; 13:8). When it appeared that Samuel would not come within the prearranged time, Saul became impatient and offered a sacrifice himself (13:9). Just as the sacrifice was completed, Samuel appeared and rebuked Saul for not keeping the commandment of the Lord. In disobeying Samuel’s previous instructions, Saul had violated a fundamental requirement of his office. He was seriously mistaken in thinking he could strengthen Israel’s hand against the Philistines by sacrifice to the Lord when this was done in violation of the Lord’s specific command. Samuel told Saul that because of his disobedience his dynasty would not endure (v 14).<\/p>\n<h6>Jonathan’s Victory (1 Sm 13:23–14:52)<\/h6>\nSaul’s son Jonathan and Jonathan’s armor bearer skillfully and courageously attacked a Philistine outpost, killing about 20 men (14:8-14). The Lord used this defeat, along with an earthquake, to bring panic to the entire Philistine force. In the meantime, Saul sought divine guidance on whether to join the fray with his own forces. When the Lord’s answer did not come immediately, Saul concluded that waiting for the Lord’s word might jeopardize his military advantage. Here again he demonstrated that he trusted more in his own insight than in waiting upon the Lord. Saul further damaged his own stature in the eyes of his troops by pronouncing a foolish curse on any who would eat food before the battle was won. This nearly cost Jonathan his life; he was spared only because of the intervention of the troops in his defense.<\/p>\n<h6>Saul Rejected as King (1 Sm 15:1-35)<\/h6>\nSaul was commanded by the Lord through Samuel to attack the Amalekites and totally destroy them, sparing neither human nor animal life. The Amalekites had previously attempted to destroy Israel shortly after their exodus from Egypt while journeying to Sinai (Ex 17:8-16). Saul disobeyed the Lord in sparing the best of the animals for sacrifice and in sparing Agag, the Amalekite king. The Lord sent Samuel again to rebuke Saul for his disobedience. Samuel charged Saul with rebellion against the Lord and told him that, because he had rejected the word of the Lord, the Lord had rejected him as king.<\/p>\n<h5>Saul and David (1 Sm 16:1—2 Sm 1:27)<\/h5>\n<h6>Samuel Anoints David (1 Sm 16:1-13)<\/h6>\nThe Lord instructed Samuel to go to the house of Jesse in Bethlehem to anoint one of his sons to be king in place of Saul. By divine leading, Jesse’s youngest son, David, was shown to be the one whom the Lord had chosen. When Samuel anointed him as king, the Spirit of the Lord came upon him with power.<\/p>\n<h6>David in the Service of Saul (1 Sm 16:14–17:58)<\/h6>\nWhen Saul became plagued by an evil spirit, his attendants sought a harpist whose music would soothe him. David was the one chosen for this purpose. The position at the court, however, was not permanent, and David divided his time between the court and his home duties. In due time, the Philistines, led by the giant Goliath, encamped against the Israelites. Goliath challenged any Israelite who dared to meet him in individual combat. No Israelite ventured to accept his challenge until David, who was visiting the camp of the Israelite forces to bring food to his brothers, heard the challenge and responded in the strength and power of the Lord. The Lord gave David a great victory because he acknowledged that “the battle is the Lord<\/span>’s” (17:47, rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h6>Saul’s Hatred toward David (1 Sm 18:1–19:24)<\/h6>\nIn the aftermath of David’s victory over Goliath, Saul’s son Jonathan pledged loyalty to David in a covenant of friendship. As David achieved further successes in leading Israel’s armies, and as his public acclaim grew, Saul began to fear that David was a threat to his throne (18:14-16, 28-30). Saul, hating David, made several attempts to kill him (18:17, 25; 19:1, 10). David was finally forced to flee and sought refuge with Samuel at Ramah. When Saul and three of his messengers went to Ramah to arrest David, they were so overcome by the Spirit of God that they were incapable of fulfilling their mission.<\/p>\n<h6>David and Jonathan (1 Sm 20:1-42)<\/h6>\nDavid’s absence from the royal table at the new moon festival provoked Saul to again threaten David’s life. Jonathan met with David at a prearranged place to inform him of the danger and say good-bye. Jonathan and David again pledged themselves to mutual loyalty and kindness. In the encounter it is clear that both men knew that David, not Jonathan, would be the successor to Saul on the throne of Israel.<\/p>\n<h6>David at Nob (1 Sm 21:1-9)<\/h6>\nDavid went to the priest Ahimelech at Nob and, indicating he was on a secret mission for Saul, asked for bread and for the sword of Goliath, both of which were given to him. One of Saul’s servants, Doeg the Edomite, who was at Nob, observed the transaction.<\/p>\n<h6>David at Gath (1 Sm 21:10-15)<\/h6>\nDavid then went into Philistine territory to King Achish at Gath. When his identity was discovered, he feigned insanity in order to escape.<\/p>\n<h6>David at Adullam (1 Sm 22:1-5)<\/h6>\nFrom Gath David went to the cave of Adullam where he was joined by about 400 supporters. He took his parents to Moab for their own protection and then returned to the Forest of Hereth in Judah.<\/p>\n<h6>Saul Kills the Priests at Nob (1 Sm 22:6-23)<\/h6>\nDoeg the Edomite reported to Saul that Ahimelech the priest had given assistance to David. At Saul’s command Doeg massacred all the priests at Nob except Abiathar, who escaped with the ephod and joined David.<\/p>\n<h6>David at Keilah (1 Sm 23:1-13)<\/h6>\nDavid and his men delivered the citizens of Keilah from Philistine raiders but were forced to leave the city when it was apparent that its unthankful inhabitants were prepared to hand David over to Saul.<\/p>\n<h6>David in the Desert of Ziph (1 Sm 23:14-29)<\/h6>\nWhile David was in the desert of Ziph, he was encouraged by a visit from Jonathan, who again pledged to him his loyalty. Although the Ziphites promised to aid Saul in capturing David, a Philistine attack forced Saul to abandon his attempt to apprehend him.<\/p>\n<h6>David Spares Saul’s Life (1 Sm 24:1-22)<\/h6>\nWhile hiding deep in a cave at En-gedi, David was unexpectedly provided the opportunity to take Saul’s life when Saul relieved himself at the entrance to the cave. Nevertheless, because Saul was “the anointed of the Lord,” David spared his life and shamed him into confessing his own wickedness. David did this by showing Saul a piece of his robe that he had cut off while Saul was in the entrance to the cave.<\/p>\n<h6>David, Nabal, and Abigail (1 Sm 25:1-44)<\/h6>\nDavid was badly mistreated by a sheepherder named Nabal. David was deterred, however, from foolishly taking the man’s life by the discerning words of Nabal’s wife, Abigail. Shortly after this incident, Nabal died and David took Abigail as his wife.<\/p>\n<h6>David Spares Saul’s Life a Second Time (1 Sm 26:1-25)<\/h6>\nFor a second time, the Ziphites joined Saul in attempting to capture David. While Saul and his men were sleeping, David and Abishai crept into their camp and took Saul’s spear and water jug. On the next day, David was again able to demonstrate to Saul that he did not seek to steal the kingship from his hands.<\/p>\n<h6>David among the Philistines (1 Sm 27:1-12)<\/h6>\nDavid eventually became weary of hiding from Saul in Israelite territory; in a time of discouragement, he went again to Philistia to seek refuge beyond Saul’s reach. Ingratiating himself with Achish, a Philistine ruler, he was given the town of Ziklag as a place for himself and his men to reside. From Ziklag, David raided various tribes inhabiting the area south of Philistia, but deceived Achish into thinking he was raiding the territory of Judah.<\/p>\n<h6>Saul and the Medium of Endor (1 Sm 28:1-25)<\/h6>\nThe Philistines again gathered an army to fight Israel, and Saul, terrified and seemingly anticipating an imminent defeat, vainly sought for some word from the Lord concerning the outcome of the battle. When this was denied, he went in disguise to a medium at Endor and requested her to bring up to him the spirit of Samuel. Saul was told by this spirit that Israel would be defeated and that he and his sons would die in the upcoming battle.<\/p>\n<h6>The Philistines Mistrust David (1 Sm 29:1-11)<\/h6>\nAlthough Achish desired David to join the Philistine army in its battle with Israel, the other Philistine commanders mistrusted him and forced Achish to send David and his men back to Ziklag. This turn of events rescued David from a serious dilemma created by his apparent friendship with Achish.<\/p>\n<h6>David Defeats the Amalekites (1 Sm 30:1-31)<\/h6>\nUpon returning to Ziklag, David discovered that in his absence the city had been raided and burned by the Amalekites and that their wives, children, and cattle had been taken captive. After inquiring of the Lord through Abiathar the priest, David and his men went in pursuit of the Amalekites and recovered all they had taken and more. He divided the plunder among his troops and sent gifts from it to various towns in Judah.<\/p>\n<h6>The Death of Saul and His Sons (1 Sm 31:1—2 Sm 1:27)<\/h6>\nAs had been predicted, the battle with the Philistines ended in a disastrous defeat for Israel, in which Saul took his own life after being seriously wounded. Jonathan and two other sons of Saul were killed. David mourned for Saul and Jonathan and exalted their memory in his tribute to them recorded in 2 Samuel 1:19-27.<\/p>\n<h5>David (2 Sm 2–24)<\/h5>\n\n<h6>David Anointed King over Judah (2 Sm 2:1-7)<\/h6>\nSubsequent to Saul’s death, the Lord instructed David to go to Hebron, where the tribe of Judah anointed him as their king.<\/p>\n<h6>David, Ishbosheth, and Abner (2 Sm 2:8–4:12)<\/h6>\nAlthough David became king over Judah, the remaining tribes—under the influence of Abner, commander of Saul’s army—recognized Ishbosheth as Saul’s successor (2:8-10). Ishbosheth was a son of Saul who had survived the battle with the Philistines. Conflict quickly broke out between the men of David, led by Joab, and the men of Ishbosheth, led by Abner. In this conflict Asahel, Joab’s brother, was slain by Abner. As David grew stronger and Ishbosheth weaker, Abner shifted his allegiance from Ishbosheth to David (3:1-21). Joab, however, avenged the blood of his brother Asahel by murdering Abner under the pretense of negotiating with him. Although David detested this act, mourned for Abner, and cursed Joab, the crime was not punished until early in the reign of Solomon (see 1 Kgs 2:5-6, 29-34). Shortly afterward, Ishbosheth was killed by two soldiers, who brought his head to David at Hebron, expecting to be rewarded (2 Sm 4:1-8). David, however, had them both put to death. The only male survivor of Saul’s line was the crippled son of Jonathan named Mephibosheth.<\/p>\n<h6>David King over All Israel (2 Sm 5)<\/h6>\nAfter Ishbosheth’s death, David was made king over all the tribes at Hebron. One of David’s first acts as king was to capture the fortress of Zion from the Jebusites. David established Zion as his capital and built a palace there for his residence.<\/p>\n<h6>The Ark Brought to Jerusalem (2 Sm 6)<\/h6>\nRecognizing the importance of the ark as a symbol of God’s presence with his people, David determined that it should be brought to Jerusalem from the obscurity of the house of Abinadab in Kiriath-jearim, where it had remained throughout the entirety of Saul’s reign. Violation of prescriptions for handling the ark led to the death of Uzzah, one of Abinadab’s sons, and delayed the ark’s conveyance to Jerusalem for three months. In a second attempt David led a joyful procession into the city of Jerusalem, where the ark was placed in a tent that had been prepared for it.<\/p>\n<h6>David, Nathan, and the Temple (2 Sm 7)<\/h6>\nIt soon became David’s desire to build a temple to house the ark and provide a center for Israel’s worship of the Lord. The Lord told David through Nathan the prophet that he was not to build the Lord a house (temple) but that the Lord would build him a house (a dynasty) that would endure forever. Here the line of the promised seed is narrowed to the house of David within the tribe of Judah. This promise finds its fulfillment in the birth of Jesus, who was the “son of David, the son of Abraham” (see Mt 1:1). It would be the task of Solomon, David’s son, to construct the temple (2 Sm 7:13).<\/p>\n<h6>David’s Victories (2 Sm 8)<\/h6>\nDavid was able to defeat numerous surrounding peoples, to extend Israel’s borders, and to establish a time of prosperity and rest for the nation.<\/p>\n<h6>David and Mephibosheth (2 Sm 9)<\/h6>\nRemembering his covenant with Jonathan (see 1 Sm 18:1-3; 20:13-16, 42), David inquired concerning survivors of the house of Saul to whom he could show kindness. When Mephibosheth was sought out, David brought him to the court to enjoy the honor of eating at the king’s table.<\/p>\n<h6>David and Bathsheba (2 Sm 10–12)<\/h6>\nDuring a war with the Ammonites, David committed adultery with the wife of one of his soldiers, Uriah the Hittite. When Bathsheba became pregnant, David attempted to get Uriah to sleep with her. When this failed, David arranged for Uriah’s certain death in battle. These sinful acts provoked God’s wrath (2 Sm 12:10-12) and David experienced the bitter fruits of his misconduct during the remainder of his life.<\/p>\n<h6>Amnon, Absalom, and Tamar (2 Sm 13)<\/h6>\nDavid’s oldest son, Amnon, feigned sickness in order to arrange for his half sister, Tamar, to care for him. When Tamar refused Amnon’s sexual advances to her, he raped her. This incident enraged Tamar’s full brother Absalom, who determined to avenge his sister by killing Amnon. Absalom waited two years and then arranged for the murder of Amnon during the festivities of the time of sheepshearing. He then fled to Geshur, a small city-state in Syria, where his maternal grandfather was king.<\/p>\n<h6>David and Absalom (2 Sm 14–19)<\/h6>\nAbsalom remained in exile for three years until Joab arranged for his return by securing a renunciation of blood revenge from David (14:1-27). Upon Absalom’s return, however, David refused to see him for two years, until they were finally reconciled. In this whole episode David sidestepped the issues of repentance and justice and took no effective disciplinary action. In the meantime Absalom conspired to take the throne from David his father by attempting to discredit his administration of justice, and by seeking to win the favor of the people and members of David’s court. After four years, Absalom proclaimed himself king in Hebron and gathered sufficient military strength to force his father to flee from Jerusalem (ch 15). Failure to immediately pursue David led to the defeat of Absalom’s forces and to Absalom’s own death at the hand of Joab, David’s commander. David mourned for his son Absalom (19:1-8), but he was able to return to Jerusalem and to reestablish his government. David disciplined Joab for killing Absalom by replacing him as commander of his troops with Amasa.<\/p>\n<h6>Rebellion of Sheba (2 Sm 20)<\/h6>\nIn the unsettled conditions immediately after David’s return to Jerusalem, another abortive revolt was attempted by Sheba of the tribe of Benjamin. Joab, in defiance of David’s disciplinary action, killed Amasa, pursued Sheba, and crushed his revolt.<\/p>\n<h6>David and the Gibeonites (2 Sm 21:1-14)<\/h6>\nAt some unspecified time during David’s reign, the land suffered a three-year famine. It was revealed to David by the Lord that the famine was due to Saul’s violation of an Israelite treaty with the Gibeonites (see Jos 9:15, 18-27). This offense was atoned for by giving seven descendants of Saul to the Gibeonites for execution.<\/p>\n<h6>David and the Philistines (2 Sm 21:15-22)<\/h6>\nIn this pericope four episodes of heroic accomplishments by David’s mighty men against the Philistines are recounted.<\/p>\n<h6>David’s Song of Praise (2 Sm 22)<\/h6>\nIn a beautiful song of praise, David described his deliverance from his enemies and the help with which the Lord sustained him. The same song occurs with minor variations in Psalm 18.<\/p>\n<h6>David’s Last Words (2 Sm 23:1-7)<\/h6>\nIn a brief statement, David acknowledges the work of God’s Spirit in enabling him to speak God’s word, and proclaims his confidence in the realization of the Lord’s promise to him and his dynasty.<\/p>\n<h6>David’s Mighty Men (2 Sm 23:8-39)<\/h6>\nThis pericope contains a list of 37 of David’s warriors and a description of some of their accomplishments.<\/p>\n<h6>The Census and David’s Punishment (2 Sm 24:1-25)<\/h6>\nDavid’s decision to take a census of his fighting men reflected an improper trust in military-political organization and power. The Lord judged him by sending a plague on the land that killed many people. At the word of the Lord through Gad the prophet, David built an altar on the threshing floor of Araunah, which was later to become the site of the temple (see 2 Chr 3:1). The Lord responded to David’s sacrifices and prayers on behalf of the people; the plague was stopped.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> David; Samuel (Person); Saul #2.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SAMUEL, Books of First and Second<\/h3>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Name<\/p>\n• Author and Date<\/p>\n• Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n• Content<\/p>\nName<\/p>\nFirst and Second Samuel derive their names from the individual whom God used to establish kingship in Israel. Samuel is the most prominent figure in the early narratives of 1 Samuel. His key role in leading the nation of Israel through the transition from the period of the judges to that of the monarchy warrants the use of his name as the title for the book.<\/p>\nThese books, however, have not always been so designated, nor was the material originally divided into two books. As far as is known, the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT dating from the third century BC<\/span>) translators were the first to separate the material of Samuel into two books (they made a similar division in the material of Kings). The Hebrew original of these books was written, as is characteristic of Hebrew, with symbols only for consonants and none for vowels. When translated into Greek, it was necessary to use symbols for both vowels and consonants, thus greatly lengthening the manuscript. Presumably the practical consideration of the length of the scroll was the cause for dividing the material of both Samuel and Kings into two books (scrolls) instead of retaining just one. The Septuagint translators, recognizing the continuity of content and emphasis in Samuel and Kings, designated what is now known as 1 and 2 Samuel as “The First and Second Books of Kingdoms” and then designated what now is known as 1 and 2 Kings as “The Third and Fourth Books of Kingdoms.” The Latin Vulgate (the Latin translation of the Bible prepared by Jerome in the late fourth century AD<\/span>) slightly modified the Septuagint titles to “First, Second, Third, and Fourth Kings.” These titles were utilized all through the Middle Ages and were modified into our present titles by the Protestant Reformers in the 16th century AD<\/span> in agreement with Jewish rabbinic tradition. The Reformers, however, retained the division into two books, and this has been followed in modern English versions.<\/p>\nAuthor and Date<\/p>\nEven though Samuel is prominent in the early part of the book, and the book bears his name in our English versions, it is clear that he is not the author of the entirety of 1 and 2 Samuel. Samuel’s death is recorded in 1 Samuel 25:1, prior to the time of the accession of David to the throne in place of Saul. Who wrote the material of 1 and 2 Samuel if it was not Samuel? On the basis of the statement in 1 Chronicles 29:29, it has been suggested by some that Samuel composed the early narratives of the book and that his work was later supplemented by the writings of the prophets Nathan and Gad. Others have suggested one of David’s contemporaries, such as Ahimaaz (2 Sm 15:27, 36; 17:17), Hushai (2 Sm 15:32; 16:16), or Zabud (1 Kgs 4:5). Presumably, these men would have had access to the writings of Samuel, Nathan, and Gad, as well as to other sources (see 2 Sm 1:18) pertaining to the life and reigns of Saul and David. Who the real author was, however, cannot be determined from available evidence. Whoever it was, it is clear that he lived after the death of Solomon and the division of the kingdom in 930 BC<\/span> (see references to “Israel in Judah” in 1 Sm 11:8; 17:52; 18:16; 2 Sm 5:5; 24:1-9; and “kings of Judah” in 1 Sm 27:6). Thus, 1 and 2 Samuel was published in its final form sometime after 930 BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n\nPurpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\nThe theme binding together the narratives of 1 and 2 Samuel pertains to the relationship between kingship and the covenant. Kingship as requested by the people was a denial of the covenant; kingship as instituted by Samuel was compatible with the covenant; kingship as practiced by Saul failed to correspond to the covenantal idea; and kingship as practiced by David was an imperfect but true representation of the ideal of the covenantal king.<\/p>\nIt has often been pointed out that there is ambivalence in the description of the establishment of kingship in Israel (1 Sm 8–12), because in some places it seems to be suggested that kingship is improper for Israel, while in other places it seems to be suggested that kingship was God’s will for his people. Resolution to this tension is provided in 1 Samuel 12, when Samuel inaugurates Saul as Israel’s first king in the context of a covenant renewal ceremony by which Israel renews its allegiance to the Lord. Here it becomes clear that kingship in itself was not wrong for Israel; God desired Israel to have a king. But kingship of the type Israel desired (“like the other nations”) and for the reasons she wanted a king (to give a sense of national security and lead her to victory in battle) involved a denial of the Lord as her ultimate sovereign. Samuel defined the role of the king in Israel and presented Saul to the people in a ceremony in which they renewed their allegiance to the Lord. The monarchy in Israel was first established in a form that was compatible with the covenant. The king in Israel, as every other citizen of the nation, was to be subject to the law of the Lord and to the word of the prophet. From this perspective, the author depicts the reign of Saul as failing to correspond to the covenantal requirements, while the reign of David, although imperfect, reflected the covenantal ideal.<\/p>\nThere are at least two other important themes recorded in 1 and 2 Samuel. The first of these is that David conquers and acquires the land promised to Abraham. It is in the time of David that Israel’s borders are extended from Egypt to the Euphrates, as had been promised. A second event of major significance for the remainder of the Bible is David’s selection of Jerusalem to be the political and religious center of Israel.<\/p>\nContent<\/p>\n<h5>Samuel (1 Sm 1–7)<\/h5>\n<h6>Samuel’s Youth (1 Sm 1–3)<\/h6>\nGod granted the request of Hannah for a son after a long period of barrenness. She named her son Samuel (a wordplay on the Hebrew expression “heard of God”) and dedicated him to the service of the Lord—with Eli the priest at the tabernacle in Shiloh. Hannah’s beautiful song of praise to God, who hears and answers prayer (2:1-10), exalts the sovereignty of God and prophetically anticipates not only the establishment of kingship in Israel but ultimately the highest fulfillment of the royal office in Christ himself (v 10). The evil practices of the sons of the priest Eli are described in verses 11-26. These men not only used their office for personal gain (vv 12-17) but also committed immoral acts with the women serving at the entrance to the tabernacle (v 22). Although Eli rebuked his sons (vv 22-25), his warnings were too little too late. It was in this lax environment that Samuel grew up (vv 18-21, 26).<\/p>\nIn 1 Samuel 2:27-36, an unnamed prophet pronounced judgment on Eli and his priestly line. The prediction of the imminent death of Hophni and Phinehas, Eli’s sons, was fulfilled when the Philistines took the ark and destroyed the tabernacle at Shiloh (4:11; Jer 7:14). In 1 Samuel 3:1–4:1, Samuel is called to be a prophet, and he too is given a message of judgment for the house of Eli (3:11-14). As the reliability of Samuel’s words are attested, it is recognized by the people that he was a true prophet of the Lord (3:19–4:1).<\/p>\n\n<h6>The Loss and Return of the Ark (1 Sm 4–6)<\/h6>\nIn a battle with the Philistines, the prophecy of 2:27-36 and 3:11-14 was partially fulfilled. The Israelites were defeated, the ark was taken, and Hophni and Phinehas were killed. Upon hearing the report of these calamities, Eli also died (4:17-18). The Philistines placed the ark of the Lord in the temple of their god Dagon in Ashdod (5:1-2). However, when the idol of Dagon broke in pieces and fell before the ark and a plague broke out in Ashdod, the ark was moved to Gath. When the plague broke out in Gath, it was moved to Ekron. When the plague erupted in Ekron, the Philistines were compelled to return the ark to Israel—as a test, it was placed on a cart pulled by two nursing cows. These cows, going against their motherly instincts, left their penned-up calves and headed for the Israelite border and the town of Beth-shemesh (6:1-21). By this the Lord demonstrated that the victory over the Israelites and the capture of the ark could not be attributed to the Philistines’ god Dagon.<\/p>\n<h6>The Defeat of the Philistines (1 Sm 7)<\/h6>\nTwenty years went by. Samuel assured the people of deliverance from Philistine oppression if they would confess their sin and turn from the worship of Baals and Ashtaroths. He called for a national assembly at Mizpah to renew allegiance to the Lord. While the Israelites were assembled, the Philistines attacked and the Lord gave the Israelites a miraculous victory, thereby demonstrating that obedience to covenant obligations would ensure national security (see Ex 23:22; Dt 20:1-4).<\/p>\n<h5>Kingship Established in Israel (1 Sm 8–12)<\/h5>\n<h6>The People Request a King (1 Sm 8:1-22)<\/h6>\nWhen Samuel was an old man, the elders of the nation approached him and requested that he give them a king. Samuel immediately perceived that their request was tantamount to a rejection of the Lord, who was their King, for the people desired a king “like the other nations”—as a symbol of national unity and military security. Nevertheless, the Lord told Samuel to give the people a king. At the same time, however, he told Samuel to warn the people concerning what having a king “like the nations” would mean. The warning, descriptive of the practices of contemporary Canaanite kings, fell on deaf ears; the people persisted in their desire for a king.<\/p>\n<h6>Samuel Privately Anoints Saul (1 Sm 9:1–10:16)<\/h6>\nThe narrative of Saul’s search for the lost donkeys of his father and his encounter with Samuel in the process of his search is given to explain how Samuel and Saul first met, and how the Lord indicated to Samuel who the person was that he was to anoint as Israel’s first king (9:16-17). After Samuel privately anointed Saul (10:1), he was given three signs to confirm that his new calling came from the Lord.<\/p>\n<h6>Saul Publicly Chosen by Lot at Mizpah (1 Sm 10:17-27)<\/h6>\nAfter the private designation and anointing of Saul to be king (9:1–10:16), Samuel convened a national assembly at Mizpah to make the Lord’s choice known to the people (10:20-24) and to define the king’s task (v 25). Again, at this assembly, Samuel emphasized that the people had rejected the Lord in requesting a king because they sought a king for the wrong reasons and failed to recognize the Lord’s past faithfulness in delivering them from their enemies. But again it was clear that the time for kingship in Israel had come and it was the Lord’s desire to give the people a king. Samuel’s explanation of the “regulations of the kingship” was an important step in resolving the tension between, on the one hand, Israel’s sin in desiring a king, and on the other, the Lord’s intent to give them a king. This document, which was preserved at the tabernacle, probably contained an enlarged version of the “law of the king” in Deuteronomy 17:14-20 and spelled out regulations governing the role of the king in Israel for the benefit of both the king and the people. This document undoubtedly distinguished Israelite kingship from that of the kings of the surrounding nations.<\/p>\n<h6>Saul Leads Israel to Victory over the Ammonites (1 Sm 11:1-13)<\/h6>\nWhen Nahash, king of the Ammonites, attacked Jabesh-gilead, a town east of the Jordan in the territory of Manasseh, Saul left his farmwork to lead a volunteer army in support of the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead. The victory over the Ammonites under Saul’s leadership placed another seal of divine approval on his selection to be king. Saul attributed the victory to the Lord rather than to his own military strategies.<\/p>\n<h6>Saul Inaugurated as King (1 Sm 11:14–12:25)<\/h6>\nThe victory at Jabesh-gilead prompted Samuel to call for a national assembly at Gilgal to renew the kingdom and make Saul king (11:14-15). At the Gilgal assembly, Samuel led the people in confessing the sin of their initial request for a king and in renewing their allegiance to the Lord. In the context of this covenant renewal ceremony, Saul was formally inaugurated in his office as king. By inaugurating Saul in this manner, Samuel effectively provided for covenantal continuity in the transition from the period of the judges to that of the monarchy.<\/p>\n<h5>Saul Rejected as King (1 Sm 13–15)<\/h5>\n<h6>Saul’s Disobedience (1 Sm 13:1-22)<\/h6>\nWhen Saul was threatened with an imminent attack from the Philistines, he gathered troops at Gilgal and awaited Samuel, as he had been instructed (10:8; 13:8). When it appeared that Samuel would not come within the prearranged time, Saul became impatient and offered a sacrifice himself (13:9). Just as the sacrifice was completed, Samuel appeared and rebuked Saul for not keeping the commandment of the Lord. In disobeying Samuel’s previous instructions, Saul had violated a fundamental requirement of his office. He was seriously mistaken in thinking he could strengthen Israel’s hand against the Philistines by sacrifice to the Lord when this was done in violation of the Lord’s specific command. Samuel told Saul that because of his disobedience his dynasty would not endure (v 14).<\/p>\n<h6>Jonathan’s Victory (1 Sm 13:23–14:52)<\/h6>\nSaul’s son Jonathan and Jonathan’s armor bearer skillfully and courageously attacked a Philistine outpost, killing about 20 men (14:8-14). The Lord used this defeat, along with an earthquake, to bring panic to the entire Philistine force. In the meantime, Saul sought divine guidance on whether to join the fray with his own forces. When the Lord’s answer did not come immediately, Saul concluded that waiting for the Lord’s word might jeopardize his military advantage. Here again he demonstrated that he trusted more in his own insight than in waiting upon the Lord. Saul further damaged his own stature in the eyes of his troops by pronouncing a foolish curse on any who would eat food before the battle was won. This nearly cost Jonathan his life; he was spared only because of the intervention of the troops in his defense.<\/p>\n<h6>Saul Rejected as King (1 Sm 15:1-35)<\/h6>\nSaul was commanded by the Lord through Samuel to attack the Amalekites and totally destroy them, sparing neither human nor animal life. The Amalekites had previously attempted to destroy Israel shortly after their exodus from Egypt while journeying to Sinai (Ex 17:8-16). Saul disobeyed the Lord in sparing the best of the animals for sacrifice and in sparing Agag, the Amalekite king. The Lord sent Samuel again to rebuke Saul for his disobedience. Samuel charged Saul with rebellion against the Lord and told him that, because he had rejected the word of the Lord, the Lord had rejected him as king.<\/p>\n<h5>Saul and David (1 Sm 16:1—2 Sm 1:27)<\/h5>\n<h6>Samuel Anoints David (1 Sm 16:1-13)<\/h6>\nThe Lord instructed Samuel to go to the house of Jesse in Bethlehem to anoint one of his sons to be king in place of Saul. By divine leading, Jesse’s youngest son, David, was shown to be the one whom the Lord had chosen. When Samuel anointed him as king, the Spirit of the Lord came upon him with power.<\/p>\n<h6>David in the Service of Saul (1 Sm 16:14–17:58)<\/h6>\nWhen Saul became plagued by an evil spirit, his attendants sought a harpist whose music would soothe him. David was the one chosen for this purpose. The position at the court, however, was not permanent, and David divided his time between the court and his home duties. In due time, the Philistines, led by the giant Goliath, encamped against the Israelites. Goliath challenged any Israelite who dared to meet him in individual combat. No Israelite ventured to accept his challenge until David, who was visiting the camp of the Israelite forces to bring food to his brothers, heard the challenge and responded in the strength and power of the Lord. The Lord gave David a great victory because he acknowledged that “the battle is the Lord<\/span>’s” (17:47, rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h6>Saul’s Hatred toward David (1 Sm 18:1–19:24)<\/h6>\nIn the aftermath of David’s victory over Goliath, Saul’s son Jonathan pledged loyalty to David in a covenant of friendship. As David achieved further successes in leading Israel’s armies, and as his public acclaim grew, Saul began to fear that David was a threat to his throne (18:14-16, 28-30). Saul, hating David, made several attempts to kill him (18:17, 25; 19:1, 10). David was finally forced to flee and sought refuge with Samuel at Ramah. When Saul and three of his messengers went to Ramah to arrest David, they were so overcome by the Spirit of God that they were incapable of fulfilling their mission.<\/p>\n<h6>David and Jonathan (1 Sm 20:1-42)<\/h6>\nDavid’s absence from the royal table at the new moon festival provoked Saul to again threaten David’s life. Jonathan met with David at a prearranged place to inform him of the danger and say good-bye. Jonathan and David again pledged themselves to mutual loyalty and kindness. In the encounter it is clear that both men knew that David, not Jonathan, would be the successor to Saul on the throne of Israel.<\/p>\n<h6>David at Nob (1 Sm 21:1-9)<\/h6>\nDavid went to the priest Ahimelech at Nob and, indicating he was on a secret mission for Saul, asked for bread and for the sword of Goliath, both of which were given to him. One of Saul’s servants, Doeg the Edomite, who was at Nob, observed the transaction.<\/p>\n<h6>David at Gath (1 Sm 21:10-15)<\/h6>\nDavid then went into Philistine territory to King Achish at Gath. When his identity was discovered, he feigned insanity in order to escape.<\/p>\n<h6>David at Adullam (1 Sm 22:1-5)<\/h6>\nFrom Gath David went to the cave of Adullam where he was joined by about 400 supporters. He took his parents to Moab for their own protection and then returned to the Forest of Hereth in Judah.<\/p>\n<h6>Saul Kills the Priests at Nob (1 Sm 22:6-23)<\/h6>\nDoeg the Edomite reported to Saul that Ahimelech the priest had given assistance to David. At Saul’s command Doeg massacred all the priests at Nob except Abiathar, who escaped with the ephod and joined David.<\/p>\n<h6>David at Keilah (1 Sm 23:1-13)<\/h6>\nDavid and his men delivered the citizens of Keilah from Philistine raiders but were forced to leave the city when it was apparent that its unthankful inhabitants were prepared to hand David over to Saul.<\/p>\n<h6>David in the Desert of Ziph (1 Sm 23:14-29)<\/h6>\nWhile David was in the desert of Ziph, he was encouraged by a visit from Jonathan, who again pledged to him his loyalty. Although the Ziphites promised to aid Saul in capturing David, a Philistine attack forced Saul to abandon his attempt to apprehend him.<\/p>\n<h6>David Spares Saul’s Life (1 Sm 24:1-22)<\/h6>\nWhile hiding deep in a cave at En-gedi, David was unexpectedly provided the opportunity to take Saul’s life when Saul relieved himself at the entrance to the cave. Nevertheless, because Saul was “the anointed of the Lord,” David spared his life and shamed him into confessing his own wickedness. David did this by showing Saul a piece of his robe that he had cut off while Saul was in the entrance to the cave.<\/p>\n<h6>David, Nabal, and Abigail (1 Sm 25:1-44)<\/h6>\nDavid was badly mistreated by a sheepherder named Nabal. David was deterred, however, from foolishly taking the man’s life by the discerning words of Nabal’s wife, Abigail. Shortly after this incident, Nabal died and David took Abigail as his wife.<\/p>\n<h6>David Spares Saul’s Life a Second Time (1 Sm 26:1-25)<\/h6>\nFor a second time, the Ziphites joined Saul in attempting to capture David. While Saul and his men were sleeping, David and Abishai crept into their camp and took Saul’s spear and water jug. On the next day, David was again able to demonstrate to Saul that he did not seek to steal the kingship from his hands.<\/p>\n<h6>David among the Philistines (1 Sm 27:1-12)<\/h6>\nDavid eventually became weary of hiding from Saul in Israelite territory; in a time of discouragement, he went again to Philistia to seek refuge beyond Saul’s reach. Ingratiating himself with Achish, a Philistine ruler, he was given the town of Ziklag as a place for himself and his men to reside. From Ziklag, David raided various tribes inhabiting the area south of Philistia, but deceived Achish into thinking he was raiding the territory of Judah.<\/p>\n<h6>Saul and the Medium of Endor (1 Sm 28:1-25)<\/h6>\nThe Philistines again gathered an army to fight Israel, and Saul, terrified and seemingly anticipating an imminent defeat, vainly sought for some word from the Lord concerning the outcome of the battle. When this was denied, he went in disguise to a medium at Endor and requested her to bring up to him the spirit of Samuel. Saul was told by this spirit that Israel would be defeated and that he and his sons would die in the upcoming battle.<\/p>\n<h6>The Philistines Mistrust David (1 Sm 29:1-11)<\/h6>\nAlthough Achish desired David to join the Philistine army in its battle with Israel, the other Philistine commanders mistrusted him and forced Achish to send David and his men back to Ziklag. This turn of events rescued David from a serious dilemma created by his apparent friendship with Achish.<\/p>\n<h6>David Defeats the Amalekites (1 Sm 30:1-31)<\/h6>\nUpon returning to Ziklag, David discovered that in his absence the city had been raided and burned by the Amalekites and that their wives, children, and cattle had been taken captive. After inquiring of the Lord through Abiathar the priest, David and his men went in pursuit of the Amalekites and recovered all they had taken and more. He divided the plunder among his troops and sent gifts from it to various towns in Judah.<\/p>\n<h6>The Death of Saul and His Sons (1 Sm 31:1—2 Sm 1:27)<\/h6>\nAs had been predicted, the battle with the Philistines ended in a disastrous defeat for Israel, in which Saul took his own life after being seriously wounded. Jonathan and two other sons of Saul were killed. David mourned for Saul and Jonathan and exalted their memory in his tribute to them recorded in 2 Samuel 1:19-27.<\/p>\n<h5>David (2 Sm 2–24)<\/h5>\n\n<h6>David Anointed King over Judah (2 Sm 2:1-7)<\/h6>\nSubsequent to Saul’s death, the Lord instructed David to go to Hebron, where the tribe of Judah anointed him as their king.<\/p>\n<h6>David, Ishbosheth, and Abner (2 Sm 2:8–4:12)<\/h6>\nAlthough David became king over Judah, the remaining tribes—under the influence of Abner, commander of Saul’s army—recognized Ishbosheth as Saul’s successor (2:8-10). Ishbosheth was a son of Saul who had survived the battle with the Philistines. Conflict quickly broke out between the men of David, led by Joab, and the men of Ishbosheth, led by Abner. In this conflict Asahel, Joab’s brother, was slain by Abner. As David grew stronger and Ishbosheth weaker, Abner shifted his allegiance from Ishbosheth to David (3:1-21). Joab, however, avenged the blood of his brother Asahel by murdering Abner under the pretense of negotiating with him. Although David detested this act, mourned for Abner, and cursed Joab, the crime was not punished until early in the reign of Solomon (see 1 Kgs 2:5-6, 29-34). Shortly afterward, Ishbosheth was killed by two soldiers, who brought his head to David at Hebron, expecting to be rewarded (2 Sm 4:1-8). David, however, had them both put to death. The only male survivor of Saul’s line was the crippled son of Jonathan named Mephibosheth.<\/p>\n<h6>David King over All Israel (2 Sm 5)<\/h6>\nAfter Ishbosheth’s death, David was made king over all the tribes at Hebron. One of David’s first acts as king was to capture the fortress of Zion from the Jebusites. David established Zion as his capital and built a palace there for his residence.<\/p>\n<h6>The Ark Brought to Jerusalem (2 Sm 6)<\/h6>\nRecognizing the importance of the ark as a symbol of God’s presence with his people, David determined that it should be brought to Jerusalem from the obscurity of the house of Abinadab in Kiriath-jearim, where it had remained throughout the entirety of Saul’s reign. Violation of prescriptions for handling the ark led to the death of Uzzah, one of Abinadab’s sons, and delayed the ark’s conveyance to Jerusalem for three months. In a second attempt David led a joyful procession into the city of Jerusalem, where the ark was placed in a tent that had been prepared for it.<\/p>\n<h6>David, Nathan, and the Temple (2 Sm 7)<\/h6>\nIt soon became David’s desire to build a temple to house the ark and provide a center for Israel’s worship of the Lord. The Lord told David through Nathan the prophet that he was not to build the Lord a house (temple) but that the Lord would build him a house (a dynasty) that would endure forever. Here the line of the promised seed is narrowed to the house of David within the tribe of Judah. This promise finds its fulfillment in the birth of Jesus, who was the “son of David, the son of Abraham” (see Mt 1:1). It would be the task of Solomon, David’s son, to construct the temple (2 Sm 7:13).<\/p>\n<h6>David’s Victories (2 Sm 8)<\/h6>\nDavid was able to defeat numerous surrounding peoples, to extend Israel’s borders, and to establish a time of prosperity and rest for the nation.<\/p>\n<h6>David and Mephibosheth (2 Sm 9)<\/h6>\nRemembering his covenant with Jonathan (see 1 Sm 18:1-3; 20:13-16, 42), David inquired concerning survivors of the house of Saul to whom he could show kindness. When Mephibosheth was sought out, David brought him to the court to enjoy the honor of eating at the king’s table.<\/p>\n<h6>David and Bathsheba (2 Sm 10–12)<\/h6>\nDuring a war with the Ammonites, David committed adultery with the wife of one of his soldiers, Uriah the Hittite. When Bathsheba became pregnant, David attempted to get Uriah to sleep with her. When this failed, David arranged for Uriah’s certain death in battle. These sinful acts provoked God’s wrath (2 Sm 12:10-12) and David experienced the bitter fruits of his misconduct during the remainder of his life.<\/p>\n<h6>Amnon, Absalom, and Tamar (2 Sm 13)<\/h6>\nDavid’s oldest son, Amnon, feigned sickness in order to arrange for his half sister, Tamar, to care for him. When Tamar refused Amnon’s sexual advances to her, he raped her. This incident enraged Tamar’s full brother Absalom, who determined to avenge his sister by killing Amnon. Absalom waited two years and then arranged for the murder of Amnon during the festivities of the time of sheepshearing. He then fled to Geshur, a small city-state in Syria, where his maternal grandfather was king.<\/p>\n<h6>David and Absalom (2 Sm 14–19)<\/h6>\nAbsalom remained in exile for three years until Joab arranged for his return by securing a renunciation of blood revenge from David (14:1-27). Upon Absalom’s return, however, David refused to see him for two years, until they were finally reconciled. In this whole episode David sidestepped the issues of repentance and justice and took no effective disciplinary action. In the meantime Absalom conspired to take the throne from David his father by attempting to discredit his administration of justice, and by seeking to win the favor of the people and members of David’s court. After four years, Absalom proclaimed himself king in Hebron and gathered sufficient military strength to force his father to flee from Jerusalem (ch 15). Failure to immediately pursue David led to the defeat of Absalom’s forces and to Absalom’s own death at the hand of Joab, David’s commander. David mourned for his son Absalom (19:1-8), but he was able to return to Jerusalem and to reestablish his government. David disciplined Joab for killing Absalom by replacing him as commander of his troops with Amasa.<\/p>\n<h6>Rebellion of Sheba (2 Sm 20)<\/h6>\nIn the unsettled conditions immediately after David’s return to Jerusalem, another abortive revolt was attempted by Sheba of the tribe of Benjamin. Joab, in defiance of David’s disciplinary action, killed Amasa, pursued Sheba, and crushed his revolt.<\/p>\n<h6>David and the Gibeonites (2 Sm 21:1-14)<\/h6>\nAt some unspecified time during David’s reign, the land suffered a three-year famine. It was revealed to David by the Lord that the famine was due to Saul’s violation of an Israelite treaty with the Gibeonites (see Jos 9:15, 18-27). This offense was atoned for by giving seven descendants of Saul to the Gibeonites for execution.<\/p>\n<h6>David and the Philistines (2 Sm 21:15-22)<\/h6>\nIn this pericope four episodes of heroic accomplishments by David’s mighty men against the Philistines are recounted.<\/p>\n<h6>David’s Song of Praise (2 Sm 22)<\/h6>\nIn a beautiful song of praise, David described his deliverance from his enemies and the help with which the Lord sustained him. The same song occurs with minor variations in Psalm 18.<\/p>\n<h6>David’s Last Words (2 Sm 23:1-7)<\/h6>\nIn a brief statement, David acknowledges the work of God’s Spirit in enabling him to speak God’s word, and proclaims his confidence in the realization of the Lord’s promise to him and his dynasty.<\/p>\n<h6>David’s Mighty Men (2 Sm 23:8-39)<\/h6>\nThis pericope contains a list of 37 of David’s warriors and a description of some of their accomplishments.<\/p>\n<h6>The Census and David’s Punishment (2 Sm 24:1-25)<\/h6>\nDavid’s decision to take a census of his fighting men reflected an improper trust in military-political organization and power. The Lord judged him by sending a plague on the land that killed many people. At the word of the Lord through Gad the prophet, David built an altar on the threshing floor of Araunah, which was later to become the site of the temple (see 2 Chr 3:1). The Lord responded to David’s sacrifices and prayers on behalf of the people; the plague was stopped.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> David; Samuel (Person); Saul #2.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SAMUEL, Books of First and Second Preview • Name • Author and Date • Purpose and Theological Teaching • Content Name First and Second Samuel derive their names from the individual whom God used to establish kingship in Israel. Samuel is the most prominent figure in the early narratives of 1 Samuel. His key role in leading the nation of Israel through the transition from the period of the judges to that of the monarchy warrants the use of his name as the title for the book. These books, howeve...","summary_en":"SAMUEL, Books of First and Second Preview • Name • Author and Date • Purpose and Theological Teaching • Content Name First and Second Samuel derive their names from the individual whom God used to establish kingship in Israel. Samuel is the most prominent figure in the early narratives of 1 Samuel. His key role in leading the nation of Israel through the transition from the period of the judges to that of the monarchy warrants the use of his name as the title for the book. These books, howeve...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"16":[{"id":52132,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 7:16","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 7:16","content_ro":"7:16<\/strong> The Lord commanded Jeremiah not to pray . . . for these people<\/em> because it would not do any good (15:1; cp. Exod 32:10; Deut 9:14).<\/p>","content_en":"7:16<\/strong> The Lord commanded Jeremiah not to pray . . . for these people<\/em> because it would not do any good (15:1; cp. Exod 32:10; Deut 9:14).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:16 The Lord commanded Jeremiah not to pray . . . for these people because it would not do any good (15:1; cp. Exod 32:10; Deut 9:14).","summary_en":"7:16 The Lord commanded Jeremiah not to pray . . . for these people because it would not do any good (15:1; cp. Exod 32:10; Deut 9:14).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":79758,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 7:16","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 7:16","content_ro":"7:16<\/strong> The Lord commanded Jeremiah not to pray . . . for these people<\/em> because it would not do any good (15:1; cp. Exod 32:10; Deut 9:14).<\/p>","content_en":"7:16<\/strong> The Lord commanded Jeremiah not to pray . . . for these people<\/em> because it would not do any good (15:1; cp. Exod 32:10; Deut 9:14).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:16 The Lord commanded Jeremiah not to pray . . . for these people because it would not do any good (15:1; cp. Exod 32:10; Deut 9:14).","summary_en":"7:16 The Lord commanded Jeremiah not to pray . . . for these people because it would not do any good (15:1; cp. Exod 32:10; Deut 9:14).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":107384,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 7:16","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 7:16","content_ro":"7:16<\/strong> The Lord commanded Jeremiah not to pray . . . for these people<\/em> because it would not do any good (15:1; cp. Exod 32:10; Deut 9:14).<\/p>","content_en":"7:16<\/strong> The Lord commanded Jeremiah not to pray . . . for these people<\/em> because it would not do any good (15:1; cp. Exod 32:10; Deut 9:14).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:16 The Lord commanded Jeremiah not to pray . . . for these people because it would not do any good (15:1; cp. Exod 32:10; Deut 9:14).","summary_en":"7:16 The Lord commanded Jeremiah not to pray . . . for these people because it would not do any good (15:1; cp. Exod 32:10; Deut 9:14).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":135010,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 7:16","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 7:16","content_ro":"7:16<\/strong> The Lord commanded Jeremiah not to pray . . . for these people<\/em> because it would not do any good (15:1; cp. Exod 32:10; Deut 9:14).<\/p>","content_en":"7:16<\/strong> The Lord commanded Jeremiah not to pray . . . for these people<\/em> because it would not do any good (15:1; cp. Exod 32:10; Deut 9:14).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:16 The Lord commanded Jeremiah not to pray . . . for these people because it would not do any good (15:1; cp. Exod 32:10; Deut 9:14).","summary_en":"7:16 The Lord commanded Jeremiah not to pray . . . for these people because it would not do any good (15:1; cp. Exod 32:10; Deut 9:14).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":64134,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Basic Laws","title_en":"Basic Laws","content_ro":"<h3>Basic Laws<\/h3>\nThroughout Scripture, the one true God is the highest authority; his laws are set out both as positive commands and as negative prohibitions. The positive side can be summed up in two basic laws: “You must love the Lord<\/span> your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your strength” (Deut 6:5; Matt 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27), and “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:18; Matt 19:19; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27). These two basic laws are reflected in the positive laws in the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:2-17; Deut 5:6-21): “Observe the Sabbath day. . . . Honor your father and mother.” These commands open the door to the expression of “faith, hope, and love” (see 1 Cor 13:13).<\/p>\nThe negative prohibitions set up a boundary between good and evil. Primary among these laws are the first two of the Ten Commandments: “You must not have any other god but me” (Exod 20:3), and “You must not make for yourself an idol of any kind or an image . . . You must not bow down to them or worship them” (Exod 20:4-5). These prohibited behaviors violate the fundamental command to love the Lord.<\/p>\nIn the books of the prophets, these laws lie behind God’s evaluation of the Israelites’ conduct—as well as the conduct of any ruler, group of people, or individual in any time or place. Those who violate these core laws reject the one true God, resulting in decrees of divine judgment and disastrous consequences.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nExod 20:2-17; Lev 19:18; Deut 5:6-21; 6:5; Jer 2:7-13; 3:8-11; 5:1-9; 6:10-21; 7:16-29; 8:9-13; 11:6-14; 17:1-4; 22:1-9; 23:10-12; 34:8-20; Matt 19:19; 22:37; Mark 12:30-31; Luke 10:27; 1 Cor 13:13<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Basic Laws<\/h3>\nThroughout Scripture, the one true God is the highest authority; his laws are set out both as positive commands and as negative prohibitions. The positive side can be summed up in two basic laws: “You must love the Lord<\/span> your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your strength” (Deut 6:5; Matt 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27), and “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:18; Matt 19:19; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27). These two basic laws are reflected in the positive laws in the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:2-17; Deut 5:6-21): “Observe the Sabbath day. . . . Honor your father and mother.” These commands open the door to the expression of “faith, hope, and love” (see 1 Cor 13:13).<\/p>\nThe negative prohibitions set up a boundary between good and evil. Primary among these laws are the first two of the Ten Commandments: “You must not have any other god but me” (Exod 20:3), and “You must not make for yourself an idol of any kind or an image . . . You must not bow down to them or worship them” (Exod 20:4-5). These prohibited behaviors violate the fundamental command to love the Lord.<\/p>\nIn the books of the prophets, these laws lie behind God’s evaluation of the Israelites’ conduct—as well as the conduct of any ruler, group of people, or individual in any time or place. Those who violate these core laws reject the one true God, resulting in decrees of divine judgment and disastrous consequences.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nExod 20:2-17; Lev 19:18; Deut 5:6-21; 6:5; Jer 2:7-13; 3:8-11; 5:1-9; 6:10-21; 7:16-29; 8:9-13; 11:6-14; 17:1-4; 22:1-9; 23:10-12; 34:8-20; Matt 19:19; 22:37; Mark 12:30-31; Luke 10:27; 1 Cor 13:13<\/p>","summary_ro":"Basic Laws Throughout Scripture, the one true God is the highest authority; his laws are set out both as positive commands and as negative prohibitions. The positive side can be summed up in two basic laws: “You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your strength” (Deut 6:5; Matt 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27), and “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:18; Matt 19:19; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27). These two basic laws are reflected in the positive laws in the T...","summary_en":"Basic Laws Throughout Scripture, the one true God is the highest authority; his laws are set out both as positive commands and as negative prohibitions. The positive side can be summed up in two basic laws: “You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your strength” (Deut 6:5; Matt 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27), and “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:18; Matt 19:19; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27). These two basic laws are reflected in the positive laws in the T...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":91760,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Basic Laws","title_en":"Basic Laws","content_ro":"<h3>Basic Laws<\/h3>\nThroughout Scripture, the one true God is the highest authority; his laws are set out both as positive commands and as negative prohibitions. The positive side can be summed up in two basic laws: “You must love the Lord<\/span> your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your strength” (Deut 6:5; Matt 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27), and “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:18; Matt 19:19; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27). These two basic laws are reflected in the positive laws in the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:2-17; Deut 5:6-21): “Observe the Sabbath day. . . . Honor your father and mother.” These commands open the door to the expression of “faith, hope, and love” (see 1 Cor 13:13).<\/p>\nThe negative prohibitions set up a boundary between good and evil. Primary among these laws are the first two of the Ten Commandments: “You must not have any other god but me” (Exod 20:3), and “You must not make for yourself an idol of any kind or an image . . . You must not bow down to them or worship them” (Exod 20:4-5). These prohibited behaviors violate the fundamental command to love the Lord.<\/p>\nIn the books of the prophets, these laws lie behind God’s evaluation of the Israelites’ conduct—as well as the conduct of any ruler, group of people, or individual in any time or place. Those who violate these core laws reject the one true God, resulting in decrees of divine judgment and disastrous consequences.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nExod 20:2-17; Lev 19:18; Deut 5:6-21; 6:5; Jer 2:7-13; 3:8-11; 5:1-9; 6:10-21; 7:16-29; 8:9-13; 11:6-14; 17:1-4; 22:1-9; 23:10-12; 34:8-20; Matt 19:19; 22:37; Mark 12:30-31; Luke 10:27; 1 Cor 13:13<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Basic Laws<\/h3>\nThroughout Scripture, the one true God is the highest authority; his laws are set out both as positive commands and as negative prohibitions. The positive side can be summed up in two basic laws: “You must love the Lord<\/span> your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your strength” (Deut 6:5; Matt 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27), and “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:18; Matt 19:19; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27). These two basic laws are reflected in the positive laws in the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:2-17; Deut 5:6-21): “Observe the Sabbath day. . . . Honor your father and mother.” These commands open the door to the expression of “faith, hope, and love” (see 1 Cor 13:13).<\/p>\nThe negative prohibitions set up a boundary between good and evil. Primary among these laws are the first two of the Ten Commandments: “You must not have any other god but me” (Exod 20:3), and “You must not make for yourself an idol of any kind or an image . . . You must not bow down to them or worship them” (Exod 20:4-5). These prohibited behaviors violate the fundamental command to love the Lord.<\/p>\nIn the books of the prophets, these laws lie behind God’s evaluation of the Israelites’ conduct—as well as the conduct of any ruler, group of people, or individual in any time or place. Those who violate these core laws reject the one true God, resulting in decrees of divine judgment and disastrous consequences.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nExod 20:2-17; Lev 19:18; Deut 5:6-21; 6:5; Jer 2:7-13; 3:8-11; 5:1-9; 6:10-21; 7:16-29; 8:9-13; 11:6-14; 17:1-4; 22:1-9; 23:10-12; 34:8-20; Matt 19:19; 22:37; Mark 12:30-31; Luke 10:27; 1 Cor 13:13<\/p>","summary_ro":"Basic Laws Throughout Scripture, the one true God is the highest authority; his laws are set out both as positive commands and as negative prohibitions. The positive side can be summed up in two basic laws: “You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your strength” (Deut 6:5; Matt 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27), and “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:18; Matt 19:19; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27). These two basic laws are reflected in the positive laws in the T...","summary_en":"Basic Laws Throughout Scripture, the one true God is the highest authority; his laws are set out both as positive commands and as negative prohibitions. The positive side can be summed up in two basic laws: “You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your strength” (Deut 6:5; Matt 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27), and “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:18; Matt 19:19; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27). These two basic laws are reflected in the positive laws in the T...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":119386,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Basic Laws","title_en":"Basic Laws","content_ro":"<h3>Basic Laws<\/h3>\nThroughout Scripture, the one true God is the highest authority; his laws are set out both as positive commands and as negative prohibitions. The positive side can be summed up in two basic laws: “You must love the Lord<\/span> your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your strength” (Deut 6:5; Matt 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27), and “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:18; Matt 19:19; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27). These two basic laws are reflected in the positive laws in the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:2-17; Deut 5:6-21): “Observe the Sabbath day. . . . Honor your father and mother.” These commands open the door to the expression of “faith, hope, and love” (see 1 Cor 13:13).<\/p>\nThe negative prohibitions set up a boundary between good and evil. Primary among these laws are the first two of the Ten Commandments: “You must not have any other god but me” (Exod 20:3), and “You must not make for yourself an idol of any kind or an image . . . You must not bow down to them or worship them” (Exod 20:4-5). These prohibited behaviors violate the fundamental command to love the Lord.<\/p>\nIn the books of the prophets, these laws lie behind God’s evaluation of the Israelites’ conduct—as well as the conduct of any ruler, group of people, or individual in any time or place. Those who violate these core laws reject the one true God, resulting in decrees of divine judgment and disastrous consequences.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nExod 20:2-17; Lev 19:18; Deut 5:6-21; 6:5; Jer 2:7-13; 3:8-11; 5:1-9; 6:10-21; 7:16-29; 8:9-13; 11:6-14; 17:1-4; 22:1-9; 23:10-12; 34:8-20; Matt 19:19; 22:37; Mark 12:30-31; Luke 10:27; 1 Cor 13:13<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Basic Laws<\/h3>\nThroughout Scripture, the one true God is the highest authority; his laws are set out both as positive commands and as negative prohibitions. The positive side can be summed up in two basic laws: “You must love the Lord<\/span> your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your strength” (Deut 6:5; Matt 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27), and “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:18; Matt 19:19; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27). These two basic laws are reflected in the positive laws in the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:2-17; Deut 5:6-21): “Observe the Sabbath day. . . . Honor your father and mother.” These commands open the door to the expression of “faith, hope, and love” (see 1 Cor 13:13).<\/p>\nThe negative prohibitions set up a boundary between good and evil. Primary among these laws are the first two of the Ten Commandments: “You must not have any other god but me” (Exod 20:3), and “You must not make for yourself an idol of any kind or an image . . . You must not bow down to them or worship them” (Exod 20:4-5). These prohibited behaviors violate the fundamental command to love the Lord.<\/p>\nIn the books of the prophets, these laws lie behind God’s evaluation of the Israelites’ conduct—as well as the conduct of any ruler, group of people, or individual in any time or place. Those who violate these core laws reject the one true God, resulting in decrees of divine judgment and disastrous consequences.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nExod 20:2-17; Lev 19:18; Deut 5:6-21; 6:5; Jer 2:7-13; 3:8-11; 5:1-9; 6:10-21; 7:16-29; 8:9-13; 11:6-14; 17:1-4; 22:1-9; 23:10-12; 34:8-20; Matt 19:19; 22:37; Mark 12:30-31; Luke 10:27; 1 Cor 13:13<\/p>","summary_ro":"Basic Laws Throughout Scripture, the one true God is the highest authority; his laws are set out both as positive commands and as negative prohibitions. The positive side can be summed up in two basic laws: “You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your strength” (Deut 6:5; Matt 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27), and “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:18; Matt 19:19; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27). These two basic laws are reflected in the positive laws in the T...","summary_en":"Basic Laws Throughout Scripture, the one true God is the highest authority; his laws are set out both as positive commands and as negative prohibitions. The positive side can be summed up in two basic laws: “You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your strength” (Deut 6:5; Matt 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27), and “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:18; Matt 19:19; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27). These two basic laws are reflected in the positive laws in the T...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":147012,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Basic Laws","title_en":"Basic Laws","content_ro":"<h3>Basic Laws<\/h3>\nThroughout Scripture, the one true God is the highest authority; his laws are set out both as positive commands and as negative prohibitions. The positive side can be summed up in two basic laws: “You must love the Lord<\/span> your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your strength” (Deut 6:5; Matt 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27), and “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:18; Matt 19:19; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27). These two basic laws are reflected in the positive laws in the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:2-17; Deut 5:6-21): “Observe the Sabbath day. . . . Honor your father and mother.” These commands open the door to the expression of “faith, hope, and love” (see 1 Cor 13:13).<\/p>\nThe negative prohibitions set up a boundary between good and evil. Primary among these laws are the first two of the Ten Commandments: “You must not have any other god but me” (Exod 20:3), and “You must not make for yourself an idol of any kind or an image . . . You must not bow down to them or worship them” (Exod 20:4-5). These prohibited behaviors violate the fundamental command to love the Lord.<\/p>\nIn the books of the prophets, these laws lie behind God’s evaluation of the Israelites’ conduct—as well as the conduct of any ruler, group of people, or individual in any time or place. Those who violate these core laws reject the one true God, resulting in decrees of divine judgment and disastrous consequences.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nExod 20:2-17; Lev 19:18; Deut 5:6-21; 6:5; Jer 2:7-13; 3:8-11; 5:1-9; 6:10-21; 7:16-29; 8:9-13; 11:6-14; 17:1-4; 22:1-9; 23:10-12; 34:8-20; Matt 19:19; 22:37; Mark 12:30-31; Luke 10:27; 1 Cor 13:13<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Basic Laws<\/h3>\nThroughout Scripture, the one true God is the highest authority; his laws are set out both as positive commands and as negative prohibitions. The positive side can be summed up in two basic laws: “You must love the Lord<\/span> your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your strength” (Deut 6:5; Matt 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27), and “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:18; Matt 19:19; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27). These two basic laws are reflected in the positive laws in the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:2-17; Deut 5:6-21): “Observe the Sabbath day. . . . Honor your father and mother.” These commands open the door to the expression of “faith, hope, and love” (see 1 Cor 13:13).<\/p>\nThe negative prohibitions set up a boundary between good and evil. Primary among these laws are the first two of the Ten Commandments: “You must not have any other god but me” (Exod 20:3), and “You must not make for yourself an idol of any kind or an image . . . You must not bow down to them or worship them” (Exod 20:4-5). These prohibited behaviors violate the fundamental command to love the Lord.<\/p>\nIn the books of the prophets, these laws lie behind God’s evaluation of the Israelites’ conduct—as well as the conduct of any ruler, group of people, or individual in any time or place. Those who violate these core laws reject the one true God, resulting in decrees of divine judgment and disastrous consequences.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nExod 20:2-17; Lev 19:18; Deut 5:6-21; 6:5; Jer 2:7-13; 3:8-11; 5:1-9; 6:10-21; 7:16-29; 8:9-13; 11:6-14; 17:1-4; 22:1-9; 23:10-12; 34:8-20; Matt 19:19; 22:37; Mark 12:30-31; Luke 10:27; 1 Cor 13:13<\/p>","summary_ro":"Basic Laws Throughout Scripture, the one true God is the highest authority; his laws are set out both as positive commands and as negative prohibitions. The positive side can be summed up in two basic laws: “You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your strength” (Deut 6:5; Matt 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27), and “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:18; Matt 19:19; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27). These two basic laws are reflected in the positive laws in the T...","summary_en":"Basic Laws Throughout Scripture, the one true God is the highest authority; his laws are set out both as positive commands and as negative prohibitions. The positive side can be summed up in two basic laws: “You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your strength” (Deut 6:5; Matt 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27), and “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:18; Matt 19:19; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27). These two basic laws are reflected in the positive laws in the T...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"17":[{"id":52133,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 7:17","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 7:17","content_ro":"7:17-18<\/strong> Pagan worship had become a family affair; each member of a family provided some part of the ritual. The object of their worship was Ashtoreth, the Queen of Heaven<\/em>,<\/em> the mother goddess of the Canaanites with her family of deities (see 44:17-19).<\/p>","content_en":"7:17-18<\/strong> Pagan worship had become a family affair; each member of a family provided some part of the ritual. The object of their worship was Ashtoreth, the Queen of Heaven<\/em>,<\/em> the mother goddess of the Canaanites with her family of deities (see 44:17-19).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:17-18 Pagan worship had become a family affair; each member of a family provided some part of the ritual. The object of their worship was Ashtoreth, the Queen of Heaven, the mother goddess of the Canaanites with her family of deities (see 44:17-19).","summary_en":"7:17-18 Pagan worship had become a family affair; each member of a family provided some part of the ritual. The object of their worship was Ashtoreth, the Queen of Heaven, the mother goddess of the Canaanites with her family of deities (see 44:17-19).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":79759,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 7:17","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 7:17","content_ro":"7:17-18<\/strong> Pagan worship had become a family affair; each member of a family provided some part of the ritual. The object of their worship was Ashtoreth, the Queen of Heaven<\/em>,<\/em> the mother goddess of the Canaanites with her family of deities (see 44:17-19).<\/p>","content_en":"7:17-18<\/strong> Pagan worship had become a family affair; each member of a family provided some part of the ritual. The object of their worship was Ashtoreth, the Queen of Heaven<\/em>,<\/em> the mother goddess of the Canaanites with her family of deities (see 44:17-19).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:17-18 Pagan worship had become a family affair; each member of a family provided some part of the ritual. The object of their worship was Ashtoreth, the Queen of Heaven, the mother goddess of the Canaanites with her family of deities (see 44:17-19).","summary_en":"7:17-18 Pagan worship had become a family affair; each member of a family provided some part of the ritual. The object of their worship was Ashtoreth, the Queen of Heaven, the mother goddess of the Canaanites with her family of deities (see 44:17-19).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":107385,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 7:17","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 7:17","content_ro":"7:17-18<\/strong> Pagan worship had become a family affair; each member of a family provided some part of the ritual. The object of their worship was Ashtoreth, the Queen of Heaven<\/em>,<\/em> the mother goddess of the Canaanites with her family of deities (see 44:17-19).<\/p>","content_en":"7:17-18<\/strong> Pagan worship had become a family affair; each member of a family provided some part of the ritual. The object of their worship was Ashtoreth, the Queen of Heaven<\/em>,<\/em> the mother goddess of the Canaanites with her family of deities (see 44:17-19).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:17-18 Pagan worship had become a family affair; each member of a family provided some part of the ritual. The object of their worship was Ashtoreth, the Queen of Heaven, the mother goddess of the Canaanites with her family of deities (see 44:17-19).","summary_en":"7:17-18 Pagan worship had become a family affair; each member of a family provided some part of the ritual. The object of their worship was Ashtoreth, the Queen of Heaven, the mother goddess of the Canaanites with her family of deities (see 44:17-19).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":135011,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 7:17","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 7:17","content_ro":"7:17-18<\/strong> Pagan worship had become a family affair; each member of a family provided some part of the ritual. The object of their worship was Ashtoreth, the Queen of Heaven<\/em>,<\/em> the mother goddess of the Canaanites with her family of deities (see 44:17-19).<\/p>","content_en":"7:17-18<\/strong> Pagan worship had become a family affair; each member of a family provided some part of the ritual. The object of their worship was Ashtoreth, the Queen of Heaven<\/em>,<\/em> the mother goddess of the Canaanites with her family of deities (see 44:17-19).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:17-18 Pagan worship had become a family affair; each member of a family provided some part of the ritual. The object of their worship was Ashtoreth, the Queen of Heaven, the mother goddess of the Canaanites with her family of deities (see 44:17-19).","summary_en":"7:17-18 Pagan worship had become a family affair; each member of a family provided some part of the ritual. The object of their worship was Ashtoreth, the Queen of Heaven, the mother goddess of the Canaanites with her family of deities (see 44:17-19).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"18":[{"id":12006,"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>\nIn 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>\nThose 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>\nAs 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>\nAs 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>\nWith 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>\nDuring 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>\nThe 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 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>\nEmphasis 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>\nThe 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>\nIn 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>\nIn 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>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Status of Family Members<\/p>\n• Marital Security<\/p>\n• Position of Children<\/p>\n• The Rights of Children<\/p>\n• Daily Life of the Hebrew Family<\/p>\n• In New Testament Times<\/p>\nStatus of Family Members<\/p>\nFrom 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>\nA 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>\nAn 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>\nDespite 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>\nNevertheless, 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>\nIn 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>\nThe 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>\nThe 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>\nMarital Security<\/p>\nThe 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>\nThe 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>\nIf 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>\nA 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>\nIt 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>\nA 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>\nIf 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>\nThe 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>\nPosition of Children<\/p>\nChildren 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>\nFor 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>\nIn 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>\nThere 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>\nThe Rights of Children<\/p>\nThe 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>\nThe 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>\nIn 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>\nDaily Life of the Hebrew Family<\/p>\nIn 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>\nThe 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>\nThe 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>\nThe 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>\nWith 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>\nA 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>\nAs 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>\nAs 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>\nChildren 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>\nYoung 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>\nMealtimes 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>\nFeast 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>\nDaylight 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>\nIn New Testament Times<\/p>\nBy 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>\nThe 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>\nSee also<\/em> Education; Marriage, Marriage Customs; Sex, Sexuality; Widow; Woman.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>FAMILY LIFE AND RELATIONS<\/h3>\nIn 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>\nThose 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>\nAs 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>\nAs 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>\nWith 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>\nDuring 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>\nThe 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 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>\nEmphasis 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>\nThe 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>\nIn 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>\nIn 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>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Status of Family Members<\/p>\n• Marital Security<\/p>\n• Position of Children<\/p>\n• The Rights of Children<\/p>\n• Daily Life of the Hebrew Family<\/p>\n• In New Testament Times<\/p>\nStatus of Family Members<\/p>\nFrom 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>\nA 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>\nAn 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>\nDespite 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>\nNevertheless, 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>\nIn 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>\nThe 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>\nThe 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>\nMarital Security<\/p>\nThe 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>\nThe 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>\nIf 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>\nA 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>\nIt 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>\nA 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>\nIf 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>\nThe 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>\nPosition of Children<\/p>\nChildren 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>\nFor 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>\nIn 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>\nThere 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>\nThe Rights of Children<\/p>\nThe 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>\nThe 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>\nIn 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>\nDaily Life of the Hebrew Family<\/p>\nIn 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>\nThe 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>\nThe 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>\nThe 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>\nWith 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>\nA 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>\nAs 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>\nAs 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>\nChildren 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>\nYoung 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>\nMealtimes 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>\nFeast 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>\nDaylight 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>\nIn New Testament Times<\/p>\nBy 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>\nThe 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>\nSee 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":14394,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Gods and Goddesses","title_en":"Gods and Goddesses","content_ro":"<h3>GODS AND GODDESSES<\/h3>\nMale and female deities worshiped by pagans. Although the Bible teaches that there is only one God (Is 45:18, 21-22; Mk 12:32), heathen people in ancient times quickly developed a belief in large numbers of so-called gods (Jer 10:11) and goddesses. Eventually each nation created and worshiped its own deities, usually more than one. Many of these “foreign gods” (1 Sm 7:3) are named in the Bible, and in most cases we are told to what nation each belonged. The list from Mesopotamia, a center of idol worship, is the longest: Adrammelech and Anammelech (2 Kgs 17:31), Bel (also known as Marduk, Is 46:1; Jer 50:2; 51:44), Kaiwan (Am 5:26), Nebo or Nabu (Is 46:1), Nergal (2 Kgs 17:30), Nisroch (19:37; Is 37:38), Rephan (Acts 7:43), Sakkuth (Am 5:26), Succoth-benoth (2 Kgs 17:30), Tammuz (Ez 8:14), and Tartak (2 Kgs 17:31). The Syrians were devoted to Ashima (v 30) and Rimmon (5:18), who was also worshiped under the compound name Hadad-rimmon (Zec 12:11). Israel’s eastern neighbors, Ammon and Moab, worshiped Milcom or Molech (1 Kgs 11:5-7, 33; 2 Kgs 23:13) and Chemosh, respectively, although the Moabites also worshiped a local manifestation of Baal (Nm 25:3-5). The Philistine gods were Dagon and Baal-zebub (2 Kgs 1:2-3, 6, 16), who is the equivalent of the NT Beelzebul (Mt 12:24; Lk 11:15). One Canaanite god, Baal, and two Canaanite goddesses, Asherah and Ashtoreth, are mentioned frequently in the OT; Ashtoreth was the same as the Mesopotamian Ishtar, also known as the “Queen of Heaven” (Jer 7:18; 44:17-19, 25). The gods of Egypt are represented by only two names in the Bible: Amon (Jer 46:25) and Apis (v 15). Nibhaz (2 Kgs 17:31) was probably an Elamite god.<\/p>\nAt least three Greco-Roman deities are mentioned in the NT: the Greek goddess Artemis (Acts 19:24-28, 34-35), known as Diana by the Romans, and the Greek gods Zeus and Hermes (Acts 14:12-13), known as Jupiter and Mercury, respectively, by the Romans.<\/p>\nThe Bible clearly teaches that the gods of the nations have no objective reality (Jer 2:11), even though their worshipers sincerely believe that they actually exist (v 28). But the Lord proclaims that “they are no gods,” (Jer 2:11; 16:20) or “gods that are not gods” (5:7, niv<\/span>). The NT further declares of idols that “an idol has no real existence” (1 Cor 8:4) and that “gods made with hands are not gods” (Acts 19:26). It is not surprising, then, that when the Israelites began to encounter other nations in significant ways—that is, as early as the time of the exodus—they were told repeatedly that the Lord is greater than all other gods (Ex 15:11; 18:11; Dt 10:17; 1 Chr 16:25; 2 Chr 2:5; Pss 86:8; 95:3; 96:4-5; 97:7-9; 135:5, 136:2; Dn 2:47; Zep 2:11).<\/p>\nSuch so-called gods were not worthy of Israel’s attention or veneration. Since there is only one God, other gods could not claim and did not deserve Israel’s worship (Ex 20:3; Dt 5:7). The Hebrew language did not even have a word for “goddess” and therefore had to use its word for “god” to express that concept (see 1 Kgs 11:5, 33). The Israelites were to make no images (Ex 20:4, 23; Lv 19:4; Dt 5:8) or mention (Ex 23:13; Jos 23:7) of the gods and goddesses of their heathen neighbors.<\/p>\nYet despite all God’s warnings, idolatry was Israel’s besetting sin from the earliest times. During the patriarchal period, God’s people were attracted to the “household idols” (Gn 31:32) of their relatives, and they continued to worship other gods throughout most of their history (Ex 32:1-4, 8, 23, 31; 34:15; Hos 11:2). Idolatry eventually led to the destruction of the northern kingdom (2 Kgs 17:7-18) in 722 BC<\/span> and of the southern kingdom (2 Kgs 22:17; cf. Dt 29:25-28) in 586 BC<\/span>. During their time of exile in Babylonia, the Jewish people saw idolatry at its worst and turned away from it, but their ancestors could have avoided untold agony if they had simply followed the example of Joshua: “As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord<\/span>” (Jos 24:15).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Canaanite Deities and Religion; Idols, Idolatry; High Place.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>GODS AND GODDESSES<\/h3>\nMale and female deities worshiped by pagans. Although the Bible teaches that there is only one God (Is 45:18, 21-22; Mk 12:32), heathen people in ancient times quickly developed a belief in large numbers of so-called gods (Jer 10:11) and goddesses. Eventually each nation created and worshiped its own deities, usually more than one. Many of these “foreign gods” (1 Sm 7:3) are named in the Bible, and in most cases we are told to what nation each belonged. The list from Mesopotamia, a center of idol worship, is the longest: Adrammelech and Anammelech (2 Kgs 17:31), Bel (also known as Marduk, Is 46:1; Jer 50:2; 51:44), Kaiwan (Am 5:26), Nebo or Nabu (Is 46:1), Nergal (2 Kgs 17:30), Nisroch (19:37; Is 37:38), Rephan (Acts 7:43), Sakkuth (Am 5:26), Succoth-benoth (2 Kgs 17:30), Tammuz (Ez 8:14), and Tartak (2 Kgs 17:31). The Syrians were devoted to Ashima (v 30) and Rimmon (5:18), who was also worshiped under the compound name Hadad-rimmon (Zec 12:11). Israel’s eastern neighbors, Ammon and Moab, worshiped Milcom or Molech (1 Kgs 11:5-7, 33; 2 Kgs 23:13) and Chemosh, respectively, although the Moabites also worshiped a local manifestation of Baal (Nm 25:3-5). The Philistine gods were Dagon and Baal-zebub (2 Kgs 1:2-3, 6, 16), who is the equivalent of the NT Beelzebul (Mt 12:24; Lk 11:15). One Canaanite god, Baal, and two Canaanite goddesses, Asherah and Ashtoreth, are mentioned frequently in the OT; Ashtoreth was the same as the Mesopotamian Ishtar, also known as the “Queen of Heaven” (Jer 7:18; 44:17-19, 25). The gods of Egypt are represented by only two names in the Bible: Amon (Jer 46:25) and Apis (v 15). Nibhaz (2 Kgs 17:31) was probably an Elamite god.<\/p>\nAt least three Greco-Roman deities are mentioned in the NT: the Greek goddess Artemis (Acts 19:24-28, 34-35), known as Diana by the Romans, and the Greek gods Zeus and Hermes (Acts 14:12-13), known as Jupiter and Mercury, respectively, by the Romans.<\/p>\nThe Bible clearly teaches that the gods of the nations have no objective reality (Jer 2:11), even though their worshipers sincerely believe that they actually exist (v 28). But the Lord proclaims that “they are no gods,” (Jer 2:11; 16:20) or “gods that are not gods” (5:7, niv<\/span>). The NT further declares of idols that “an idol has no real existence” (1 Cor 8:4) and that “gods made with hands are not gods” (Acts 19:26). It is not surprising, then, that when the Israelites began to encounter other nations in significant ways—that is, as early as the time of the exodus—they were told repeatedly that the Lord is greater than all other gods (Ex 15:11; 18:11; Dt 10:17; 1 Chr 16:25; 2 Chr 2:5; Pss 86:8; 95:3; 96:4-5; 97:7-9; 135:5, 136:2; Dn 2:47; Zep 2:11).<\/p>\nSuch so-called gods were not worthy of Israel’s attention or veneration. Since there is only one God, other gods could not claim and did not deserve Israel’s worship (Ex 20:3; Dt 5:7). The Hebrew language did not even have a word for “goddess” and therefore had to use its word for “god” to express that concept (see 1 Kgs 11:5, 33). The Israelites were to make no images (Ex 20:4, 23; Lv 19:4; Dt 5:8) or mention (Ex 23:13; Jos 23:7) of the gods and goddesses of their heathen neighbors.<\/p>\nYet despite all God’s warnings, idolatry was Israel’s besetting sin from the earliest times. During the patriarchal period, God’s people were attracted to the “household idols” (Gn 31:32) of their relatives, and they continued to worship other gods throughout most of their history (Ex 32:1-4, 8, 23, 31; 34:15; Hos 11:2). Idolatry eventually led to the destruction of the northern kingdom (2 Kgs 17:7-18) in 722 BC<\/span> and of the southern kingdom (2 Kgs 22:17; cf. Dt 29:25-28) in 586 BC<\/span>. During their time of exile in Babylonia, the Jewish people saw idolatry at its worst and turned away from it, but their ancestors could have avoided untold agony if they had simply followed the example of Joshua: “As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord<\/span>” (Jos 24:15).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Canaanite Deities and Religion; Idols, Idolatry; High Place.<\/p>","summary_ro":"GODS AND GODDESSES Male and female deities worshiped by pagans. Although the Bible teaches that there is only one God (Is 45:18, 21-22; Mk 12:32), heathen people in ancient times quickly developed a belief in large numbers of so-called gods (Jer 10:11) and goddesses. Eventually each nation created and worshiped its own deities, usually more than one. Many of these “foreign gods” (1 Sm 7:3) are named in the Bible, and in most cases we are told to what nation each belonged. The list from Mesopo...","summary_en":"GODS AND GODDESSES Male and female deities worshiped by pagans. Although the Bible teaches that there is only one God (Is 45:18, 21-22; Mk 12:32), heathen people in ancient times quickly developed a belief in large numbers of so-called gods (Jer 10:11) and goddesses. Eventually each nation created and worshiped its own deities, usually more than one. Many of these “foreign gods” (1 Sm 7:3) are named in the Bible, and in most cases we are told to what nation each belonged. The list from Mesopo...","source":"Articles\/G.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":26274,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Moon","title_en":"Moon","content_ro":"<h3>MOON<\/h3>\nLesser luminary of the heavens (Gn 1:16). Many Semitic languages use the same word for moon as the Hebrew. In three passages in the Hebrew OT (Sg 6:10; Is 24:23; 30:26), the moon is called “the white one,” and paired with “the hot one,” the sun. Another term, “crescent,” is used in other languages such as Aramaic and Arabic, and “crescent ornaments” (Jgs 8:21, 26; Is 3:18) are mentioned.<\/p>\nIn the creation account, it is said concerning the functions of the two luminaries: “They will be signs to mark off the seasons, the days, and the years” (Gn 1:14, nlt<\/span>)—that is, “times” are determined by their movements. For this reason, when telling about the mighty deeds of the Lord in Creation, the poet says, “You made the moon to mark the seasons” (Ps 104:19, nlt<\/span>). The ancient Hebrew calendar was lunar (Ecclus 43:6-7), the months beginning with the new moon, marked by special rituals (Nm 10:10; 28:11-14; 2 Chr 2:4). Two great festivals, Passover and Tabernacles, began in midmonth when the moon was full (Lv 23:5-6; Ps 81:3-5; and Lv 23:34, respectively). The seven-day week is a division of the 28-day lunar cycle into logical and convenient units, so the moon may be said to provide the basis for the significance of the number seven. As a corollary, the beginning of the seventh month, the Festival of Trumpets (Lv 23:24), marked the climax month of the sacred feasts; it also signified the New Year for regnal years and for agriculture (Josephus’s Antiquities<\/em> 1.1.3; Mishnah, Rosh Hashanah<\/em> 1:1).<\/p>\nOne verse in the creation story speaks of the sun’s dominion over the day and the moon’s over the night (Gn 1:16; cf. Ps 136:9). The moon is also mentioned (alongside the sun) in the general order of creation when the spheres of the universe were established (Jer 31:35). From this the luminaries symbolize the continuity of the world order (Pss 72:5; 89:37-38). The darkening of the moon (and the sun) is a sign of the change of the order in creation in the latter days (Is 13:10; Ez 32:7; Jl 2:10; Hb 3:11; Mt 24:29; Mk 13:24; Rv 6:12; the converse is stated in Is 30:26). Since the moon resembles the sun, it also has the power to smite (Ps 121:6) and to influence the growth of crops in the field (Dt 33:14). In the book of Deuteronomy, the Israelites were warned against worshiping the moon and the rest of the host of heaven (Dt 4:19; 17:3), but this foreign worship made its inroads into the Judean kingdom (2 Kgs 21:3; 23:4-5; Jer 7:18; 8:2).<\/p>\nTo keep an accurate control over the calendar and the feasts, the new moon was carefully observed seven times during the year in Jerusalem. This assured that the major feasts fell on the proper days. The Sanhedrin would gather early in the morning on the last day of the preceding month, and watchmen were posted to observe the moon’s first appearance. When the evidence became clear, the sacred word was pronounced and the day became the first of the new month. Fire signals beginning from the Mt of Olives announced the new moon; later they were replaced by messengers because the Samaritans had set up false signals along the way.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Astronomy; Calendars, Ancient and Modern; Feasts and Festivals of Israel.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MOON<\/h3>\nLesser luminary of the heavens (Gn 1:16). Many Semitic languages use the same word for moon as the Hebrew. In three passages in the Hebrew OT (Sg 6:10; Is 24:23; 30:26), the moon is called “the white one,” and paired with “the hot one,” the sun. Another term, “crescent,” is used in other languages such as Aramaic and Arabic, and “crescent ornaments” (Jgs 8:21, 26; Is 3:18) are mentioned.<\/p>\nIn the creation account, it is said concerning the functions of the two luminaries: “They will be signs to mark off the seasons, the days, and the years” (Gn 1:14, nlt<\/span>)—that is, “times” are determined by their movements. For this reason, when telling about the mighty deeds of the Lord in Creation, the poet says, “You made the moon to mark the seasons” (Ps 104:19, nlt<\/span>). The ancient Hebrew calendar was lunar (Ecclus 43:6-7), the months beginning with the new moon, marked by special rituals (Nm 10:10; 28:11-14; 2 Chr 2:4). Two great festivals, Passover and Tabernacles, began in midmonth when the moon was full (Lv 23:5-6; Ps 81:3-5; and Lv 23:34, respectively). The seven-day week is a division of the 28-day lunar cycle into logical and convenient units, so the moon may be said to provide the basis for the significance of the number seven. As a corollary, the beginning of the seventh month, the Festival of Trumpets (Lv 23:24), marked the climax month of the sacred feasts; it also signified the New Year for regnal years and for agriculture (Josephus’s Antiquities<\/em> 1.1.3; Mishnah, Rosh Hashanah<\/em> 1:1).<\/p>\nOne verse in the creation story speaks of the sun’s dominion over the day and the moon’s over the night (Gn 1:16; cf. Ps 136:9). The moon is also mentioned (alongside the sun) in the general order of creation when the spheres of the universe were established (Jer 31:35). From this the luminaries symbolize the continuity of the world order (Pss 72:5; 89:37-38). The darkening of the moon (and the sun) is a sign of the change of the order in creation in the latter days (Is 13:10; Ez 32:7; Jl 2:10; Hb 3:11; Mt 24:29; Mk 13:24; Rv 6:12; the converse is stated in Is 30:26). Since the moon resembles the sun, it also has the power to smite (Ps 121:6) and to influence the growth of crops in the field (Dt 33:14). In the book of Deuteronomy, the Israelites were warned against worshiping the moon and the rest of the host of heaven (Dt 4:19; 17:3), but this foreign worship made its inroads into the Judean kingdom (2 Kgs 21:3; 23:4-5; Jer 7:18; 8:2).<\/p>\nTo keep an accurate control over the calendar and the feasts, the new moon was carefully observed seven times during the year in Jerusalem. This assured that the major feasts fell on the proper days. The Sanhedrin would gather early in the morning on the last day of the preceding month, and watchmen were posted to observe the moon’s first appearance. When the evidence became clear, the sacred word was pronounced and the day became the first of the new month. Fire signals beginning from the Mt of Olives announced the new moon; later they were replaced by messengers because the Samaritans had set up false signals along the way.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Astronomy; Calendars, Ancient and Modern; Feasts and Festivals of Israel.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MOON Lesser luminary of the heavens (Gn 1:16). Many Semitic languages use the same word for moon as the Hebrew. In three passages in the Hebrew OT (Sg 6:10; Is 24:23; 30:26), the moon is called “the white one,” and paired with “the hot one,” the sun. Another term, “crescent,” is used in other languages such as Aramaic and Arabic, and “crescent ornaments” (Jgs 8:21, 26; Is 3:18) are mentioned. In the creation account, it is said concerning the functions of the two luminaries: “They will be sig...","summary_en":"MOON Lesser luminary of the heavens (Gn 1:16). Many Semitic languages use the same word for moon as the Hebrew. In three passages in the Hebrew OT (Sg 6:10; Is 24:23; 30:26), the moon is called “the white one,” and paired with “the hot one,” the sun. Another term, “crescent,” is used in other languages such as Aramaic and Arabic, and “crescent ornaments” (Jgs 8:21, 26; Is 3:18) are mentioned. In the creation account, it is said concerning the functions of the two luminaries: “They will be sig...","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":32243,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Queen of Heaven","title_en":"Queen of Heaven","content_ro":"<h3>QUEEN OF HEAVEN<\/h3>\nGoddess mentioned by Jeremiah in his denunciations of Judah’s idolatry (Jer 7:18; 44:17-19, 25). The women of Judah were especially involved in worshiping the Queen of Heaven. After the destruction and depopulation of Jerusalem in 586 BC<\/span>, a group of exiles fled to Egypt, carrying Jeremiah with them. There he again condemned the idolatry that had brought this disaster. This provoked a sharp reaction from the men and their wives. In the recent catastrophe, they had seemingly vowed to return to the worship of the Queen of Heaven. They claimed that since they had given up this worship, nothing but trouble had befallen the nation—the complete reversal of Jeremiah’s affirmation. To this, the prophet’s response was that if this was their attitude, nothing remained to be said. He delivered them over to their reprobate mind, asserting that in Egypt, among the Jews who settled there, true worship would become extinct, so that even the name of the Lord would not be heard (44:25-28).<\/p>\nThe goddess is generally identified with Ishtar, a Babylonian deity associated with the planet Venus, whose worship was probably imported into Judah during Manasseh’s reign. Through the preaching of the prophets and the reforms of Josiah, worship of this god largely died out, but it must still have been cherished secretly, possibly among the women of the royal court.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Canaanite Deities and Religion.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>QUEEN OF HEAVEN<\/h3>\nGoddess mentioned by Jeremiah in his denunciations of Judah’s idolatry (Jer 7:18; 44:17-19, 25). The women of Judah were especially involved in worshiping the Queen of Heaven. After the destruction and depopulation of Jerusalem in 586 BC<\/span>, a group of exiles fled to Egypt, carrying Jeremiah with them. There he again condemned the idolatry that had brought this disaster. This provoked a sharp reaction from the men and their wives. In the recent catastrophe, they had seemingly vowed to return to the worship of the Queen of Heaven. They claimed that since they had given up this worship, nothing but trouble had befallen the nation—the complete reversal of Jeremiah’s affirmation. To this, the prophet’s response was that if this was their attitude, nothing remained to be said. He delivered them over to their reprobate mind, asserting that in Egypt, among the Jews who settled there, true worship would become extinct, so that even the name of the Lord would not be heard (44:25-28).<\/p>\nThe goddess is generally identified with Ishtar, a Babylonian deity associated with the planet Venus, whose worship was probably imported into Judah during Manasseh’s reign. Through the preaching of the prophets and the reforms of Josiah, worship of this god largely died out, but it must still have been cherished secretly, possibly among the women of the royal court.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Canaanite Deities and Religion.<\/p>","summary_ro":"QUEEN OF HEAVEN Goddess mentioned by Jeremiah in his denunciations of Judah’s idolatry (Jer 7:18; 44:17-19, 25). The women of Judah were especially involved in worshiping the Queen of Heaven. After the destruction and depopulation of Jerusalem in 586 BC, a group of exiles fled to Egypt, carrying Jeremiah with them. There he again condemned the idolatry that had brought this disaster. This provoked a sharp reaction from the men and their wives. In the recent catastrophe, they had seemingly vow...","summary_en":"QUEEN OF HEAVEN Goddess mentioned by Jeremiah in his denunciations of Judah’s idolatry (Jer 7:18; 44:17-19, 25). The women of Judah were especially involved in worshiping the Queen of Heaven. After the destruction and depopulation of Jerusalem in 586 BC, a group of exiles fled to Egypt, carrying Jeremiah with them. There he again condemned the idolatry that had brought this disaster. This provoked a sharp reaction from the men and their wives. In the recent catastrophe, they had seemingly vow...","source":"Articles\/Q.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"19":[{"id":52134,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 7:19","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 7:19","content_ro":"7:19<\/strong> God’s law was made for human benefit. Those who refused to follow his instructions hurt themselves<\/em> (cp. Mark 2:27).<\/p>","content_en":"7:19<\/strong> God’s law was made for human benefit. Those who refused to follow his instructions hurt themselves<\/em> (cp. Mark 2:27).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:19 God’s law was made for human benefit. Those who refused to follow his instructions hurt themselves (cp. Mark 2:27).","summary_en":"7:19 God’s law was made for human benefit. Those who refused to follow his instructions hurt themselves (cp. Mark 2:27).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":79760,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 7:19","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 7:19","content_ro":"7:19<\/strong> God’s law was made for human benefit. Those who refused to follow his instructions hurt themselves<\/em> (cp. Mark 2:27).<\/p>","content_en":"7:19<\/strong> God’s law was made for human benefit. Those who refused to follow his instructions hurt themselves<\/em> (cp. Mark 2:27).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:19 God’s law was made for human benefit. Those who refused to follow his instructions hurt themselves (cp. Mark 2:27).","summary_en":"7:19 God’s law was made for human benefit. Those who refused to follow his instructions hurt themselves (cp. Mark 2:27).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":107386,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 7:19","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 7:19","content_ro":"7:19<\/strong> God’s law was made for human benefit. Those who refused to follow his instructions hurt themselves<\/em> (cp. Mark 2:27).<\/p>","content_en":"7:19<\/strong> God’s law was made for human benefit. Those who refused to follow his instructions hurt themselves<\/em> (cp. Mark 2:27).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:19 God’s law was made for human benefit. Those who refused to follow his instructions hurt themselves (cp. Mark 2:27).","summary_en":"7:19 God’s law was made for human benefit. Those who refused to follow his instructions hurt themselves (cp. Mark 2:27).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":135012,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 7:19","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 7:19","content_ro":"7:19<\/strong> God’s law was made for human benefit. Those who refused to follow his instructions hurt themselves<\/em> (cp. Mark 2:27).<\/p>","content_en":"7:19<\/strong> God’s law was made for human benefit. Those who refused to follow his instructions hurt themselves<\/em> (cp. Mark 2:27).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:19 God’s law was made for human benefit. Those who refused to follow his instructions hurt themselves (cp. Mark 2:27).","summary_en":"7:19 God’s law was made for human benefit. Those who refused to follow his instructions hurt themselves (cp. Mark 2:27).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"20":[{"id":52135,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 7:20","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 7:20","content_ro":"7:20-23<\/strong> The people’s offerings<\/em> and sacrifices<\/em> meant nothing to the Lord if disobedience ruled in their hearts. Their sacrifices did not manipulate God into doing something he would rather not do. Rather, they embodied the people’s trust in God’s gracious forgiveness. When the people tried to use the sacrificial system to manipulate God while living self-serving lives, it only infuriated him (Isa 1:10-16; Amos 5:21-27). Obedience to God allows for a personal relationship between God and his people that provides the basis for a wonderful future (Hos 6:6).<\/p>","content_en":"7:20-23<\/strong> The people’s offerings<\/em> and sacrifices<\/em> meant nothing to the Lord if disobedience ruled in their hearts. Their sacrifices did not manipulate God into doing something he would rather not do. Rather, they embodied the people’s trust in God’s gracious forgiveness. When the people tried to use the sacrificial system to manipulate God while living self-serving lives, it only infuriated him (Isa 1:10-16; Amos 5:21-27). Obedience to God allows for a personal relationship between God and his people that provides the basis for a wonderful future (Hos 6:6).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:20-23 The people’s offerings and sacrifices meant nothing to the Lord if disobedience ruled in their hearts. Their sacrifices did not manipulate God into doing something he would rather not do. Rather, they embodied the people’s trust in God’s gracious forgiveness. When the people tried to use the sacrificial system to manipulate God while living self-serving lives, it only infuriated him (Isa 1:10-16; Amos 5:21-27). Obedience to God allows for a personal relationship between God and his pe...","summary_en":"7:20-23 The people’s offerings and sacrifices meant nothing to the Lord if disobedience ruled in their hearts. Their sacrifices did not manipulate God into doing something he would rather not do. Rather, they embodied the people’s trust in God’s gracious forgiveness. When the people tried to use the sacrificial system to manipulate God while living self-serving lives, it only infuriated him (Isa 1:10-16; Amos 5:21-27). Obedience to God allows for a personal relationship between God and his pe...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":79761,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 7:20","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 7:20","content_ro":"7:20-23<\/strong> The people’s offerings<\/em> and sacrifices<\/em> meant nothing to the Lord if disobedience ruled in their hearts. Their sacrifices did not manipulate God into doing something he would rather not do. Rather, they embodied the people’s trust in God’s gracious forgiveness. When the people tried to use the sacrificial system to manipulate God while living self-serving lives, it only infuriated him (Isa 1:10-16; Amos 5:21-27). Obedience to God allows for a personal relationship between God and his people that provides the basis for a wonderful future (Hos 6:6).<\/p>","content_en":"7:20-23<\/strong> The people’s offerings<\/em> and sacrifices<\/em> meant nothing to the Lord if disobedience ruled in their hearts. Their sacrifices did not manipulate God into doing something he would rather not do. Rather, they embodied the people’s trust in God’s gracious forgiveness. When the people tried to use the sacrificial system to manipulate God while living self-serving lives, it only infuriated him (Isa 1:10-16; Amos 5:21-27). Obedience to God allows for a personal relationship between God and his people that provides the basis for a wonderful future (Hos 6:6).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:20-23 The people’s offerings and sacrifices meant nothing to the Lord if disobedience ruled in their hearts. Their sacrifices did not manipulate God into doing something he would rather not do. Rather, they embodied the people’s trust in God’s gracious forgiveness. When the people tried to use the sacrificial system to manipulate God while living self-serving lives, it only infuriated him (Isa 1:10-16; Amos 5:21-27). Obedience to God allows for a personal relationship between God and his pe...","summary_en":"7:20-23 The people’s offerings and sacrifices meant nothing to the Lord if disobedience ruled in their hearts. Their sacrifices did not manipulate God into doing something he would rather not do. Rather, they embodied the people’s trust in God’s gracious forgiveness. When the people tried to use the sacrificial system to manipulate God while living self-serving lives, it only infuriated him (Isa 1:10-16; Amos 5:21-27). Obedience to God allows for a personal relationship between God and his pe...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":107387,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 7:20","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 7:20","content_ro":"7:20-23<\/strong> The people’s offerings<\/em> and sacrifices<\/em> meant nothing to the Lord if disobedience ruled in their hearts. Their sacrifices did not manipulate God into doing something he would rather not do. Rather, they embodied the people’s trust in God’s gracious forgiveness. When the people tried to use the sacrificial system to manipulate God while living self-serving lives, it only infuriated him (Isa 1:10-16; Amos 5:21-27). Obedience to God allows for a personal relationship between God and his people that provides the basis for a wonderful future (Hos 6:6).<\/p>","content_en":"7:20-23<\/strong> The people’s offerings<\/em> and sacrifices<\/em> meant nothing to the Lord if disobedience ruled in their hearts. Their sacrifices did not manipulate God into doing something he would rather not do. Rather, they embodied the people’s trust in God’s gracious forgiveness. When the people tried to use the sacrificial system to manipulate God while living self-serving lives, it only infuriated him (Isa 1:10-16; Amos 5:21-27). Obedience to God allows for a personal relationship between God and his people that provides the basis for a wonderful future (Hos 6:6).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:20-23 The people’s offerings and sacrifices meant nothing to the Lord if disobedience ruled in their hearts. Their sacrifices did not manipulate God into doing something he would rather not do. Rather, they embodied the people’s trust in God’s gracious forgiveness. When the people tried to use the sacrificial system to manipulate God while living self-serving lives, it only infuriated him (Isa 1:10-16; Amos 5:21-27). Obedience to God allows for a personal relationship between God and his pe...","summary_en":"7:20-23 The people’s offerings and sacrifices meant nothing to the Lord if disobedience ruled in their hearts. Their sacrifices did not manipulate God into doing something he would rather not do. Rather, they embodied the people’s trust in God’s gracious forgiveness. When the people tried to use the sacrificial system to manipulate God while living self-serving lives, it only infuriated him (Isa 1:10-16; Amos 5:21-27). Obedience to God allows for a personal relationship between God and his pe...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":135013,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 7:20","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 7:20","content_ro":"7:20-23<\/strong> The people’s offerings<\/em> and sacrifices<\/em> meant nothing to the Lord if disobedience ruled in their hearts. Their sacrifices did not manipulate God into doing something he would rather not do. Rather, they embodied the people’s trust in God’s gracious forgiveness. When the people tried to use the sacrificial system to manipulate God while living self-serving lives, it only infuriated him (Isa 1:10-16; Amos 5:21-27). Obedience to God allows for a personal relationship between God and his people that provides the basis for a wonderful future (Hos 6:6).<\/p>","content_en":"7:20-23<\/strong> The people’s offerings<\/em> and sacrifices<\/em> meant nothing to the Lord if disobedience ruled in their hearts. Their sacrifices did not manipulate God into doing something he would rather not do. Rather, they embodied the people’s trust in God’s gracious forgiveness. When the people tried to use the sacrificial system to manipulate God while living self-serving lives, it only infuriated him (Isa 1:10-16; Amos 5:21-27). Obedience to God allows for a personal relationship between God and his people that provides the basis for a wonderful future (Hos 6:6).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:20-23 The people’s offerings and sacrifices meant nothing to the Lord if disobedience ruled in their hearts. Their sacrifices did not manipulate God into doing something he would rather not do. Rather, they embodied the people’s trust in God’s gracious forgiveness. When the people tried to use the sacrificial system to manipulate God while living self-serving lives, it only infuriated him (Isa 1:10-16; Amos 5:21-27). Obedience to God allows for a personal relationship between God and his pe...","summary_en":"7:20-23 The people’s offerings and sacrifices meant nothing to the Lord if disobedience ruled in their hearts. Their sacrifices did not manipulate God into doing something he would rather not do. Rather, they embodied the people’s trust in God’s gracious forgiveness. When the people tried to use the sacrificial system to manipulate God while living self-serving lives, it only infuriated him (Isa 1:10-16; Amos 5:21-27). Obedience to God allows for a personal relationship between God and his pe...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"24":[{"id":52136,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 7:24","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 7:24","content_ro":"7:24-26<\/strong> Throughout their history, the Israelites had rejected the messages of the Lord’s prophets<\/em> (2 Chr 36:15; Mark 12:1-10).<\/p>","content_en":"7:24-26<\/strong> Throughout their history, the Israelites had rejected the messages of the Lord’s prophets<\/em> (2 Chr 36:15; Mark 12:1-10).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:24-26 Throughout their history, the Israelites had rejected the messages of the Lord’s prophets (2 Chr 36:15; Mark 12:1-10).","summary_en":"7:24-26 Throughout their history, the Israelites had rejected the messages of the Lord’s prophets (2 Chr 36:15; Mark 12:1-10).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":79762,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 7:24","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 7:24","content_ro":"7:24-26<\/strong> Throughout their history, the Israelites had rejected the messages of the Lord’s prophets<\/em> (2 Chr 36:15; Mark 12:1-10).<\/p>","content_en":"7:24-26<\/strong> Throughout their history, the Israelites had rejected the messages of the Lord’s prophets<\/em> (2 Chr 36:15; Mark 12:1-10).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:24-26 Throughout their history, the Israelites had rejected the messages of the Lord’s prophets (2 Chr 36:15; Mark 12:1-10).","summary_en":"7:24-26 Throughout their history, the Israelites had rejected the messages of the Lord’s prophets (2 Chr 36:15; Mark 12:1-10).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":107388,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 7:24","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 7:24","content_ro":"7:24-26<\/strong> Throughout their history, the Israelites had rejected the messages of the Lord’s prophets<\/em> (2 Chr 36:15; Mark 12:1-10).<\/p>","content_en":"7:24-26<\/strong> Throughout their history, the Israelites had rejected the messages of the Lord’s prophets<\/em> (2 Chr 36:15; Mark 12:1-10).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:24-26 Throughout their history, the Israelites had rejected the messages of the Lord’s prophets (2 Chr 36:15; Mark 12:1-10).","summary_en":"7:24-26 Throughout their history, the Israelites had rejected the messages of the Lord’s prophets (2 Chr 36:15; Mark 12:1-10).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":135014,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 7:24","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 7:24","content_ro":"7:24-26<\/strong> Throughout their history, the Israelites had rejected the messages of the Lord’s prophets<\/em> (2 Chr 36:15; Mark 12:1-10).<\/p>","content_en":"7:24-26<\/strong> Throughout their history, the Israelites had rejected the messages of the Lord’s prophets<\/em> (2 Chr 36:15; Mark 12:1-10).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:24-26 Throughout their history, the Israelites had rejected the messages of the Lord’s prophets (2 Chr 36:15; Mark 12:1-10).","summary_en":"7:24-26 Throughout their history, the Israelites had rejected the messages of the Lord’s prophets (2 Chr 36:15; Mark 12:1-10).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"25":[{"id":28554,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Ordination Ordain","title_en":"Ordination Ordain","content_ro":"<h3>ORDAIN, ORDINATION<\/h3>\nThe act of officially investing someone with religious authority. Several synonyms are “appoint,” “institute,” “make,” and “establish.” In current usage, the words “ordain” and “ordination” are applied to persons, signifying selection and appointment to God’s service.<\/p>\nIn the Old Testament<\/p>\nThroughout the OT, emphasis falls upon God’s choosing and appointing whom he wills. Priestly functions passed very early from the head of each household to the divinely chosen tribe of Levi (Dt 33:8-11; Jgs 17:13). Through all subsequent clan rivalries—“Zadokite,” “Aaronic,” “Hasmonean”—this claim to inherited privilege persisted. Divine appointment through Levi was traced back to Moses (Ex 4:14; 28:41; 29:9), claimed for the Ephraimite Samuel (1 Chr 6:28), and still celebrated by Sirach (Ecclus 45:6-22, c. 180 BC<\/span>). As the book of Hebrews states (Heb 5:1, 4), no one takes the honor upon himself; he is “called by God, as Aaron was,” by birth into an inherited status.<\/p>\nThe first Levites were presented at the tabernacle in the presence of the people, and acknowledged by “the laying on of hands” (Nm 8:10, 14-18). Similarly, Moses received instructions for the week-long consecration of Aaron and his sons, with elaborate sacrifices, vestments, anointing, and ritual (Ex 29; Lv 8). In both cases, the careful preservation of these detailed instructions suggests that the ceremonies were retained, to some degree, in later years, though no repetition is recorded.<\/p>\nAlongside the priests there existed establishments of recognized prophets, or prophetic communities, sometimes with royal patronage (1 Sm 10:5; 1 Kgs 1:9-10; 18:17-19; 20:35; 22:5-28; 2 Kgs 2:3-7; 23:2). The line of prophecy was also traced back to earliest days (see Gn 20:7; Dt 34:10; Jgs 4:4; Jer 7:25). The phrase “sons of the prophets,” and an obscure hint in Jeremiah 35:4, may imply that prophecy, like priesthood, was sometimes hereditary, but the manner of appointment and installation is unknown. The outstanding prophets were frequently opposed to the prophetic “schools” (Elijah, 1 Kgs 17; Micaiah, 1 Kgs 22:5-28; Jeremiah, Jer 27:14-16; 28). Such men were appointed by direct, divine call (1 Kgs 17:1; 21:17; Is 6; Jer 1; Am 7:15), though by God’s instruction Elisha was called and anointed by Elijah (1 Kgs 19:16; cf. Is 61:1). Authentication of the prophet’s message lay not in appropriate installation ceremonies but in its self-evident truth; in the case of predictions, in their fulfillment (1 Kgs 22:13-14, 26-28; Jer 28:5-9).<\/p>\nIn the New Testament<\/p>\nChristian ordination is also a matter of divine choice. Neither Jesus, nor any disciple, came from the professional religious classes. In ordaining the 12 apostles, Jesus called to him those whom he desired, later insisting, “You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you” (Jn 15:16, rsv<\/span>). The selection of Matthias rested upon prayer and the divine lot (Acts 1:24-26). Paul contended that he had been set apart by God before he was born and did not receive his apostleship from or through men (Gal 1:1, 15). Paul and Barnabas were commissioned by direction of the Spirit during worship, probably through a Christian prophet. Similarly, Timothy was first chosen as assistant to Paul by prophetic utterances that pointed to him (1 Tm 1:18; 4:14).<\/p>\nAt Corinth, various ministries of speaking, teaching, healing, and administration were directly conferred as gifts of the Spirit, who apportions as he sees fit (1 Cor 12:8-11, 28; cf. Eph 4:11). Elders of the church at Ephesus were made guardians of the flock by the Holy Spirit (Acts 20:28). The divine prerogative is everywhere clear: any attempt to obtain the privilege of ministry by personal initiative and unworthy means meets with sharpest condemnation (8:18-24).<\/p>\nOn the other hand, the assembled church “nominated” Barsabbas and Matthias before submitting the final choice to God (Acts 1:15, 23). The believers chose the seven servers, then presented them to the apostles (6:2-6). An assembled church, at the Spirit’s command, commissioned and sent off Paul and Barnabas (13:3). Paul and Barnabas themselves appointed elders (14:23), as Titus is instructed to do (Ti 1:5), and probably Timothy also (1 Tm 5:22). Elders at Lystra and Iconium, with Paul, obeying a Christian prophet, appointed Timothy to leadership (1 Tm 4:14; 2 Tm 1:6). By the time letters were written to Timothy and Titus, elaborate lists of qualifications were required for church leaders (1 Tm 3:1-13; 2 Tm 2:2).<\/p>\nThe congregation of believers also participated in selecting leaders. This could have involved prayer, fasting, and casting lots (Acts 1:26; 6:6; 13:2-3; 14:23); sometimes “selection by hands” (Greek, cheirotonein<\/span>,<\/em> originally meaning “election by raising hands,” later “selection by pointing to”; cf. Acts 14:23; 2 Cor 8:19); and sometimes selection by group choice (Acts 1:15, 23; 6:2-5; 13:3; 16:2; 1 Tm 4:14).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Foreordination.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>ORDAIN, ORDINATION<\/h3>\nThe act of officially investing someone with religious authority. Several synonyms are “appoint,” “institute,” “make,” and “establish.” In current usage, the words “ordain” and “ordination” are applied to persons, signifying selection and appointment to God’s service.<\/p>\nIn the Old Testament<\/p>\nThroughout the OT, emphasis falls upon God’s choosing and appointing whom he wills. Priestly functions passed very early from the head of each household to the divinely chosen tribe of Levi (Dt 33:8-11; Jgs 17:13). Through all subsequent clan rivalries—“Zadokite,” “Aaronic,” “Hasmonean”—this claim to inherited privilege persisted. Divine appointment through Levi was traced back to Moses (Ex 4:14; 28:41; 29:9), claimed for the Ephraimite Samuel (1 Chr 6:28), and still celebrated by Sirach (Ecclus 45:6-22, c. 180 BC<\/span>). As the book of Hebrews states (Heb 5:1, 4), no one takes the honor upon himself; he is “called by God, as Aaron was,” by birth into an inherited status.<\/p>\nThe first Levites were presented at the tabernacle in the presence of the people, and acknowledged by “the laying on of hands” (Nm 8:10, 14-18). Similarly, Moses received instructions for the week-long consecration of Aaron and his sons, with elaborate sacrifices, vestments, anointing, and ritual (Ex 29; Lv 8). In both cases, the careful preservation of these detailed instructions suggests that the ceremonies were retained, to some degree, in later years, though no repetition is recorded.<\/p>\nAlongside the priests there existed establishments of recognized prophets, or prophetic communities, sometimes with royal patronage (1 Sm 10:5; 1 Kgs 1:9-10; 18:17-19; 20:35; 22:5-28; 2 Kgs 2:3-7; 23:2). The line of prophecy was also traced back to earliest days (see Gn 20:7; Dt 34:10; Jgs 4:4; Jer 7:25). The phrase “sons of the prophets,” and an obscure hint in Jeremiah 35:4, may imply that prophecy, like priesthood, was sometimes hereditary, but the manner of appointment and installation is unknown. The outstanding prophets were frequently opposed to the prophetic “schools” (Elijah, 1 Kgs 17; Micaiah, 1 Kgs 22:5-28; Jeremiah, Jer 27:14-16; 28). Such men were appointed by direct, divine call (1 Kgs 17:1; 21:17; Is 6; Jer 1; Am 7:15), though by God’s instruction Elisha was called and anointed by Elijah (1 Kgs 19:16; cf. Is 61:1). Authentication of the prophet’s message lay not in appropriate installation ceremonies but in its self-evident truth; in the case of predictions, in their fulfillment (1 Kgs 22:13-14, 26-28; Jer 28:5-9).<\/p>\nIn the New Testament<\/p>\nChristian ordination is also a matter of divine choice. Neither Jesus, nor any disciple, came from the professional religious classes. In ordaining the 12 apostles, Jesus called to him those whom he desired, later insisting, “You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you” (Jn 15:16, rsv<\/span>). The selection of Matthias rested upon prayer and the divine lot (Acts 1:24-26). Paul contended that he had been set apart by God before he was born and did not receive his apostleship from or through men (Gal 1:1, 15). Paul and Barnabas were commissioned by direction of the Spirit during worship, probably through a Christian prophet. Similarly, Timothy was first chosen as assistant to Paul by prophetic utterances that pointed to him (1 Tm 1:18; 4:14).<\/p>\nAt Corinth, various ministries of speaking, teaching, healing, and administration were directly conferred as gifts of the Spirit, who apportions as he sees fit (1 Cor 12:8-11, 28; cf. Eph 4:11). Elders of the church at Ephesus were made guardians of the flock by the Holy Spirit (Acts 20:28). The divine prerogative is everywhere clear: any attempt to obtain the privilege of ministry by personal initiative and unworthy means meets with sharpest condemnation (8:18-24).<\/p>\nOn the other hand, the assembled church “nominated” Barsabbas and Matthias before submitting the final choice to God (Acts 1:15, 23). The believers chose the seven servers, then presented them to the apostles (6:2-6). An assembled church, at the Spirit’s command, commissioned and sent off Paul and Barnabas (13:3). Paul and Barnabas themselves appointed elders (14:23), as Titus is instructed to do (Ti 1:5), and probably Timothy also (1 Tm 5:22). Elders at Lystra and Iconium, with Paul, obeying a Christian prophet, appointed Timothy to leadership (1 Tm 4:14; 2 Tm 1:6). By the time letters were written to Timothy and Titus, elaborate lists of qualifications were required for church leaders (1 Tm 3:1-13; 2 Tm 2:2).<\/p>\nThe congregation of believers also participated in selecting leaders. This could have involved prayer, fasting, and casting lots (Acts 1:26; 6:6; 13:2-3; 14:23); sometimes “selection by hands” (Greek, cheirotonein<\/span>,<\/em> originally meaning “election by raising hands,” later “selection by pointing to”; cf. Acts 14:23; 2 Cor 8:19); and sometimes selection by group choice (Acts 1:15, 23; 6:2-5; 13:3; 16:2; 1 Tm 4:14).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Foreordination.<\/p>","summary_ro":"ORDAIN, ORDINATION The act of officially investing someone with religious authority. Several synonyms are “appoint,” “institute,” “make,” and “establish.” In current usage, the words “ordain” and “ordination” are applied to persons, signifying selection and appointment to God’s service. In the Old Testament Throughout the OT, emphasis falls upon God’s choosing and appointing whom he wills. Priestly functions passed very early from the head of each household to the divinely chosen tribe of Lev...","summary_en":"ORDAIN, ORDINATION The act of officially investing someone with religious authority. Several synonyms are “appoint,” “institute,” “make,” and “establish.” In current usage, the words “ordain” and “ordination” are applied to persons, signifying selection and appointment to God’s service. In the Old Testament Throughout the OT, emphasis falls upon God’s choosing and appointing whom he wills. Priestly functions passed very early from the head of each household to the divinely chosen tribe of Lev...","source":"Articles\/O.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":31669,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Prophetess Prophet","title_en":"Prophetess Prophet","content_ro":"<h3>PROPHET, PROPHETESS<\/h3>\nA man or woman chosen by God to speak for him and to foretell events in the divine plan.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Introduction<\/p>\n• The Titles and History of the Prophets<\/p>\n• Inspiration<\/p>\n• True and False Prophets<\/p>\n• The Function of the Prophet<\/p>\n• Methods of Communication<\/p>\nIntroduction<\/p>\nWhen Jesus raised the widow’s son from the dead, the onlookers responded by saying, “A great prophet has arisen among us!” (Lk 7:16; cf. Mk 6:15; 8:28). In Jewish religious thought, the most vivid and formative religious happenings found their focus in the call and ministry of a prophet, through whom God communicated his word to his people. In their appraisal of Jesus, the people were in fact more correct than they knew, for in him God had in reality visited them and he, though so much more than a prophet, was in fact the crown and climax of the prophetic order predicted by Moses (Dt 18:15-19).<\/p>\nThe Titles and History of the Prophets<\/p>\nThe main words used to describe such individuals in the OT are “prophet” (see Jgs 6:8), “man of God” (see 2 Kgs 4:9) and “seer” (see 1 Sm 9:9; 2 Sm 24:11).<\/p>\nThe word translated “prophet” seems to have the idea “called” as its first emphasis: God takes the initiative, selects, summons, and sends the prophet (e.g., Jer 1:4-5; 7:25; Am 7:14). “Man of God” speaks of the relationship into which the prophet is brought by his call: he is now “God’s man” and is recognized as belonging to him (2 Kgs 4:9). “Seer” indicates the new and remarkable powers of perception granted to the prophet. In Hebrew, as in English, the ordinary verb “to see” is used also of understanding (“I see what you mean”) and of the power of perception into the nature and meaning of things (“He sees things very clearly”). In the case of the prophets, their powers of “perception” were raised far above normal because the Lord inspired them to become vehicles of his message.<\/p>\nThe line of great prophets upon whose shoulders the story of the OT moves forward began with Moses, who is recognized as the prophet par excellence (Dt 34:10). This was a correct perception, for all the distinctive marks of a prophet belonged to Moses: the call (Ex 3:1–4:17; cf. Is 6; Jer 1:4-19; Ez 1–3; Hos 1:2; Am 7:14-15), the awareness of the importance of historical events as the acts of God in which he confirmed his word (Ex 3:12; 4:21-23), ethical and social concern (2:11-13), and championship of the helpless (v 17).<\/p>\nBut the comment in Deuteronomy 34:10 not only looks back to the greatness of Moses but also looks forward to the coming of a prophet like Moses. This accords with his own prediction (Dt 18:15-19), which undoubtedly anticipates a single, great individual prophet. Moses makes a striking comparison with himself—the coming prophet will fill just such a role as Moses filled at Mt Sinai (Dt 18:16). On that occasion, Moses acted as the prophetic mediator of the voice of God in a unique sense, for at Sinai God fashioned the old covenant into its completed form. In expecting a prophet cast in this mold, Moses was therefore looking forward to another covenant-mediator, Jesus Christ himself.<\/p>\nThe expectation for this great prophet was kept alive as God kept sending prophets to his people. In each case, such a prophet was known to be true by his likeness to Moses; in each case he would be viewed with excitement by genuine believers to see whether he was the great one come at last. In this light we can understand the excitement of the people who saw Jesus raise the dead (Lk 7:16).<\/p>\nThe OT mentions the existence of prophetic groups, sometimes called “schools.” Elisha clearly had such a group under his instruction (2 Kgs 6:1), and “sons of the prophets” (e.g., 2 Kgs 2:3, 5; Am 7:14) probably refers to “prophet in training” under the care of a master prophet. “Guilds” would be a better description of the groups in 1 Samuel 10:5-11. Such groups enjoyed an enthusiastic, ecstatic worship of the Lord, touched with a marked activity of the Spirit of God. But at the heart of their devotion was “prophecy”—that is, a declaration of the truth about God himself. After this early period, the prophetic groups seem to have diminished in significance (judging by the disappearance of plain references similar to those in 1 Samuel), and the gradual change of things from ecstasy to a more direct ministry of the word could well lie behind the comment in 1 Samuel 9:9.<\/p>\nInspiration<\/p>\nThe Spirit of the Lord whose inspiration lay behind the activities of the ecstatic groups (1 Sm 10:6, 10; 19:20, 23) was active in all the prophets, and the claim to divine inspiration is plainly registered from time to time (e.g., 1 Kgs 22:24; Neh 9:30; Hos 9:7; Jl 2:28-29; Mi 3:8; cf. 1 Chr 12:18; 2 Chr 15:1; 20:14; 24:20). The Spirit inspired men and women to speak the very words of God (cf. 2 Pt 1:21).<\/p>\nJeremiah claims that the hand of God was laid on his mouth, putting the words of God into his lips (Jer 1:9); Ezekiel records how he was made to eat a scroll, by which means he received the words the Lord had written and was thus enabled to speak what the Lord called “my words” (Ez 2:7–4:4). The miracle is stated in a nutshell at the beginning of Amos (1:1, 3): “The words of Amos . . . Thus saith the Lord<\/span>.” Though the words were truly Amos’s words, the words were also the Lord’s.<\/p>\nTrue and False Prophets<\/p>\nFalse prophets were to be separated from true prophets by means of three tests. The first test was doctrinal. In Deuteronomy 13 the motive of the false prophet was to draw the people away from the God who had revealed himself in the exodus (Dt 13:2, 5-7, 10). Notwithstanding that the word of the false prophet might be supported by apparent signs and wonders (vv 1-2), it was to be refused—not simply because it introduced novelty (vv 2, 6) but because that novelty contradicted the revelation of the Lord at the exodus (vv 5, 10). The first test was thus doctrinal and required that the people of God have knowledge of the truth whereby they could, by comparison, recognize error.<\/p>\nThe second test was practical and required patience. It is stated in Deuteronomy 18:21-22: the word of the Lord always comes to pass. This requires patience because, as Deuteronomy 13:1-2 indicates, a false word may be supported by an apparent spiritual proof. The call of Deuteronomy 18:21-22 is a call for patience. Should there be any real doubt about whether a prophetic word is true or false, wait for the confirmatory turn of events.<\/p>\nThe third test is moral and calls for watchful discernment. Jeremiah, of all the prophets, was most afflicted in his spirit by the presence of false prophets and gave the longest and most sustained consideration to the problem (Jer 23:9-40). His answer is striking and challenging: the false prophet will be found out as a man of unholy life (vv 11-14) whose message has no note of moral rebuke but rather encourages men in their sin (vv 16-22).<\/p>\nThe Function of the Prophet<\/p>\nIt is sometimes said that prophets are not “foretellers” but “forthtellers.” As far as the OT is concerned, however, the prophets are forthtellers (declaring the truth about God) by being foretellers (predicting what God will do). Prediction is neither an occasional nor a marginal activity in the OT; it is the way the prophet went about his work. Deuteronomy 18:9-15 explains the function of the prophet in Israel: the surrounding nations are revealed as probing into the future by means of a variety of fortune-telling techniques (vv 10-11); these things are forbidden to Israel on the ground of being abominable to the Lord (v 12). Israel’s distinctiveness is maintained in that the nations probe the future by diviners, whereas the Lord gives Israel a prophet (vv 13-15). Elisha (2 Kgs 4:27) is surprised when foreknowledge is denied him; Amos teaches that foreknowledge is the privilege of the prophets in their fellowship with God (Am 3:7). But prediction in Israel was totally unlike prognostication among the nations, for in no way was it motivated by a mere curiosity about the future.<\/p>\nFirst, biblical prediction arose out of the needs of the present. In Isaiah 39 it is the faithless commitment of Hezekiah to rely for security on a military understanding with Babylon that prompts Isaiah to announce the future Babylonian captivity. Isaiah does not snatch the name Babylon out of thin air; it is given to him within the situation in which he was called to minister.<\/p>\nSecond, prediction aimed at giving knowledge of the future was to result in moral reformation in the present. The moral exhortations of the prophets find their explanation in what the Lord is about to do (e.g., Is 31:6-7; Am 5:6).<\/p>\nThird, the predicted course of events was aimed at stabilizing the faith of the true believer in dark times. For example, various passages in Isaiah (Is 9:1-7; 11:1-16; 40:1-3) have the effect of lifting the eyes out of the immediately preceding grim tragedy to the coming glory.<\/p>\nMethods of Communication<\/p>\nIn foretelling, the prophets were forthtelling—they were proclaiming the wonderful works of God (cf. the definition of prophecy in Acts 2:11, 17). For the most part, this proclamation was by direct word of mouth. The prophets were men of the word. Their words were like messengers sent by God (Is 55:11), endowed with all the divine efficacy of the creative word of Genesis 1:3 (cf. Ps 33:6). Sometimes the efficacy of the word was enhanced by being accompanied by a sign or symbolic action (e.g., Jer 13:1-11; 19; Ez 4:1-17; 24:15-24), or identified intimately with a person (Is 7:3; cf. 8:1-4). Such things were like visual aids, whereby the word would be made clearer to those present. But it would seem that the intention of the symbolic action (sometimes called an “acted oracle”) was not so much to make understanding easier but to give more power and effect to the word as it was sent like a messenger into that situation. This is the conclusion to be drawn from 2 Kings 13:14-19, where the extent to which the king “embodied” the word in action determined the extent to which the word would prove effective in bringing events to pass.<\/p>\nThe final embodiment of the words of the prophets is in the books that have been preserved. Jeremiah 36 may be taken as an object lesson in the fact that the prophets took the time and trouble to record their spoken messages in writing: there was stress on careful word-by-word dictation (Jer 36:6, 17-18). But the actual literary form of the messages themselves tells the same tale. What we find in the books of the prophets cannot be the preached form of their words but rather the studied wording in which they preserved (and filed away) their sermons. It stands to reason that men who were conscious of communicating the very words of God would see to it that those words were not lost. We may take it for granted that every prophet preserved a written record of his ministry. Whether each of the named prophets was himself directly responsible for the final form of his book, we are not told and have no way of knowing. The careful way in which the books of Isaiah or Amos, for example, are arranged is best suited by assuming that the author was also his own editor.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Prophecy; Prophets, False.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>PROPHET, PROPHETESS<\/h3>\nA man or woman chosen by God to speak for him and to foretell events in the divine plan.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Introduction<\/p>\n• The Titles and History of the Prophets<\/p>\n• Inspiration<\/p>\n• True and False Prophets<\/p>\n• The Function of the Prophet<\/p>\n• Methods of Communication<\/p>\nIntroduction<\/p>\nWhen Jesus raised the widow’s son from the dead, the onlookers responded by saying, “A great prophet has arisen among us!” (Lk 7:16; cf. Mk 6:15; 8:28). In Jewish religious thought, the most vivid and formative religious happenings found their focus in the call and ministry of a prophet, through whom God communicated his word to his people. In their appraisal of Jesus, the people were in fact more correct than they knew, for in him God had in reality visited them and he, though so much more than a prophet, was in fact the crown and climax of the prophetic order predicted by Moses (Dt 18:15-19).<\/p>\nThe Titles and History of the Prophets<\/p>\nThe main words used to describe such individuals in the OT are “prophet” (see Jgs 6:8), “man of God” (see 2 Kgs 4:9) and “seer” (see 1 Sm 9:9; 2 Sm 24:11).<\/p>\nThe word translated “prophet” seems to have the idea “called” as its first emphasis: God takes the initiative, selects, summons, and sends the prophet (e.g., Jer 1:4-5; 7:25; Am 7:14). “Man of God” speaks of the relationship into which the prophet is brought by his call: he is now “God’s man” and is recognized as belonging to him (2 Kgs 4:9). “Seer” indicates the new and remarkable powers of perception granted to the prophet. In Hebrew, as in English, the ordinary verb “to see” is used also of understanding (“I see what you mean”) and of the power of perception into the nature and meaning of things (“He sees things very clearly”). In the case of the prophets, their powers of “perception” were raised far above normal because the Lord inspired them to become vehicles of his message.<\/p>\nThe line of great prophets upon whose shoulders the story of the OT moves forward began with Moses, who is recognized as the prophet par excellence (Dt 34:10). This was a correct perception, for all the distinctive marks of a prophet belonged to Moses: the call (Ex 3:1–4:17; cf. Is 6; Jer 1:4-19; Ez 1–3; Hos 1:2; Am 7:14-15), the awareness of the importance of historical events as the acts of God in which he confirmed his word (Ex 3:12; 4:21-23), ethical and social concern (2:11-13), and championship of the helpless (v 17).<\/p>\nBut the comment in Deuteronomy 34:10 not only looks back to the greatness of Moses but also looks forward to the coming of a prophet like Moses. This accords with his own prediction (Dt 18:15-19), which undoubtedly anticipates a single, great individual prophet. Moses makes a striking comparison with himself—the coming prophet will fill just such a role as Moses filled at Mt Sinai (Dt 18:16). On that occasion, Moses acted as the prophetic mediator of the voice of God in a unique sense, for at Sinai God fashioned the old covenant into its completed form. In expecting a prophet cast in this mold, Moses was therefore looking forward to another covenant-mediator, Jesus Christ himself.<\/p>\nThe expectation for this great prophet was kept alive as God kept sending prophets to his people. In each case, such a prophet was known to be true by his likeness to Moses; in each case he would be viewed with excitement by genuine believers to see whether he was the great one come at last. In this light we can understand the excitement of the people who saw Jesus raise the dead (Lk 7:16).<\/p>\nThe OT mentions the existence of prophetic groups, sometimes called “schools.” Elisha clearly had such a group under his instruction (2 Kgs 6:1), and “sons of the prophets” (e.g., 2 Kgs 2:3, 5; Am 7:14) probably refers to “prophet in training” under the care of a master prophet. “Guilds” would be a better description of the groups in 1 Samuel 10:5-11. Such groups enjoyed an enthusiastic, ecstatic worship of the Lord, touched with a marked activity of the Spirit of God. But at the heart of their devotion was “prophecy”—that is, a declaration of the truth about God himself. After this early period, the prophetic groups seem to have diminished in significance (judging by the disappearance of plain references similar to those in 1 Samuel), and the gradual change of things from ecstasy to a more direct ministry of the word could well lie behind the comment in 1 Samuel 9:9.<\/p>\nInspiration<\/p>\nThe Spirit of the Lord whose inspiration lay behind the activities of the ecstatic groups (1 Sm 10:6, 10; 19:20, 23) was active in all the prophets, and the claim to divine inspiration is plainly registered from time to time (e.g., 1 Kgs 22:24; Neh 9:30; Hos 9:7; Jl 2:28-29; Mi 3:8; cf. 1 Chr 12:18; 2 Chr 15:1; 20:14; 24:20). The Spirit inspired men and women to speak the very words of God (cf. 2 Pt 1:21).<\/p>\nJeremiah claims that the hand of God was laid on his mouth, putting the words of God into his lips (Jer 1:9); Ezekiel records how he was made to eat a scroll, by which means he received the words the Lord had written and was thus enabled to speak what the Lord called “my words” (Ez 2:7–4:4). The miracle is stated in a nutshell at the beginning of Amos (1:1, 3): “The words of Amos . . . Thus saith the Lord<\/span>.” Though the words were truly Amos’s words, the words were also the Lord’s.<\/p>\nTrue and False Prophets<\/p>\nFalse prophets were to be separated from true prophets by means of three tests. The first test was doctrinal. In Deuteronomy 13 the motive of the false prophet was to draw the people away from the God who had revealed himself in the exodus (Dt 13:2, 5-7, 10). Notwithstanding that the word of the false prophet might be supported by apparent signs and wonders (vv 1-2), it was to be refused—not simply because it introduced novelty (vv 2, 6) but because that novelty contradicted the revelation of the Lord at the exodus (vv 5, 10). The first test was thus doctrinal and required that the people of God have knowledge of the truth whereby they could, by comparison, recognize error.<\/p>\nThe second test was practical and required patience. It is stated in Deuteronomy 18:21-22: the word of the Lord always comes to pass. This requires patience because, as Deuteronomy 13:1-2 indicates, a false word may be supported by an apparent spiritual proof. The call of Deuteronomy 18:21-22 is a call for patience. Should there be any real doubt about whether a prophetic word is true or false, wait for the confirmatory turn of events.<\/p>\nThe third test is moral and calls for watchful discernment. Jeremiah, of all the prophets, was most afflicted in his spirit by the presence of false prophets and gave the longest and most sustained consideration to the problem (Jer 23:9-40). His answer is striking and challenging: the false prophet will be found out as a man of unholy life (vv 11-14) whose message has no note of moral rebuke but rather encourages men in their sin (vv 16-22).<\/p>\nThe Function of the Prophet<\/p>\nIt is sometimes said that prophets are not “foretellers” but “forthtellers.” As far as the OT is concerned, however, the prophets are forthtellers (declaring the truth about God) by being foretellers (predicting what God will do). Prediction is neither an occasional nor a marginal activity in the OT; it is the way the prophet went about his work. Deuteronomy 18:9-15 explains the function of the prophet in Israel: the surrounding nations are revealed as probing into the future by means of a variety of fortune-telling techniques (vv 10-11); these things are forbidden to Israel on the ground of being abominable to the Lord (v 12). Israel’s distinctiveness is maintained in that the nations probe the future by diviners, whereas the Lord gives Israel a prophet (vv 13-15). Elisha (2 Kgs 4:27) is surprised when foreknowledge is denied him; Amos teaches that foreknowledge is the privilege of the prophets in their fellowship with God (Am 3:7). But prediction in Israel was totally unlike prognostication among the nations, for in no way was it motivated by a mere curiosity about the future.<\/p>\nFirst, biblical prediction arose out of the needs of the present. In Isaiah 39 it is the faithless commitment of Hezekiah to rely for security on a military understanding with Babylon that prompts Isaiah to announce the future Babylonian captivity. Isaiah does not snatch the name Babylon out of thin air; it is given to him within the situation in which he was called to minister.<\/p>\nSecond, prediction aimed at giving knowledge of the future was to result in moral reformation in the present. The moral exhortations of the prophets find their explanation in what the Lord is about to do (e.g., Is 31:6-7; Am 5:6).<\/p>\nThird, the predicted course of events was aimed at stabilizing the faith of the true believer in dark times. For example, various passages in Isaiah (Is 9:1-7; 11:1-16; 40:1-3) have the effect of lifting the eyes out of the immediately preceding grim tragedy to the coming glory.<\/p>\nMethods of Communication<\/p>\nIn foretelling, the prophets were forthtelling—they were proclaiming the wonderful works of God (cf. the definition of prophecy in Acts 2:11, 17). For the most part, this proclamation was by direct word of mouth. The prophets were men of the word. Their words were like messengers sent by God (Is 55:11), endowed with all the divine efficacy of the creative word of Genesis 1:3 (cf. Ps 33:6). Sometimes the efficacy of the word was enhanced by being accompanied by a sign or symbolic action (e.g., Jer 13:1-11; 19; Ez 4:1-17; 24:15-24), or identified intimately with a person (Is 7:3; cf. 8:1-4). Such things were like visual aids, whereby the word would be made clearer to those present. But it would seem that the intention of the symbolic action (sometimes called an “acted oracle”) was not so much to make understanding easier but to give more power and effect to the word as it was sent like a messenger into that situation. This is the conclusion to be drawn from 2 Kings 13:14-19, where the extent to which the king “embodied” the word in action determined the extent to which the word would prove effective in bringing events to pass.<\/p>\nThe final embodiment of the words of the prophets is in the books that have been preserved. Jeremiah 36 may be taken as an object lesson in the fact that the prophets took the time and trouble to record their spoken messages in writing: there was stress on careful word-by-word dictation (Jer 36:6, 17-18). But the actual literary form of the messages themselves tells the same tale. What we find in the books of the prophets cannot be the preached form of their words but rather the studied wording in which they preserved (and filed away) their sermons. It stands to reason that men who were conscious of communicating the very words of God would see to it that those words were not lost. We may take it for granted that every prophet preserved a written record of his ministry. Whether each of the named prophets was himself directly responsible for the final form of his book, we are not told and have no way of knowing. The careful way in which the books of Isaiah or Amos, for example, are arranged is best suited by assuming that the author was also his own editor.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Prophecy; Prophets, False.<\/p>","summary_ro":"PROPHET, PROPHETESS A man or woman chosen by God to speak for him and to foretell events in the divine plan. Preview • Introduction • The Titles and History of the Prophets • Inspiration • True and False Prophets • The Function of the Prophet • Methods of Communication Introduction When Jesus raised the widow’s son from the dead, the onlookers responded by saying, “A great prophet has arisen among us!” (Lk 7:16; cf. Mk 6:15; 8:28). In Jewish religious thought, the most vivid and formative rel...","summary_en":"PROPHET, PROPHETESS A man or woman chosen by God to speak for him and to foretell events in the divine plan. Preview • Introduction • The Titles and History of the Prophets • Inspiration • True and False Prophets • The Function of the Prophet • Methods of Communication Introduction When Jesus raised the widow’s son from the dead, the onlookers responded by saying, “A great prophet has arisen among us!” (Lk 7:16; cf. Mk 6:15; 8:28). In Jewish religious thought, the most vivid and formative rel...","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"27":[{"id":52137,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 7:27","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 7:27","content_ro":"7:27-29<\/strong> The Lord instructed Jeremiah to continue to proclaim his messages even though the people of Judah had totally rejected the Lord and would not listen (cp. Ezek 2:7). The appropriate action for Jeremiah to take was to shave<\/em> his head<\/em>,<\/em> mourn, and weep alone on the mountains<\/em> (cp. Job 1:20).<\/p>","content_en":"7:27-29<\/strong> The Lord instructed Jeremiah to continue to proclaim his messages even though the people of Judah had totally rejected the Lord and would not listen (cp. Ezek 2:7). The appropriate action for Jeremiah to take was to shave<\/em> his head<\/em>,<\/em> mourn, and weep alone on the mountains<\/em> (cp. Job 1:20).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:27-29 The Lord instructed Jeremiah to continue to proclaim his messages even though the people of Judah had totally rejected the Lord and would not listen (cp. Ezek 2:7). The appropriate action for Jeremiah to take was to shave his head, mourn, and weep alone on the mountains (cp. Job 1:20).","summary_en":"7:27-29 The Lord instructed Jeremiah to continue to proclaim his messages even though the people of Judah had totally rejected the Lord and would not listen (cp. Ezek 2:7). The appropriate action for Jeremiah to take was to shave his head, mourn, and weep alone on the mountains (cp. Job 1:20).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":79763,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 7:27","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 7:27","content_ro":"7:27-29<\/strong> The Lord instructed Jeremiah to continue to proclaim his messages even though the people of Judah had totally rejected the Lord and would not listen (cp. Ezek 2:7). The appropriate action for Jeremiah to take was to shave<\/em> his head<\/em>,<\/em> mourn, and weep alone on the mountains<\/em> (cp. Job 1:20).<\/p>","content_en":"7:27-29<\/strong> The Lord instructed Jeremiah to continue to proclaim his messages even though the people of Judah had totally rejected the Lord and would not listen (cp. Ezek 2:7). The appropriate action for Jeremiah to take was to shave<\/em> his head<\/em>,<\/em> mourn, and weep alone on the mountains<\/em> (cp. Job 1:20).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:27-29 The Lord instructed Jeremiah to continue to proclaim his messages even though the people of Judah had totally rejected the Lord and would not listen (cp. Ezek 2:7). The appropriate action for Jeremiah to take was to shave his head, mourn, and weep alone on the mountains (cp. Job 1:20).","summary_en":"7:27-29 The Lord instructed Jeremiah to continue to proclaim his messages even though the people of Judah had totally rejected the Lord and would not listen (cp. Ezek 2:7). The appropriate action for Jeremiah to take was to shave his head, mourn, and weep alone on the mountains (cp. Job 1:20).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":107389,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 7:27","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 7:27","content_ro":"7:27-29<\/strong> The Lord instructed Jeremiah to continue to proclaim his messages even though the people of Judah had totally rejected the Lord and would not listen (cp. Ezek 2:7). The appropriate action for Jeremiah to take was to shave<\/em> his head<\/em>,<\/em> mourn, and weep alone on the mountains<\/em> (cp. Job 1:20).<\/p>","content_en":"7:27-29<\/strong> The Lord instructed Jeremiah to continue to proclaim his messages even though the people of Judah had totally rejected the Lord and would not listen (cp. Ezek 2:7). The appropriate action for Jeremiah to take was to shave<\/em> his head<\/em>,<\/em> mourn, and weep alone on the mountains<\/em> (cp. Job 1:20).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:27-29 The Lord instructed Jeremiah to continue to proclaim his messages even though the people of Judah had totally rejected the Lord and would not listen (cp. Ezek 2:7). The appropriate action for Jeremiah to take was to shave his head, mourn, and weep alone on the mountains (cp. Job 1:20).","summary_en":"7:27-29 The Lord instructed Jeremiah to continue to proclaim his messages even though the people of Judah had totally rejected the Lord and would not listen (cp. Ezek 2:7). The appropriate action for Jeremiah to take was to shave his head, mourn, and weep alone on the mountains (cp. Job 1:20).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":135015,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 7:27","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 7:27","content_ro":"7:27-29<\/strong> The Lord instructed Jeremiah to continue to proclaim his messages even though the people of Judah had totally rejected the Lord and would not listen (cp. Ezek 2:7). The appropriate action for Jeremiah to take was to shave<\/em> his head<\/em>,<\/em> mourn, and weep alone on the mountains<\/em> (cp. Job 1:20).<\/p>","content_en":"7:27-29<\/strong> The Lord instructed Jeremiah to continue to proclaim his messages even though the people of Judah had totally rejected the Lord and would not listen (cp. Ezek 2:7). The appropriate action for Jeremiah to take was to shave<\/em> his head<\/em>,<\/em> mourn, and weep alone on the mountains<\/em> (cp. Job 1:20).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:27-29 The Lord instructed Jeremiah to continue to proclaim his messages even though the people of Judah had totally rejected the Lord and would not listen (cp. Ezek 2:7). The appropriate action for Jeremiah to take was to shave his head, mourn, and weep alone on the mountains (cp. Job 1:20).","summary_en":"7:27-29 The Lord instructed Jeremiah to continue to proclaim his messages even though the people of Judah had totally rejected the Lord and would not listen (cp. Ezek 2:7). The appropriate action for Jeremiah to take was to shave his head, mourn, and weep alone on the mountains (cp. Job 1:20).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"30":[{"id":262,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Abomination","title_en":"Abomination","content_ro":"<h3>ABOMINATION<\/h3>\nRepugnant or detestable act, person, or thing. The idea of abomination derives from the specific demands God’s holiness makes upon his people. Adjectives frequently used for abominations in the OT are “abhorrent,” “loathsome,” “unclean,” and “rejected.”<\/p>\nOf the four major Hebrew words translated “abomination,” the one most frequently used indicates violation of an established custom or ritual that, in turn, brings the judgment of God. Examples range from defective sacrifices (Dt 17:1) to magic and divination (Dt 18:12) or idolatrous practices (2 Kgs 16:3). A second Hebrew word refers to the meat of certain kinds of animals that was ritually defiling, whether touched or eaten (Lv 11:10-13). A third word designates three-day-old sacrificial meat (Lv 7:18). A fourth word refers almost exclusively to idolatrous objects of pagan origin (Jer 4:1; 7:30). Apart from the specialized usage of “abomination of desolation,” the Greek word for “abomination” is used infrequently in the NT (Lk 16:15; Rom 2:22; Ti 1:16; Rv 17:4-5; 21:8, 27) and is translated by many English words. The primary connotation is anything that is abhorrent to a holy God.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Cleanness and Uncleanness, Regulations Concerning; Dietary Laws (After Moses).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>ABOMINATION<\/h3>\nRepugnant or detestable act, person, or thing. The idea of abomination derives from the specific demands God’s holiness makes upon his people. Adjectives frequently used for abominations in the OT are “abhorrent,” “loathsome,” “unclean,” and “rejected.”<\/p>\nOf the four major Hebrew words translated “abomination,” the one most frequently used indicates violation of an established custom or ritual that, in turn, brings the judgment of God. Examples range from defective sacrifices (Dt 17:1) to magic and divination (Dt 18:12) or idolatrous practices (2 Kgs 16:3). A second Hebrew word refers to the meat of certain kinds of animals that was ritually defiling, whether touched or eaten (Lv 11:10-13). A third word designates three-day-old sacrificial meat (Lv 7:18). A fourth word refers almost exclusively to idolatrous objects of pagan origin (Jer 4:1; 7:30). Apart from the specialized usage of “abomination of desolation,” the Greek word for “abomination” is used infrequently in the NT (Lk 16:15; Rom 2:22; Ti 1:16; Rv 17:4-5; 21:8, 27) and is translated by many English words. The primary connotation is anything that is abhorrent to a holy God.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Cleanness and Uncleanness, Regulations Concerning; Dietary Laws (After Moses).<\/p>","summary_ro":"ABOMINATION Repugnant or detestable act, person, or thing. The idea of abomination derives from the specific demands God’s holiness makes upon his people. Adjectives frequently used for abominations in the OT are “abhorrent,” “loathsome,” “unclean,” and “rejected.” Of the four major Hebrew words translated “abomination,” the one most frequently used indicates violation of an established custom or ritual that, in turn, brings the judgment of God. Examples range from defective sacrifices (Dt 17...","summary_en":"ABOMINATION Repugnant or detestable act, person, or thing. The idea of abomination derives from the specific demands God’s holiness makes upon his people. Adjectives frequently used for abominations in the OT are “abhorrent,” “loathsome,” “unclean,” and “rejected.” Of the four major Hebrew words translated “abomination,” the one most frequently used indicates violation of an established custom or ritual that, in turn, brings the judgment of God. Examples range from defective sacrifices (Dt 17...","source":"Articles\/A.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":13361,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Gehenna*","title_en":"Gehenna*","content_ro":"<h3>GEHENNA*<\/h3>\nEnglish transliteration of the Greek form of an Aramaic word, which is derived from the Hebrew phrase “the Valley of [the son(s) of] Hinnom.” The name properly designates a deep valley delimiting the territories of the tribes of Benjamin and Judah (Jos 15:8; 18:16). It is commonly identified with Wadi el-Rababi that runs from beneath the western wall of the Old City, forming a deep ravine south of Jerusalem.<\/p>\nThe place became notorious because of the idolatrous practices that were carried out there in the days of Judah’s kings Ahaz and Manasseh, especially involving the heinous crime of infant sacrifices associated with the Molech ceremonies (2 Kgs 16:3; 21:6; 2 Chr 28:3; 33:6; Jer 19:6; 32:35). The spiritual reformation of King Josiah brought an end to these sinister proceedings (2 Kgs 23:10). The prophet Jeremiah referred to the valley in picturing God’s judgment upon his people (Jer 2:23; 7:30-32; 19:5-6).<\/p>\nSubsequently, the valley appears to have been used for the burning of the city’s refuse and the dead bodies of criminals. Interestingly, a well-established tradition locates the scene of Judas’s suicide and the consequent purchase of the Potter’s Field on the south side of this valley.<\/p>\nThe ravine’s reputation for extreme wickedness gave rise, especially during the intertestamental period, to use of its name as a term for the place of final punishment for the wicked (1 Enoch 18:11-16; 27:1-3; 54:1ff.; 56:3-4; 90:26; 2 Esd 7:36; cf. Is 30:33; 66:24; Dn 7:10). Jesus himself utilizes the term to designate the final abode of the unrepentant wicked (Mt 5:22; 10:28; 18:9). Since Gehenna is a fiery abyss (Mk 9:43), it is also the lake of fire (Mt 13:42, 50; Rv 20:14-15) to which all the godless will ultimately be consigned (Mt 23:15, 33), together with Satan and his devils (Mt 25:41; Rv 19:20; 20:10).<\/p>\nGehenna must be carefully differentiated from other terms relative to the afterlife or final state. Whereas the OT “Sheol” and NT “hades” uniformly designate the temporary abode of the dead (before the last Day of Judgment), “Gehenna” specifies the final place where the wicked will suffer everlasting punishment (cf. Ps 49:14-15 with Mt 10:28). The Greek form “Tartarus” occurs only in 2 Peter 2:4 and identifies the particular abode of the angels who fell in the primeval satanic revolt.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Dead, Place of the; Death; Hades; Hell; Sheol.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>GEHENNA*<\/h3>\nEnglish transliteration of the Greek form of an Aramaic word, which is derived from the Hebrew phrase “the Valley of [the son(s) of] Hinnom.” The name properly designates a deep valley delimiting the territories of the tribes of Benjamin and Judah (Jos 15:8; 18:16). It is commonly identified with Wadi el-Rababi that runs from beneath the western wall of the Old City, forming a deep ravine south of Jerusalem.<\/p>\nThe place became notorious because of the idolatrous practices that were carried out there in the days of Judah’s kings Ahaz and Manasseh, especially involving the heinous crime of infant sacrifices associated with the Molech ceremonies (2 Kgs 16:3; 21:6; 2 Chr 28:3; 33:6; Jer 19:6; 32:35). The spiritual reformation of King Josiah brought an end to these sinister proceedings (2 Kgs 23:10). The prophet Jeremiah referred to the valley in picturing God’s judgment upon his people (Jer 2:23; 7:30-32; 19:5-6).<\/p>\nSubsequently, the valley appears to have been used for the burning of the city’s refuse and the dead bodies of criminals. Interestingly, a well-established tradition locates the scene of Judas’s suicide and the consequent purchase of the Potter’s Field on the south side of this valley.<\/p>\nThe ravine’s reputation for extreme wickedness gave rise, especially during the intertestamental period, to use of its name as a term for the place of final punishment for the wicked (1 Enoch 18:11-16; 27:1-3; 54:1ff.; 56:3-4; 90:26; 2 Esd 7:36; cf. Is 30:33; 66:24; Dn 7:10). Jesus himself utilizes the term to designate the final abode of the unrepentant wicked (Mt 5:22; 10:28; 18:9). Since Gehenna is a fiery abyss (Mk 9:43), it is also the lake of fire (Mt 13:42, 50; Rv 20:14-15) to which all the godless will ultimately be consigned (Mt 23:15, 33), together with Satan and his devils (Mt 25:41; Rv 19:20; 20:10).<\/p>\nGehenna must be carefully differentiated from other terms relative to the afterlife or final state. Whereas the OT “Sheol” and NT “hades” uniformly designate the temporary abode of the dead (before the last Day of Judgment), “Gehenna” specifies the final place where the wicked will suffer everlasting punishment (cf. Ps 49:14-15 with Mt 10:28). The Greek form “Tartarus” occurs only in 2 Peter 2:4 and identifies the particular abode of the angels who fell in the primeval satanic revolt.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Dead, Place of the; Death; Hades; Hell; Sheol.<\/p>","summary_ro":"GEHENNA* English transliteration of the Greek form of an Aramaic word, which is derived from the Hebrew phrase “the Valley of [the son(s) of] Hinnom.” The name properly designates a deep valley delimiting the territories of the tribes of Benjamin and Judah (Jos 15:8; 18:16). It is commonly identified with Wadi el-Rababi that runs from beneath the western wall of the Old City, forming a deep ravine south of Jerusalem. The place became notorious because of the idolatrous practices that were car...","summary_en":"GEHENNA* English transliteration of the Greek form of an Aramaic word, which is derived from the Hebrew phrase “the Valley of [the son(s) of] Hinnom.” The name properly designates a deep valley delimiting the territories of the tribes of Benjamin and Judah (Jos 15:8; 18:16). It is commonly identified with Wadi el-Rababi that runs from beneath the western wall of the Old City, forming a deep ravine south of Jerusalem. The place became notorious because of the idolatrous practices that were car...","source":"Articles\/G.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":52138,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 7:30","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 7:30","content_ro":"7:30–8:3<\/strong> This message decreed death for the people of Judah. It was finally fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem (586 BC<\/span>).<\/p>","content_en":"7:30–8:3<\/strong> This message decreed death for the people of Judah. It was finally fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem (586 BC<\/span>).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:30–8:3 This message decreed death for the people of Judah. It was finally fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem (586 BC).","summary_en":"7:30–8:3 This message decreed death for the people of Judah. It was finally fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem (586 BC).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":52139,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 7:30","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 7:30","content_ro":"7:30-34<\/strong> The valley of Ben-Hinnom<\/em> began on the west side of Jerusalem and continued around the south side. This narrow, steep-sided valley opened into the Kidron Valley and was the city’s combined garbage dump and graveyard. The bodies of the poor who were murdered or died of disease were dumped there, and child sacrifice (a practice totally abhorrent to the Lord; see 2 Chr 28:3; 33:6) was performed there. The valley was also known as Topheth<\/em> (2 Kgs 23:10; Isa 30:33), perhaps referring to the ritual drums (Hebrew top<\/span>) or to the sacrificial fires (tap<\/span>) that were used there. In the New Testament it is called Gehenna, and Jesus compared hell to the fire that burned continuously in that valley (see study note on Matt 5:29). Before long, it would be known as the Valley of Slaughter<\/em>,<\/em> because the siege and destruction of Jerusalem (588–586 BC<\/span>) would fill the valley to overflowing with the bodies of the slain.<\/p>","content_en":"7:30-34<\/strong> The valley of Ben-Hinnom<\/em> began on the west side of Jerusalem and continued around the south side. This narrow, steep-sided valley opened into the Kidron Valley and was the city’s combined garbage dump and graveyard. The bodies of the poor who were murdered or died of disease were dumped there, and child sacrifice (a practice totally abhorrent to the Lord; see 2 Chr 28:3; 33:6) was performed there. The valley was also known as Topheth<\/em> (2 Kgs 23:10; Isa 30:33), perhaps referring to the ritual drums (Hebrew top<\/span>) or to the sacrificial fires (tap<\/span>) that were used there. In the New Testament it is called Gehenna, and Jesus compared hell to the fire that burned continuously in that valley (see study note on Matt 5:29). Before long, it would be known as the Valley of Slaughter<\/em>,<\/em> because the siege and destruction of Jerusalem (588–586 BC<\/span>) would fill the valley to overflowing with the bodies of the slain.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:30-34 The valley of Ben-Hinnom began on the west side of Jerusalem and continued around the south side. This narrow, steep-sided valley opened into the Kidron Valley and was the city’s combined garbage dump and graveyard. The bodies of the poor who were murdered or died of disease were dumped there, and child sacrifice (a practice totally abhorrent to the Lord; see 2 Chr 28:3; 33:6) was performed there. The valley was also known as Topheth (2 Kgs 23:10; Isa 30:33), perhaps referring to the ...","summary_en":"7:30-34 The valley of Ben-Hinnom began on the west side of Jerusalem and continued around the south side. This narrow, steep-sided valley opened into the Kidron Valley and was the city’s combined garbage dump and graveyard. The bodies of the poor who were murdered or died of disease were dumped there, and child sacrifice (a practice totally abhorrent to the Lord; see 2 Chr 28:3; 33:6) was performed there. The valley was also known as Topheth (2 Kgs 23:10; Isa 30:33), perhaps referring to the ...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":79764,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 7:30","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 7:30","content_ro":"7:30–8:3<\/strong> This message decreed death for the people of Judah. It was finally fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem (586 BC<\/span>).<\/p>","content_en":"7:30–8:3<\/strong> This message decreed death for the people of Judah. It was finally fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem (586 BC<\/span>).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:30–8:3 This message decreed death for the people of Judah. It was finally fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem (586 BC).","summary_en":"7:30–8:3 This message decreed death for the people of Judah. It was finally fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem (586 BC).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":79765,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 7:30","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 7:30","content_ro":"7:30-34<\/strong> The valley of Ben-Hinnom<\/em> began on the west side of Jerusalem and continued around the south side. This narrow, steep-sided valley opened into the Kidron Valley and was the city’s combined garbage dump and graveyard. The bodies of the poor who were murdered or died of disease were dumped there, and child sacrifice (a practice totally abhorrent to the Lord; see 2 Chr 28:3; 33:6) was performed there. The valley was also known as Topheth<\/em> (2 Kgs 23:10; Isa 30:33), perhaps referring to the ritual drums (Hebrew top<\/span>) or to the sacrificial fires (tap<\/span>) that were used there. In the New Testament it is called Gehenna, and Jesus compared hell to the fire that burned continuously in that valley (see study note on Matt 5:29). Before long, it would be known as the Valley of Slaughter<\/em>,<\/em> because the siege and destruction of Jerusalem (588–586 BC<\/span>) would fill the valley to overflowing with the bodies of the slain.<\/p>","content_en":"7:30-34<\/strong> The valley of Ben-Hinnom<\/em> began on the west side of Jerusalem and continued around the south side. This narrow, steep-sided valley opened into the Kidron Valley and was the city’s combined garbage dump and graveyard. The bodies of the poor who were murdered or died of disease were dumped there, and child sacrifice (a practice totally abhorrent to the Lord; see 2 Chr 28:3; 33:6) was performed there. The valley was also known as Topheth<\/em> (2 Kgs 23:10; Isa 30:33), perhaps referring to the ritual drums (Hebrew top<\/span>) or to the sacrificial fires (tap<\/span>) that were used there. In the New Testament it is called Gehenna, and Jesus compared hell to the fire that burned continuously in that valley (see study note on Matt 5:29). Before long, it would be known as the Valley of Slaughter<\/em>,<\/em> because the siege and destruction of Jerusalem (588–586 BC<\/span>) would fill the valley to overflowing with the bodies of the slain.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:30-34 The valley of Ben-Hinnom began on the west side of Jerusalem and continued around the south side. This narrow, steep-sided valley opened into the Kidron Valley and was the city’s combined garbage dump and graveyard. The bodies of the poor who were murdered or died of disease were dumped there, and child sacrifice (a practice totally abhorrent to the Lord; see 2 Chr 28:3; 33:6) was performed there. The valley was also known as Topheth (2 Kgs 23:10; Isa 30:33), perhaps referring to the ...","summary_en":"7:30-34 The valley of Ben-Hinnom began on the west side of Jerusalem and continued around the south side. This narrow, steep-sided valley opened into the Kidron Valley and was the city’s combined garbage dump and graveyard. The bodies of the poor who were murdered or died of disease were dumped there, and child sacrifice (a practice totally abhorrent to the Lord; see 2 Chr 28:3; 33:6) was performed there. The valley was also known as Topheth (2 Kgs 23:10; Isa 30:33), perhaps referring to the ...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":107390,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 7:30","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 7:30","content_ro":"7:30–8:3<\/strong> This message decreed death for the people of Judah. It was finally fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem (586 BC<\/span>).<\/p>","content_en":"7:30–8:3<\/strong> This message decreed death for the people of Judah. It was finally fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem (586 BC<\/span>).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:30–8:3 This message decreed death for the people of Judah. It was finally fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem (586 BC).","summary_en":"7:30–8:3 This message decreed death for the people of Judah. It was finally fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem (586 BC).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":107391,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 7:30","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 7:30","content_ro":"7:30-34<\/strong> The valley of Ben-Hinnom<\/em> began on the west side of Jerusalem and continued around the south side. This narrow, steep-sided valley opened into the Kidron Valley and was the city’s combined garbage dump and graveyard. The bodies of the poor who were murdered or died of disease were dumped there, and child sacrifice (a practice totally abhorrent to the Lord; see 2 Chr 28:3; 33:6) was performed there. The valley was also known as Topheth<\/em> (2 Kgs 23:10; Isa 30:33), perhaps referring to the ritual drums (Hebrew top<\/span>) or to the sacrificial fires (tap<\/span>) that were used there. In the New Testament it is called Gehenna, and Jesus compared hell to the fire that burned continuously in that valley (see study note on Matt 5:29). Before long, it would be known as the Valley of Slaughter<\/em>,<\/em> because the siege and destruction of Jerusalem (588–586 BC<\/span>) would fill the valley to overflowing with the bodies of the slain.<\/p>","content_en":"7:30-34<\/strong> The valley of Ben-Hinnom<\/em> began on the west side of Jerusalem and continued around the south side. This narrow, steep-sided valley opened into the Kidron Valley and was the city’s combined garbage dump and graveyard. The bodies of the poor who were murdered or died of disease were dumped there, and child sacrifice (a practice totally abhorrent to the Lord; see 2 Chr 28:3; 33:6) was performed there. The valley was also known as Topheth<\/em> (2 Kgs 23:10; Isa 30:33), perhaps referring to the ritual drums (Hebrew top<\/span>) or to the sacrificial fires (tap<\/span>) that were used there. In the New Testament it is called Gehenna, and Jesus compared hell to the fire that burned continuously in that valley (see study note on Matt 5:29). Before long, it would be known as the Valley of Slaughter<\/em>,<\/em> because the siege and destruction of Jerusalem (588–586 BC<\/span>) would fill the valley to overflowing with the bodies of the slain.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:30-34 The valley of Ben-Hinnom began on the west side of Jerusalem and continued around the south side. This narrow, steep-sided valley opened into the Kidron Valley and was the city’s combined garbage dump and graveyard. The bodies of the poor who were murdered or died of disease were dumped there, and child sacrifice (a practice totally abhorrent to the Lord; see 2 Chr 28:3; 33:6) was performed there. The valley was also known as Topheth (2 Kgs 23:10; Isa 30:33), perhaps referring to the ...","summary_en":"7:30-34 The valley of Ben-Hinnom began on the west side of Jerusalem and continued around the south side. This narrow, steep-sided valley opened into the Kidron Valley and was the city’s combined garbage dump and graveyard. The bodies of the poor who were murdered or died of disease were dumped there, and child sacrifice (a practice totally abhorrent to the Lord; see 2 Chr 28:3; 33:6) was performed there. The valley was also known as Topheth (2 Kgs 23:10; Isa 30:33), perhaps referring to the ...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":135016,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 7:30","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 7:30","content_ro":"7:30–8:3<\/strong> This message decreed death for the people of Judah. It was finally fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem (586 BC<\/span>).<\/p>","content_en":"7:30–8:3<\/strong> This message decreed death for the people of Judah. It was finally fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem (586 BC<\/span>).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:30–8:3 This message decreed death for the people of Judah. It was finally fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem (586 BC).","summary_en":"7:30–8:3 This message decreed death for the people of Judah. It was finally fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem (586 BC).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":135017,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 7:30","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 7:30","content_ro":"7:30-34<\/strong> The valley of Ben-Hinnom<\/em> began on the west side of Jerusalem and continued around the south side. This narrow, steep-sided valley opened into the Kidron Valley and was the city’s combined garbage dump and graveyard. The bodies of the poor who were murdered or died of disease were dumped there, and child sacrifice (a practice totally abhorrent to the Lord; see 2 Chr 28:3; 33:6) was performed there. The valley was also known as Topheth<\/em> (2 Kgs 23:10; Isa 30:33), perhaps referring to the ritual drums (Hebrew top<\/span>) or to the sacrificial fires (tap<\/span>) that were used there. In the New Testament it is called Gehenna, and Jesus compared hell to the fire that burned continuously in that valley (see study note on Matt 5:29). Before long, it would be known as the Valley of Slaughter<\/em>,<\/em> because the siege and destruction of Jerusalem (588–586 BC<\/span>) would fill the valley to overflowing with the bodies of the slain.<\/p>","content_en":"7:30-34<\/strong> The valley of Ben-Hinnom<\/em> began on the west side of Jerusalem and continued around the south side. This narrow, steep-sided valley opened into the Kidron Valley and was the city’s combined garbage dump and graveyard. The bodies of the poor who were murdered or died of disease were dumped there, and child sacrifice (a practice totally abhorrent to the Lord; see 2 Chr 28:3; 33:6) was performed there. The valley was also known as Topheth<\/em> (2 Kgs 23:10; Isa 30:33), perhaps referring to the ritual drums (Hebrew top<\/span>) or to the sacrificial fires (tap<\/span>) that were used there. In the New Testament it is called Gehenna, and Jesus compared hell to the fire that burned continuously in that valley (see study note on Matt 5:29). Before long, it would be known as the Valley of Slaughter<\/em>,<\/em> because the siege and destruction of Jerusalem (588–586 BC<\/span>) would fill the valley to overflowing with the bodies of the slain.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:30-34 The valley of Ben-Hinnom began on the west side of Jerusalem and continued around the south side. This narrow, steep-sided valley opened into the Kidron Valley and was the city’s combined garbage dump and graveyard. The bodies of the poor who were murdered or died of disease were dumped there, and child sacrifice (a practice totally abhorrent to the Lord; see 2 Chr 28:3; 33:6) was performed there. The valley was also known as Topheth (2 Kgs 23:10; Isa 30:33), perhaps referring to the ...","summary_en":"7:30-34 The valley of Ben-Hinnom began on the west side of Jerusalem and continued around the south side. This narrow, steep-sided valley opened into the Kidron Valley and was the city’s combined garbage dump and graveyard. The bodies of the poor who were murdered or died of disease were dumped there, and child sacrifice (a practice totally abhorrent to the Lord; see 2 Chr 28:3; 33:6) was performed there. The valley was also known as Topheth (2 Kgs 23:10; Isa 30:33), perhaps referring to the ...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"31":[{"id":41745,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Manasseh","title_en":"Manasseh","content_ro":"<h3>Manasseh<\/h3>\nManasseh, the thirteenth king of Judah (697–642 BC<\/span>), had a long but notoriously wicked reign (2 Kgs 21:1-18; 2 Chr 33:1-9)—even though his father was the godly king Hezekiah (2 Kgs 20:21).<\/p>\nIn 697 BC<\/span>, Manasseh became co-ruler with his father Hezekiah at age twelve (2 Chr 33:1). In 686 BC<\/span>, Hezekiah died and Manasseh became sole monarch. He reigned a total of fifty-five years (2 Kgs 21:1), longer than any other king in Judah or Israel. Regrettably, he was the most wicked of all the kings of Judah. He rebuilt the high places for pagan worship; he encouraged the worship of Baal, the sun, the moon, and the stars; and he even burnt his son as a child sacrifice (2 Kgs 21:2-9; see 2 Kgs 23:10; Jer 7:31). He allowed divination and sorcery in Judah and “murdered many innocent people until Jerusalem was filled . . . with innocent blood” (2 Kgs 21:16; 24:3-4).<\/p>\nSurviving Assyrian records note that Manasseh provided men to transport timber from Lebanon to Nineveh for the Assyrian king Esarhaddon (680–669 BC<\/span>), and he paid tribute to King Ashurbanipal (668–626 BC<\/span>) after an Assyrian military campaign in Egypt in 667 BC<\/span>. Manasseh served Assyria more faithfully than he served the Lord.<\/p>\nBecause of Manasseh’s tremendous sin, God determined to “wipe away the people of Jerusalem as one wipes a dish and turns it upside down” (2 Kgs 21:13). However, Manasseh repented late in life. The Assyrian army captured him, put a hook through his nose, and exiled him to Babylon (2 Chr 33:10-13). There Manasseh turned to the Lord. God heard his prayers, restored him as king, and blessed the rest of his reign as Manasseh sought to restore proper worship of God alone (33:14-17).<\/p>\nSadly, Manasseh’s sins had infected the people of Judah (33:17), and God did not reverse his determination to judge the kingdom (2 Kgs 23:26; 24:3-4). This indicates just how seriously Manasseh had sinned. Even Jeremiah, one hundred years later, announced: “Because of the wicked things Manasseh son of Hezekiah, king of Judah, did in Jerusalem, I will make my people an object of horror to all the kingdoms of the earth” (Jer 15:4). The destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple and the exile of Judah’s people followed.<\/p>\nWhen Manasseh died in 642 BC<\/span> at age 67, he was buried in his own garden (2 Kgs 21:18), rather than with highly regarded leaders such as Jehoiada and Hezekiah (2 Chr 24:15-16; 32:33).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n2 Kgs 20:21–21:18; 23:26; 24:3; 2 Chr 32:33–33:20; Jer 15:4<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Manasseh<\/h3>\nManasseh, the thirteenth king of Judah (697–642 BC<\/span>), had a long but notoriously wicked reign (2 Kgs 21:1-18; 2 Chr 33:1-9)—even though his father was the godly king Hezekiah (2 Kgs 20:21).<\/p>\nIn 697 BC<\/span>, Manasseh became co-ruler with his father Hezekiah at age twelve (2 Chr 33:1). In 686 BC<\/span>, Hezekiah died and Manasseh became sole monarch. He reigned a total of fifty-five years (2 Kgs 21:1), longer than any other king in Judah or Israel. Regrettably, he was the most wicked of all the kings of Judah. He rebuilt the high places for pagan worship; he encouraged the worship of Baal, the sun, the moon, and the stars; and he even burnt his son as a child sacrifice (2 Kgs 21:2-9; see 2 Kgs 23:10; Jer 7:31). He allowed divination and sorcery in Judah and “murdered many innocent people until Jerusalem was filled . . . with innocent blood” (2 Kgs 21:16; 24:3-4).<\/p>\nSurviving Assyrian records note that Manasseh provided men to transport timber from Lebanon to Nineveh for the Assyrian king Esarhaddon (680–669 BC<\/span>), and he paid tribute to King Ashurbanipal (668–626 BC<\/span>) after an Assyrian military campaign in Egypt in 667 BC<\/span>. Manasseh served Assyria more faithfully than he served the Lord.<\/p>\nBecause of Manasseh’s tremendous sin, God determined to “wipe away the people of Jerusalem as one wipes a dish and turns it upside down” (2 Kgs 21:13). However, Manasseh repented late in life. The Assyrian army captured him, put a hook through his nose, and exiled him to Babylon (2 Chr 33:10-13). There Manasseh turned to the Lord. God heard his prayers, restored him as king, and blessed the rest of his reign as Manasseh sought to restore proper worship of God alone (33:14-17).<\/p>\nSadly, Manasseh’s sins had infected the people of Judah (33:17), and God did not reverse his determination to judge the kingdom (2 Kgs 23:26; 24:3-4). This indicates just how seriously Manasseh had sinned. Even Jeremiah, one hundred years later, announced: “Because of the wicked things Manasseh son of Hezekiah, king of Judah, did in Jerusalem, I will make my people an object of horror to all the kingdoms of the earth” (Jer 15:4). The destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple and the exile of Judah’s people followed.<\/p>\nWhen Manasseh died in 642 BC<\/span> at age 67, he was buried in his own garden (2 Kgs 21:18), rather than with highly regarded leaders such as Jehoiada and Hezekiah (2 Chr 24:15-16; 32:33).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n2 Kgs 20:21–21:18; 23:26; 24:3; 2 Chr 32:33–33:20; Jer 15:4<\/p>","summary_ro":"Manasseh Manasseh, the thirteenth king of Judah (697–642 BC), had a long but notoriously wicked reign (2 Kgs 21:1-18; 2 Chr 33:1-9)—even though his father was the godly king Hezekiah (2 Kgs 20:21). In 697 BC, Manasseh became co-ruler with his father Hezekiah at age twelve (2 Chr 33:1). In 686 BC, Hezekiah died and Manasseh became sole monarch. He reigned a total of fifty-five years (2 Kgs 21:1), longer than any other king in Judah or Israel. Regrettably, he was the most wicked of all the king...","summary_en":"Manasseh Manasseh, the thirteenth king of Judah (697–642 BC), had a long but notoriously wicked reign (2 Kgs 21:1-18; 2 Chr 33:1-9)—even though his father was the godly king Hezekiah (2 Kgs 20:21). In 697 BC, Manasseh became co-ruler with his father Hezekiah at age twelve (2 Chr 33:1). In 686 BC, Hezekiah died and Manasseh became sole monarch. He reigned a total of fifty-five years (2 Kgs 21:1), longer than any other king in Judah or Israel. Regrettably, he was the most wicked of all the king...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":69371,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Manasseh","title_en":"Manasseh","content_ro":"<h3>Manasseh<\/h3>\nManasseh, the thirteenth king of Judah (697–642 BC<\/span>), had a long but notoriously wicked reign (2 Kgs 21:1-18; 2 Chr 33:1-9)—even though his father was the godly king Hezekiah (2 Kgs 20:21).<\/p>\nIn 697 BC<\/span>, Manasseh became co-ruler with his father Hezekiah at age twelve (2 Chr 33:1). In 686 BC<\/span>, Hezekiah died and Manasseh became sole monarch. He reigned a total of fifty-five years (2 Kgs 21:1), longer than any other king in Judah or Israel. Regrettably, he was the most wicked of all the kings of Judah. He rebuilt the high places for pagan worship; he encouraged the worship of Baal, the sun, the moon, and the stars; and he even burnt his son as a child sacrifice (2 Kgs 21:2-9; see 2 Kgs 23:10; Jer 7:31). He allowed divination and sorcery in Judah and “murdered many innocent people until Jerusalem was filled . . . with innocent blood” (2 Kgs 21:16; 24:3-4).<\/p>\nSurviving Assyrian records note that Manasseh provided men to transport timber from Lebanon to Nineveh for the Assyrian king Esarhaddon (680–669 BC<\/span>), and he paid tribute to King Ashurbanipal (668–626 BC<\/span>) after an Assyrian military campaign in Egypt in 667 BC<\/span>. Manasseh served Assyria more faithfully than he served the Lord.<\/p>\nBecause of Manasseh’s tremendous sin, God determined to “wipe away the people of Jerusalem as one wipes a dish and turns it upside down” (2 Kgs 21:13). However, Manasseh repented late in life. The Assyrian army captured him, put a hook through his nose, and exiled him to Babylon (2 Chr 33:10-13). There Manasseh turned to the Lord. God heard his prayers, restored him as king, and blessed the rest of his reign as Manasseh sought to restore proper worship of God alone (33:14-17).<\/p>\nSadly, Manasseh’s sins had infected the people of Judah (33:17), and God did not reverse his determination to judge the kingdom (2 Kgs 23:26; 24:3-4). This indicates just how seriously Manasseh had sinned. Even Jeremiah, one hundred years later, announced: “Because of the wicked things Manasseh son of Hezekiah, king of Judah, did in Jerusalem, I will make my people an object of horror to all the kingdoms of the earth” (Jer 15:4). The destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple and the exile of Judah’s people followed.<\/p>\nWhen Manasseh died in 642 BC<\/span> at age 67, he was buried in his own garden (2 Kgs 21:18), rather than with highly regarded leaders such as Jehoiada and Hezekiah (2 Chr 24:15-16; 32:33).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n2 Kgs 20:21–21:18; 23:26; 24:3; 2 Chr 32:33–33:20; Jer 15:4<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Manasseh<\/h3>\nManasseh, the thirteenth king of Judah (697–642 BC<\/span>), had a long but notoriously wicked reign (2 Kgs 21:1-18; 2 Chr 33:1-9)—even though his father was the godly king Hezekiah (2 Kgs 20:21).<\/p>\nIn 697 BC<\/span>, Manasseh became co-ruler with his father Hezekiah at age twelve (2 Chr 33:1). In 686 BC<\/span>, Hezekiah died and Manasseh became sole monarch. He reigned a total of fifty-five years (2 Kgs 21:1), longer than any other king in Judah or Israel. Regrettably, he was the most wicked of all the kings of Judah. He rebuilt the high places for pagan worship; he encouraged the worship of Baal, the sun, the moon, and the stars; and he even burnt his son as a child sacrifice (2 Kgs 21:2-9; see 2 Kgs 23:10; Jer 7:31). He allowed divination and sorcery in Judah and “murdered many innocent people until Jerusalem was filled . . . with innocent blood” (2 Kgs 21:16; 24:3-4).<\/p>\nSurviving Assyrian records note that Manasseh provided men to transport timber from Lebanon to Nineveh for the Assyrian king Esarhaddon (680–669 BC<\/span>), and he paid tribute to King Ashurbanipal (668–626 BC<\/span>) after an Assyrian military campaign in Egypt in 667 BC<\/span>. Manasseh served Assyria more faithfully than he served the Lord.<\/p>\nBecause of Manasseh’s tremendous sin, God determined to “wipe away the people of Jerusalem as one wipes a dish and turns it upside down” (2 Kgs 21:13). However, Manasseh repented late in life. The Assyrian army captured him, put a hook through his nose, and exiled him to Babylon (2 Chr 33:10-13). There Manasseh turned to the Lord. God heard his prayers, restored him as king, and blessed the rest of his reign as Manasseh sought to restore proper worship of God alone (33:14-17).<\/p>\nSadly, Manasseh’s sins had infected the people of Judah (33:17), and God did not reverse his determination to judge the kingdom (2 Kgs 23:26; 24:3-4). This indicates just how seriously Manasseh had sinned. Even Jeremiah, one hundred years later, announced: “Because of the wicked things Manasseh son of Hezekiah, king of Judah, did in Jerusalem, I will make my people an object of horror to all the kingdoms of the earth” (Jer 15:4). The destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple and the exile of Judah’s people followed.<\/p>\nWhen Manasseh died in 642 BC<\/span> at age 67, he was buried in his own garden (2 Kgs 21:18), rather than with highly regarded leaders such as Jehoiada and Hezekiah (2 Chr 24:15-16; 32:33).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n2 Kgs 20:21–21:18; 23:26; 24:3; 2 Chr 32:33–33:20; Jer 15:4<\/p>","summary_ro":"Manasseh Manasseh, the thirteenth king of Judah (697–642 BC), had a long but notoriously wicked reign (2 Kgs 21:1-18; 2 Chr 33:1-9)—even though his father was the godly king Hezekiah (2 Kgs 20:21). In 697 BC, Manasseh became co-ruler with his father Hezekiah at age twelve (2 Chr 33:1). In 686 BC, Hezekiah died and Manasseh became sole monarch. He reigned a total of fifty-five years (2 Kgs 21:1), longer than any other king in Judah or Israel. Regrettably, he was the most wicked of all the king...","summary_en":"Manasseh Manasseh, the thirteenth king of Judah (697–642 BC), had a long but notoriously wicked reign (2 Kgs 21:1-18; 2 Chr 33:1-9)—even though his father was the godly king Hezekiah (2 Kgs 20:21). In 697 BC, Manasseh became co-ruler with his father Hezekiah at age twelve (2 Chr 33:1). In 686 BC, Hezekiah died and Manasseh became sole monarch. He reigned a total of fifty-five years (2 Kgs 21:1), longer than any other king in Judah or Israel. Regrettably, he was the most wicked of all the king...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":96997,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Manasseh","title_en":"Manasseh","content_ro":"<h3>Manasseh<\/h3>\nManasseh, the thirteenth king of Judah (697–642 BC<\/span>), had a long but notoriously wicked reign (2 Kgs 21:1-18; 2 Chr 33:1-9)—even though his father was the godly king Hezekiah (2 Kgs 20:21).<\/p>\nIn 697 BC<\/span>, Manasseh became co-ruler with his father Hezekiah at age twelve (2 Chr 33:1). In 686 BC<\/span>, Hezekiah died and Manasseh became sole monarch. He reigned a total of fifty-five years (2 Kgs 21:1), longer than any other king in Judah or Israel. Regrettably, he was the most wicked of all the kings of Judah. He rebuilt the high places for pagan worship; he encouraged the worship of Baal, the sun, the moon, and the stars; and he even burnt his son as a child sacrifice (2 Kgs 21:2-9; see 2 Kgs 23:10; Jer 7:31). He allowed divination and sorcery in Judah and “murdered many innocent people until Jerusalem was filled . . . with innocent blood” (2 Kgs 21:16; 24:3-4).<\/p>\nSurviving Assyrian records note that Manasseh provided men to transport timber from Lebanon to Nineveh for the Assyrian king Esarhaddon (680–669 BC<\/span>), and he paid tribute to King Ashurbanipal (668–626 BC<\/span>) after an Assyrian military campaign in Egypt in 667 BC<\/span>. Manasseh served Assyria more faithfully than he served the Lord.<\/p>\nBecause of Manasseh’s tremendous sin, God determined to “wipe away the people of Jerusalem as one wipes a dish and turns it upside down” (2 Kgs 21:13). However, Manasseh repented late in life. The Assyrian army captured him, put a hook through his nose, and exiled him to Babylon (2 Chr 33:10-13). There Manasseh turned to the Lord. God heard his prayers, restored him as king, and blessed the rest of his reign as Manasseh sought to restore proper worship of God alone (33:14-17).<\/p>\nSadly, Manasseh’s sins had infected the people of Judah (33:17), and God did not reverse his determination to judge the kingdom (2 Kgs 23:26; 24:3-4). This indicates just how seriously Manasseh had sinned. Even Jeremiah, one hundred years later, announced: “Because of the wicked things Manasseh son of Hezekiah, king of Judah, did in Jerusalem, I will make my people an object of horror to all the kingdoms of the earth” (Jer 15:4). The destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple and the exile of Judah’s people followed.<\/p>\nWhen Manasseh died in 642 BC<\/span> at age 67, he was buried in his own garden (2 Kgs 21:18), rather than with highly regarded leaders such as Jehoiada and Hezekiah (2 Chr 24:15-16; 32:33).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n2 Kgs 20:21–21:18; 23:26; 24:3; 2 Chr 32:33–33:20; Jer 15:4<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Manasseh<\/h3>\nManasseh, the thirteenth king of Judah (697–642 BC<\/span>), had a long but notoriously wicked reign (2 Kgs 21:1-18; 2 Chr 33:1-9)—even though his father was the godly king Hezekiah (2 Kgs 20:21).<\/p>\nIn 697 BC<\/span>, Manasseh became co-ruler with his father Hezekiah at age twelve (2 Chr 33:1). In 686 BC<\/span>, Hezekiah died and Manasseh became sole monarch. He reigned a total of fifty-five years (2 Kgs 21:1), longer than any other king in Judah or Israel. Regrettably, he was the most wicked of all the kings of Judah. He rebuilt the high places for pagan worship; he encouraged the worship of Baal, the sun, the moon, and the stars; and he even burnt his son as a child sacrifice (2 Kgs 21:2-9; see 2 Kgs 23:10; Jer 7:31). He allowed divination and sorcery in Judah and “murdered many innocent people until Jerusalem was filled . . . with innocent blood” (2 Kgs 21:16; 24:3-4).<\/p>\nSurviving Assyrian records note that Manasseh provided men to transport timber from Lebanon to Nineveh for the Assyrian king Esarhaddon (680–669 BC<\/span>), and he paid tribute to King Ashurbanipal (668–626 BC<\/span>) after an Assyrian military campaign in Egypt in 667 BC<\/span>. Manasseh served Assyria more faithfully than he served the Lord.<\/p>\nBecause of Manasseh’s tremendous sin, God determined to “wipe away the people of Jerusalem as one wipes a dish and turns it upside down” (2 Kgs 21:13). However, Manasseh repented late in life. The Assyrian army captured him, put a hook through his nose, and exiled him to Babylon (2 Chr 33:10-13). There Manasseh turned to the Lord. God heard his prayers, restored him as king, and blessed the rest of his reign as Manasseh sought to restore proper worship of God alone (33:14-17).<\/p>\nSadly, Manasseh’s sins had infected the people of Judah (33:17), and God did not reverse his determination to judge the kingdom (2 Kgs 23:26; 24:3-4). This indicates just how seriously Manasseh had sinned. Even Jeremiah, one hundred years later, announced: “Because of the wicked things Manasseh son of Hezekiah, king of Judah, did in Jerusalem, I will make my people an object of horror to all the kingdoms of the earth” (Jer 15:4). The destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple and the exile of Judah’s people followed.<\/p>\nWhen Manasseh died in 642 BC<\/span> at age 67, he was buried in his own garden (2 Kgs 21:18), rather than with highly regarded leaders such as Jehoiada and Hezekiah (2 Chr 24:15-16; 32:33).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n2 Kgs 20:21–21:18; 23:26; 24:3; 2 Chr 32:33–33:20; Jer 15:4<\/p>","summary_ro":"Manasseh Manasseh, the thirteenth king of Judah (697–642 BC), had a long but notoriously wicked reign (2 Kgs 21:1-18; 2 Chr 33:1-9)—even though his father was the godly king Hezekiah (2 Kgs 20:21). In 697 BC, Manasseh became co-ruler with his father Hezekiah at age twelve (2 Chr 33:1). In 686 BC, Hezekiah died and Manasseh became sole monarch. He reigned a total of fifty-five years (2 Kgs 21:1), longer than any other king in Judah or Israel. Regrettably, he was the most wicked of all the king...","summary_en":"Manasseh Manasseh, the thirteenth king of Judah (697–642 BC), had a long but notoriously wicked reign (2 Kgs 21:1-18; 2 Chr 33:1-9)—even though his father was the godly king Hezekiah (2 Kgs 20:21). In 697 BC, Manasseh became co-ruler with his father Hezekiah at age twelve (2 Chr 33:1). In 686 BC, Hezekiah died and Manasseh became sole monarch. He reigned a total of fifty-five years (2 Kgs 21:1), longer than any other king in Judah or Israel. Regrettably, he was the most wicked of all the king...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":124623,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Manasseh","title_en":"Manasseh","content_ro":"<h3>Manasseh<\/h3>\nManasseh, the thirteenth king of Judah (697–642 BC<\/span>), had a long but notoriously wicked reign (2 Kgs 21:1-18; 2 Chr 33:1-9)—even though his father was the godly king Hezekiah (2 Kgs 20:21).<\/p>\nIn 697 BC<\/span>, Manasseh became co-ruler with his father Hezekiah at age twelve (2 Chr 33:1). In 686 BC<\/span>, Hezekiah died and Manasseh became sole monarch. He reigned a total of fifty-five years (2 Kgs 21:1), longer than any other king in Judah or Israel. Regrettably, he was the most wicked of all the kings of Judah. He rebuilt the high places for pagan worship; he encouraged the worship of Baal, the sun, the moon, and the stars; and he even burnt his son as a child sacrifice (2 Kgs 21:2-9; see 2 Kgs 23:10; Jer 7:31). He allowed divination and sorcery in Judah and “murdered many innocent people until Jerusalem was filled . . . with innocent blood” (2 Kgs 21:16; 24:3-4).<\/p>\nSurviving Assyrian records note that Manasseh provided men to transport timber from Lebanon to Nineveh for the Assyrian king Esarhaddon (680–669 BC<\/span>), and he paid tribute to King Ashurbanipal (668–626 BC<\/span>) after an Assyrian military campaign in Egypt in 667 BC<\/span>. Manasseh served Assyria more faithfully than he served the Lord.<\/p>\nBecause of Manasseh’s tremendous sin, God determined to “wipe away the people of Jerusalem as one wipes a dish and turns it upside down” (2 Kgs 21:13). However, Manasseh repented late in life. The Assyrian army captured him, put a hook through his nose, and exiled him to Babylon (2 Chr 33:10-13). There Manasseh turned to the Lord. God heard his prayers, restored him as king, and blessed the rest of his reign as Manasseh sought to restore proper worship of God alone (33:14-17).<\/p>\nSadly, Manasseh’s sins had infected the people of Judah (33:17), and God did not reverse his determination to judge the kingdom (2 Kgs 23:26; 24:3-4). This indicates just how seriously Manasseh had sinned. Even Jeremiah, one hundred years later, announced: “Because of the wicked things Manasseh son of Hezekiah, king of Judah, did in Jerusalem, I will make my people an object of horror to all the kingdoms of the earth” (Jer 15:4). The destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple and the exile of Judah’s people followed.<\/p>\nWhen Manasseh died in 642 BC<\/span> at age 67, he was buried in his own garden (2 Kgs 21:18), rather than with highly regarded leaders such as Jehoiada and Hezekiah (2 Chr 24:15-16; 32:33).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n2 Kgs 20:21–21:18; 23:26; 24:3; 2 Chr 32:33–33:20; Jer 15:4<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Manasseh<\/h3>\nManasseh, the thirteenth king of Judah (697–642 BC<\/span>), had a long but notoriously wicked reign (2 Kgs 21:1-18; 2 Chr 33:1-9)—even though his father was the godly king Hezekiah (2 Kgs 20:21).<\/p>\nIn 697 BC<\/span>, Manasseh became co-ruler with his father Hezekiah at age twelve (2 Chr 33:1). In 686 BC<\/span>, Hezekiah died and Manasseh became sole monarch. He reigned a total of fifty-five years (2 Kgs 21:1), longer than any other king in Judah or Israel. Regrettably, he was the most wicked of all the kings of Judah. He rebuilt the high places for pagan worship; he encouraged the worship of Baal, the sun, the moon, and the stars; and he even burnt his son as a child sacrifice (2 Kgs 21:2-9; see 2 Kgs 23:10; Jer 7:31). He allowed divination and sorcery in Judah and “murdered many innocent people until Jerusalem was filled . . . with innocent blood” (2 Kgs 21:16; 24:3-4).<\/p>\nSurviving Assyrian records note that Manasseh provided men to transport timber from Lebanon to Nineveh for the Assyrian king Esarhaddon (680–669 BC<\/span>), and he paid tribute to King Ashurbanipal (668–626 BC<\/span>) after an Assyrian military campaign in Egypt in 667 BC<\/span>. Manasseh served Assyria more faithfully than he served the Lord.<\/p>\nBecause of Manasseh’s tremendous sin, God determined to “wipe away the people of Jerusalem as one wipes a dish and turns it upside down” (2 Kgs 21:13). However, Manasseh repented late in life. The Assyrian army captured him, put a hook through his nose, and exiled him to Babylon (2 Chr 33:10-13). There Manasseh turned to the Lord. God heard his prayers, restored him as king, and blessed the rest of his reign as Manasseh sought to restore proper worship of God alone (33:14-17).<\/p>\nSadly, Manasseh’s sins had infected the people of Judah (33:17), and God did not reverse his determination to judge the kingdom (2 Kgs 23:26; 24:3-4). This indicates just how seriously Manasseh had sinned. Even Jeremiah, one hundred years later, announced: “Because of the wicked things Manasseh son of Hezekiah, king of Judah, did in Jerusalem, I will make my people an object of horror to all the kingdoms of the earth” (Jer 15:4). The destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple and the exile of Judah’s people followed.<\/p>\nWhen Manasseh died in 642 BC<\/span> at age 67, he was buried in his own garden (2 Kgs 21:18), rather than with highly regarded leaders such as Jehoiada and Hezekiah (2 Chr 24:15-16; 32:33).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n2 Kgs 20:21–21:18; 23:26; 24:3; 2 Chr 32:33–33:20; Jer 15:4<\/p>","summary_ro":"Manasseh Manasseh, the thirteenth king of Judah (697–642 BC), had a long but notoriously wicked reign (2 Kgs 21:1-18; 2 Chr 33:1-9)—even though his father was the godly king Hezekiah (2 Kgs 20:21). In 697 BC, Manasseh became co-ruler with his father Hezekiah at age twelve (2 Chr 33:1). In 686 BC, Hezekiah died and Manasseh became sole monarch. He reigned a total of fifty-five years (2 Kgs 21:1), longer than any other king in Judah or Israel. Regrettably, he was the most wicked of all the king...","summary_en":"Manasseh Manasseh, the thirteenth king of Judah (697–642 BC), had a long but notoriously wicked reign (2 Kgs 21:1-18; 2 Chr 33:1-9)—even though his father was the godly king Hezekiah (2 Kgs 20:21). In 697 BC, Manasseh became co-ruler with his father Hezekiah at age twelve (2 Chr 33:1). In 686 BC, Hezekiah died and Manasseh became sole monarch. He reigned a total of fifty-five years (2 Kgs 21:1), longer than any other king in Judah or Israel. Regrettably, he was the most wicked of all the king...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":3364,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Baal (Idol)","title_en":"Baal (Idol)","content_ro":"<h3>BAAL (Idol<\/span>)<\/h3>\nName of the most prominent Canaanite deity. As the god of fertility in the Canaanite pantheon (roster of gods), Baal’s sphere of influence included agriculture, animal husbandry, and human sexuality. The word Baal occurs in the OT in combination with other terms, such as place-names (Baal-peor, Hos 9:10; Baal-hermon, Jgs 3:3), or with other adjuncts as in Baal-berith (Baal of the covenant, Jgs 8:33). Use of the name in connection with a local place-name may indicate a local cult of Baal worship.<\/p>\nBaal worship became prominent in the northern kingdom of Israel during the days of King Ahab (ninth century BC<\/span>) when he married Jezebel of Tyre, a city in Phoenicia (1 Kgs 16:29-33; 18:19-40). It later infiltrated the kingdom of Judah when Athaliah, daughter of Ahab and Jezebel, married King Jehoram of Judah (2 Kgs 8:17-18, 24-26). Places for worship of Baal were often high places in the hills consisting of an altar and a sacred tree, stone, or pillar (2 Kgs 23:5). The predominantly urban Phoenicians built temples to Baal; while Athaliah was queen of Judah, even Jerusalem had one (2 Chr 23:12-17).<\/p>\nIn the Ugaritic epic material, Baal is pictured as descending into the netherworld, the domain of the god Mot. That descent was evidently part of a cycle intended to coincide with the cycle of seasons. In order to bring Baal up from the realm of Mot and thus ensure initiation of the fertile rainy season, the Canaanites engaged in orgiastic worship that included human sacrifice as well as sexual rites (Jer 7:31; 19:4-6). Sacred prostitutes evidently participated in the autumnal religious ritual. The worship of Baal was strongly condemned in the OT (Jgs 2:12-14; 3:7-8; Jer 19).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Canaanite Deities and Religion.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BAAL (Idol<\/span>)<\/h3>\nName of the most prominent Canaanite deity. As the god of fertility in the Canaanite pantheon (roster of gods), Baal’s sphere of influence included agriculture, animal husbandry, and human sexuality. The word Baal occurs in the OT in combination with other terms, such as place-names (Baal-peor, Hos 9:10; Baal-hermon, Jgs 3:3), or with other adjuncts as in Baal-berith (Baal of the covenant, Jgs 8:33). Use of the name in connection with a local place-name may indicate a local cult of Baal worship.<\/p>\nBaal worship became prominent in the northern kingdom of Israel during the days of King Ahab (ninth century BC<\/span>) when he married Jezebel of Tyre, a city in Phoenicia (1 Kgs 16:29-33; 18:19-40). It later infiltrated the kingdom of Judah when Athaliah, daughter of Ahab and Jezebel, married King Jehoram of Judah (2 Kgs 8:17-18, 24-26). Places for worship of Baal were often high places in the hills consisting of an altar and a sacred tree, stone, or pillar (2 Kgs 23:5). The predominantly urban Phoenicians built temples to Baal; while Athaliah was queen of Judah, even Jerusalem had one (2 Chr 23:12-17).<\/p>\nIn the Ugaritic epic material, Baal is pictured as descending into the netherworld, the domain of the god Mot. That descent was evidently part of a cycle intended to coincide with the cycle of seasons. In order to bring Baal up from the realm of Mot and thus ensure initiation of the fertile rainy season, the Canaanites engaged in orgiastic worship that included human sacrifice as well as sexual rites (Jer 7:31; 19:4-6). Sacred prostitutes evidently participated in the autumnal religious ritual. The worship of Baal was strongly condemned in the OT (Jgs 2:12-14; 3:7-8; Jer 19).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Canaanite Deities and Religion.<\/p>","summary_ro":"BAAL (Idol) Name of the most prominent Canaanite deity. As the god of fertility in the Canaanite pantheon (roster of gods), Baal’s sphere of influence included agriculture, animal husbandry, and human sexuality. The word Baal occurs in the OT in combination with other terms, such as place-names (Baal-peor, Hos 9:10; Baal-hermon, Jgs 3:3), or with other adjuncts as in Baal-berith (Baal of the covenant, Jgs 8:33). Use of the name in connection with a local place-name may indicate a local cult o...","summary_en":"BAAL (Idol) Name of the most prominent Canaanite deity. As the god of fertility in the Canaanite pantheon (roster of gods), Baal’s sphere of influence included agriculture, animal husbandry, and human sexuality. The word Baal occurs in the OT in combination with other terms, such as place-names (Baal-peor, Hos 9:10; Baal-hermon, Jgs 3:3), or with other adjuncts as in Baal-berith (Baal of the covenant, Jgs 8:33). Use of the name in connection with a local place-name may indicate a local cult o...","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":16166,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Hell","title_en":"Hell","content_ro":"<h3>HELL<\/h3>\nPlace of future punishment for the lost, unrepentant, wicked dead.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Definition and Description<\/p>\n• Biblical Terms<\/p>\n• The Justice of Eternal Punishment<\/p>\nDefinition and Description<\/p>\nHell is the final destiny of unbelievers and is variously described by the figures of a furnace of fire, eternal fire, eternal punishment (Mt 13:42, 50; 25:41, 46); outer darkness, the place of weeping and torment (8:12); the lake of fire, the second death (Rv 21:8); a place for the devil and his demons (Mt 25:41). Evidently, those in hell experience everlasting separation from the Lord, never to see the glory of his power (2 Thes 1:9). Those who worshiped the beast will be subject to continuous torment (Rv 14:10-11).<\/p>\nOther expressions that indicate that the final state of the wicked is eternal are these: “burn with unquenchable fire” (Mt 3:12); “to the unquenchable fire . . . where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched” (Mk 9:43, 48); there is sin that “will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come” (Mt 12:32, rsv<\/span>). When Scripture is understood properly, there is no hint anywhere of the termination of the terrible state of unbelievers in hell. Their doom is unending; there is a solemn finality about their miserable condition. (It is significant that the most descriptive and conclusive utterances about hell come from the lips of Jesus.)<\/p>\nA summary of all Scripture that speaks of hell indicates that there is the loss and absence of all good, and the misery and torment of an evil conscience. The most terrifying aspect is the complete and deserved separation from God and from all that is pure, holy, and beautiful. In addition, there is the awareness of being under the wrath of God and of enduring the curse of a righteous sentence because of one’s sins that were consciously and voluntarily committed.<\/p>\nAlthough the biblical descriptions of hell are stated in very physical and literal terms, the essential character of hell should not be conceived in or limited to designations such as the worm that devours, the stripes that are inflicted, the burning or being consumed by fire. This affirmation does not detract from the horror or the gravity of the situation in hell, because nothing could possibly be worse than separation from God and the torment of an evil conscience. Hell is hell for those who are there essentially because they are completely alienated from God, and wherever there is alienation from God, there is always estrangement from one’s fellows. This is the worst possible punishment to which anyone could be subject: to be totally and irrevocably cut off from God and to be at enmity with all those who are around oneself. Another painful consequence of such a condition is to be at odds with oneself—torn apart from within by an accusing sense of guilt and shame. This condition is one of total conflict: with God, one’s neighbors, and oneself. This is hell! If the descriptions of hell are figurative or symbolic, the conditions they represent are more intense and real than the figures of speech in which they are expressed.<\/p>\nPunishment for sin is a persistent teaching of the Bible. The doctrine of judgment is as extensive as the Canon itself. Typical of such passages are Genesis 2:17; 3:17-19; 4:13; Leviticus 26:27-33; Psalm 149:7; Isaiah 3:11; Ezekiel 14:10; Amos 1:2–2:16; Zechariah 14:19; Matthew 25:41, 46; Luke 16:23-24; Romans 2:5-12; Galatians 6:7-8; Hebrews 10:29-31; and Revelation 20:11-15.<\/p>\nBiblical Terms<\/p>\nThe Hebrew word “Sheol” in the OT is predominantly used for “the grave, the pit, the place of the departed dead” (Gn 37:35; Jb 7:9; 14:13; 17:13-16; Pss 6:5; 16:10; 55:15; Prv 9:18; Eccl 9:10; Is 14:11; 38:10-12, 18). There does not seem to be a very clear distinction in the OT between the final destiny of the good and the evil. They all alike go to the grave, to the world below, a world of gloom, weariness, darkness, decay, and forgetfulness, where one is remote from God (Jb 10:20-22; Ps 88:3-6), yet accessible to him (Jb 26:6; Ps 138:8; Am 9:2). It is a place characterized by silence (Pss 94:17; 115:17) and rest (Jb 3:17). Other texts, however, seem to suggest some aspect of consciousness, hope, and communication in Sheol (Jb 14:13-15; 19:25-27; Pss 16:10; 49:15; Is 14:9-10; Ez 32:21). A few texts seem to suggest the threat of divine judgment after death (Pss 9:17; 55:15). On the whole, Sheol was regarded with dismay and foreboding (Dt 32:22; Is 38:18).<\/p>\nIt was not until the time of the postcanonical Jewish literature, the writings that were developed between the close of the OT and the beginning of NT times, that clear distinctions were made between the final destinies of the righteous and the unrighteous. The idea of separate divisions within Sheol for the good and the evil was developed. It is unmistakable that there was in Jewish thought, as reflected throughout the OT, a belief in a future and continued existence beyond death, however shadowy and indefinite the concept.<\/p>\nThe Greek word “hades” in the NT is used very similarly to “Sheol” in the OT. It was, in fact, used by the translators of the Septuagint, the Greek version of the OT, for Sheol. It designated in general the place or state of the dead, the grave, or death itself. In some versions the word is not translated at all but is transliterated simply as “hades.” The NT is not always very explicit about the meaning of hades, other than what has just been described. Use of the word often does not reveal much about the specific condition of the dead. There are some passages, however, that indicate a distinct advance over the use of Sheol in the OT. One NT passage definitely describes hades as a place of evil and punishment of the wicked, and may appropriately be translated “hell” (Lk 16:23). In all other instances, hades indicates nothing more than the place of the dead.<\/p>\nThe Greek word “Gehenna” is used in a number of NT texts to designate the fiery place for punishment of sinners and is often translated “hell” or “the fires of hell” (Mt 5:22, 29-30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:15, 33; Mk 9:43, 45, 47; Jas 3:6). It is usually used in connection with the final judgment and often has the suggestion that the punishment spoken of is eternal. Gehenna is derived by transliteration from the Hebrew of the OT “valley of Hinnom” or the “valley of the son of Hinnom,” a ravine on the south side of Jerusalem. This valley was the center of idolatrous worship in which children were burned by fire as an offering to the heathen god Molech (2 Chr 28:3; 33:6). In the time of Josiah it became a place of abomination, polluted by dead men’s bones and rubbish (2 Kgs 23:10-14) and by the garbage and filth of Jerusalem dumped there. A fire burned continuously in this valley. It thus became a symbol of the unending fires of hell where the lost are consumed in torment. It was a symbol of judgment to be imposed on the idolatrous and disobedient (Jer 7:31-34; 32:35).<\/p>\nAnother Greek word used to designate hell or “the lower regions” is “Tartarus” (2 Pt 2:4), a classical word for the place of eternal punishment. The apostle Peter uses it for the fallen angels who were thrown into hell, “committed . . . to pits of nether gloom to be kept until the judgment” (rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\nAs noted above, there are, in addition to these terms, the very explicit and vivid phrases that clearly teach the doctrine of hell, as developed at the beginning of this article. The biblical doctrine is determined much more by these decisive phrases than by the somewhat indecisive but frequently used terms “Sheol” and “hades.”<\/p>\n\nThe Justice of Eternal Punishment<\/p>\nIt is difficult for us to understand the righteous judgment of a holy God who, on one hand, hates all evil, yet, on the other hand, loves the evildoers enough to sacrifice his only Son for their salvation from sin. Divine wrath is the necessary reaction of a holy God who hates all that is contrary to his righteous nature. When the only remedy for human sin is rejected and all appeals of a loving, seeking God for the reconciliation of rebellious sinners are refused, there is no other course of action that God himself can pursue but to leave the sinner to his self-chosen destiny. Punishment for sin is then the inevitable and inescapable response of holiness to that which is morally opposite, and it must continue as long as the sinful condition requiring it continues. There is no indication anywhere in Scripture that lost sinners in hell are capable of repentance and faith. If in this life they did not turn away from sin and receive Christ as Savior with all the favorable circumstances and opportunities afforded them on earth, it is unreasonable to think they will do so in the life to come. Punishment cannot come to an end until guilt and sin come to an end. When the sinner ultimately resists and rejects the work of the Holy Spirit whereby he is convicted of sin, there remains no more possibility of repentance or salvation. He has committed an eternal sin (Mk 3:29; Rv 22:11), which deserves eternal punishment.<\/p>\nThe impossibility of faith and repentance in hell is seen also from the tragic reality of the depraved will, conditioned and determined by its repeated rebellion against God. Sin reproduces itself in the will, and character tends to become irrevocably fixed. God responds to endless sinning with the necessary counterpart of endless punishment.<\/p>\nIf the question is raised, How can a loving God send people to an everlasting hell? it must be replied that God does not choose this destination for people; they freely choose it for themselves. God simply concurs in their self-chosen way and reveals the full consequences of their evil choice. It must always be remembered that God is not only loving; he is also holy and righteous. There must be some adequate reckoning with justice in the universe where a revolt against God has brought evil consequences of enormous proportions.<\/p>\nWhile the duration of punishment in hell is eternal for all who have chosen that destiny for themselves, there are degrees of punishment proportional to the degrees of guilt of each individual. Only God is able to determine what those degrees are, and he will assign the consequences with perfect justice according to the responsibility of each one. Evidence of such gradations in future punishment is found in Scripture (Mt 11:20-24; Lk 12:47-48; Rv 20:12-13; cf. Ez 16:48-61). An obvious comparison is made in these texts between the differing intensities of punishment that are involved in the contrasting privileges, knowledge, and opportunities.<\/p>\nFrom all that has been said, it should be obvious that a variety of nonbiblical views must be ruled out, however attractively they may be presented by their advocates and however popular they may be from time to time. Among these views are the erroneous, but sometimes persuasive, doctrines of universalism, annihilationism, and second probation. Universalism promotes the concept that God will save everyone in the end. Annihilationism teaches that hell is not a place of conscious suffering but of final extermination. And second probation is a notion that people can be delivered from hell. It must always be remembered that the Bible is our rule of faith for the doctrine of hell, however difficult the doctrine may seem for natural reason or for human sentiment. Scripture leaves no doubt about the terrible nature and the eternal duration of hell. Rejection or neglect of this doctrine will have dire effects upon the mission of the church.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> “Abraham’s Bosom”; Dead, Place of the; Death; Gehenna; Hades; Intermediate State; Sheol; Wrath of God.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>HELL<\/h3>\nPlace of future punishment for the lost, unrepentant, wicked dead.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Definition and Description<\/p>\n• Biblical Terms<\/p>\n• The Justice of Eternal Punishment<\/p>\nDefinition and Description<\/p>\nHell is the final destiny of unbelievers and is variously described by the figures of a furnace of fire, eternal fire, eternal punishment (Mt 13:42, 50; 25:41, 46); outer darkness, the place of weeping and torment (8:12); the lake of fire, the second death (Rv 21:8); a place for the devil and his demons (Mt 25:41). Evidently, those in hell experience everlasting separation from the Lord, never to see the glory of his power (2 Thes 1:9). Those who worshiped the beast will be subject to continuous torment (Rv 14:10-11).<\/p>\nOther expressions that indicate that the final state of the wicked is eternal are these: “burn with unquenchable fire” (Mt 3:12); “to the unquenchable fire . . . where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched” (Mk 9:43, 48); there is sin that “will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come” (Mt 12:32, rsv<\/span>). When Scripture is understood properly, there is no hint anywhere of the termination of the terrible state of unbelievers in hell. Their doom is unending; there is a solemn finality about their miserable condition. (It is significant that the most descriptive and conclusive utterances about hell come from the lips of Jesus.)<\/p>\nA summary of all Scripture that speaks of hell indicates that there is the loss and absence of all good, and the misery and torment of an evil conscience. The most terrifying aspect is the complete and deserved separation from God and from all that is pure, holy, and beautiful. In addition, there is the awareness of being under the wrath of God and of enduring the curse of a righteous sentence because of one’s sins that were consciously and voluntarily committed.<\/p>\nAlthough the biblical descriptions of hell are stated in very physical and literal terms, the essential character of hell should not be conceived in or limited to designations such as the worm that devours, the stripes that are inflicted, the burning or being consumed by fire. This affirmation does not detract from the horror or the gravity of the situation in hell, because nothing could possibly be worse than separation from God and the torment of an evil conscience. Hell is hell for those who are there essentially because they are completely alienated from God, and wherever there is alienation from God, there is always estrangement from one’s fellows. This is the worst possible punishment to which anyone could be subject: to be totally and irrevocably cut off from God and to be at enmity with all those who are around oneself. Another painful consequence of such a condition is to be at odds with oneself—torn apart from within by an accusing sense of guilt and shame. This condition is one of total conflict: with God, one’s neighbors, and oneself. This is hell! If the descriptions of hell are figurative or symbolic, the conditions they represent are more intense and real than the figures of speech in which they are expressed.<\/p>\nPunishment for sin is a persistent teaching of the Bible. The doctrine of judgment is as extensive as the Canon itself. Typical of such passages are Genesis 2:17; 3:17-19; 4:13; Leviticus 26:27-33; Psalm 149:7; Isaiah 3:11; Ezekiel 14:10; Amos 1:2–2:16; Zechariah 14:19; Matthew 25:41, 46; Luke 16:23-24; Romans 2:5-12; Galatians 6:7-8; Hebrews 10:29-31; and Revelation 20:11-15.<\/p>\nBiblical Terms<\/p>\nThe Hebrew word “Sheol” in the OT is predominantly used for “the grave, the pit, the place of the departed dead” (Gn 37:35; Jb 7:9; 14:13; 17:13-16; Pss 6:5; 16:10; 55:15; Prv 9:18; Eccl 9:10; Is 14:11; 38:10-12, 18). There does not seem to be a very clear distinction in the OT between the final destiny of the good and the evil. They all alike go to the grave, to the world below, a world of gloom, weariness, darkness, decay, and forgetfulness, where one is remote from God (Jb 10:20-22; Ps 88:3-6), yet accessible to him (Jb 26:6; Ps 138:8; Am 9:2). It is a place characterized by silence (Pss 94:17; 115:17) and rest (Jb 3:17). Other texts, however, seem to suggest some aspect of consciousness, hope, and communication in Sheol (Jb 14:13-15; 19:25-27; Pss 16:10; 49:15; Is 14:9-10; Ez 32:21). A few texts seem to suggest the threat of divine judgment after death (Pss 9:17; 55:15). On the whole, Sheol was regarded with dismay and foreboding (Dt 32:22; Is 38:18).<\/p>\nIt was not until the time of the postcanonical Jewish literature, the writings that were developed between the close of the OT and the beginning of NT times, that clear distinctions were made between the final destinies of the righteous and the unrighteous. The idea of separate divisions within Sheol for the good and the evil was developed. It is unmistakable that there was in Jewish thought, as reflected throughout the OT, a belief in a future and continued existence beyond death, however shadowy and indefinite the concept.<\/p>\nThe Greek word “hades” in the NT is used very similarly to “Sheol” in the OT. It was, in fact, used by the translators of the Septuagint, the Greek version of the OT, for Sheol. It designated in general the place or state of the dead, the grave, or death itself. In some versions the word is not translated at all but is transliterated simply as “hades.” The NT is not always very explicit about the meaning of hades, other than what has just been described. Use of the word often does not reveal much about the specific condition of the dead. There are some passages, however, that indicate a distinct advance over the use of Sheol in the OT. One NT passage definitely describes hades as a place of evil and punishment of the wicked, and may appropriately be translated “hell” (Lk 16:23). In all other instances, hades indicates nothing more than the place of the dead.<\/p>\nThe Greek word “Gehenna” is used in a number of NT texts to designate the fiery place for punishment of sinners and is often translated “hell” or “the fires of hell” (Mt 5:22, 29-30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:15, 33; Mk 9:43, 45, 47; Jas 3:6). It is usually used in connection with the final judgment and often has the suggestion that the punishment spoken of is eternal. Gehenna is derived by transliteration from the Hebrew of the OT “valley of Hinnom” or the “valley of the son of Hinnom,” a ravine on the south side of Jerusalem. This valley was the center of idolatrous worship in which children were burned by fire as an offering to the heathen god Molech (2 Chr 28:3; 33:6). In the time of Josiah it became a place of abomination, polluted by dead men’s bones and rubbish (2 Kgs 23:10-14) and by the garbage and filth of Jerusalem dumped there. A fire burned continuously in this valley. It thus became a symbol of the unending fires of hell where the lost are consumed in torment. It was a symbol of judgment to be imposed on the idolatrous and disobedient (Jer 7:31-34; 32:35).<\/p>\nAnother Greek word used to designate hell or “the lower regions” is “Tartarus” (2 Pt 2:4), a classical word for the place of eternal punishment. The apostle Peter uses it for the fallen angels who were thrown into hell, “committed . . . to pits of nether gloom to be kept until the judgment” (rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\nAs noted above, there are, in addition to these terms, the very explicit and vivid phrases that clearly teach the doctrine of hell, as developed at the beginning of this article. The biblical doctrine is determined much more by these decisive phrases than by the somewhat indecisive but frequently used terms “Sheol” and “hades.”<\/p>\n\nThe Justice of Eternal Punishment<\/p>\nIt is difficult for us to understand the righteous judgment of a holy God who, on one hand, hates all evil, yet, on the other hand, loves the evildoers enough to sacrifice his only Son for their salvation from sin. Divine wrath is the necessary reaction of a holy God who hates all that is contrary to his righteous nature. When the only remedy for human sin is rejected and all appeals of a loving, seeking God for the reconciliation of rebellious sinners are refused, there is no other course of action that God himself can pursue but to leave the sinner to his self-chosen destiny. Punishment for sin is then the inevitable and inescapable response of holiness to that which is morally opposite, and it must continue as long as the sinful condition requiring it continues. There is no indication anywhere in Scripture that lost sinners in hell are capable of repentance and faith. If in this life they did not turn away from sin and receive Christ as Savior with all the favorable circumstances and opportunities afforded them on earth, it is unreasonable to think they will do so in the life to come. Punishment cannot come to an end until guilt and sin come to an end. When the sinner ultimately resists and rejects the work of the Holy Spirit whereby he is convicted of sin, there remains no more possibility of repentance or salvation. He has committed an eternal sin (Mk 3:29; Rv 22:11), which deserves eternal punishment.<\/p>\nThe impossibility of faith and repentance in hell is seen also from the tragic reality of the depraved will, conditioned and determined by its repeated rebellion against God. Sin reproduces itself in the will, and character tends to become irrevocably fixed. God responds to endless sinning with the necessary counterpart of endless punishment.<\/p>\nIf the question is raised, How can a loving God send people to an everlasting hell? it must be replied that God does not choose this destination for people; they freely choose it for themselves. God simply concurs in their self-chosen way and reveals the full consequences of their evil choice. It must always be remembered that God is not only loving; he is also holy and righteous. There must be some adequate reckoning with justice in the universe where a revolt against God has brought evil consequences of enormous proportions.<\/p>\nWhile the duration of punishment in hell is eternal for all who have chosen that destiny for themselves, there are degrees of punishment proportional to the degrees of guilt of each individual. Only God is able to determine what those degrees are, and he will assign the consequences with perfect justice according to the responsibility of each one. Evidence of such gradations in future punishment is found in Scripture (Mt 11:20-24; Lk 12:47-48; Rv 20:12-13; cf. Ez 16:48-61). An obvious comparison is made in these texts between the differing intensities of punishment that are involved in the contrasting privileges, knowledge, and opportunities.<\/p>\nFrom all that has been said, it should be obvious that a variety of nonbiblical views must be ruled out, however attractively they may be presented by their advocates and however popular they may be from time to time. Among these views are the erroneous, but sometimes persuasive, doctrines of universalism, annihilationism, and second probation. Universalism promotes the concept that God will save everyone in the end. Annihilationism teaches that hell is not a place of conscious suffering but of final extermination. And second probation is a notion that people can be delivered from hell. It must always be remembered that the Bible is our rule of faith for the doctrine of hell, however difficult the doctrine may seem for natural reason or for human sentiment. Scripture leaves no doubt about the terrible nature and the eternal duration of hell. Rejection or neglect of this doctrine will have dire effects upon the mission of the church.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> “Abraham’s Bosom”; Dead, Place of the; Death; Gehenna; Hades; Intermediate State; Sheol; Wrath of God.<\/p>","summary_ro":"HELL Place of future punishment for the lost, unrepentant, wicked dead. Preview • Definition and Description • Biblical Terms • The Justice of Eternal Punishment Definition and Description Hell is the final destiny of unbelievers and is variously described by the figures of a furnace of fire, eternal fire, eternal punishment (Mt 13:42, 50; 25:41, 46); outer darkness, the place of weeping and torment (8:12); the lake of fire, the second death (Rv 21:8); a place for the devil and his demons (Mt...","summary_en":"HELL Place of future punishment for the lost, unrepentant, wicked dead. Preview • Definition and Description • Biblical Terms • The Justice of Eternal Punishment Definition and Description Hell is the final destiny of unbelievers and is variously described by the figures of a furnace of fire, eternal fire, eternal punishment (Mt 13:42, 50; 25:41, 46); outer darkness, the place of weeping and torment (8:12); the lake of fire, the second death (Rv 21:8); a place for the devil and his demons (Mt...","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":16387,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"High Place","title_en":"High Place","content_ro":"<h3>HIGH PLACE<\/h3>\nPhrase commonly translated from the Hebrew bamah, which apparently derived from a word originally meaning “the back (or ridge) of an animal.” Thus it came to refer to a height or hill or a stone burial cairn. Usually it was an elevated worship center, such as the ones referred to in Numbers 33:51-52, 1 Samuel 9:13-14, 2 Kings 12:3, 2 Chronicles 21:11, and Ezekiel 36:1-2. But sometimes (as in 2 Kgs 23:8) it was a bamah<\/span> of the gate, a sanctuary with no special reference to height, located at the city gate as in Dan and Beersheba. It might even have been placed in a declivity (Jer 7:31).<\/p>\nThat a bamah<\/span> might simply be a burial place with commemorative stelae or memorial stones is clear from such a passage as Ezekiel 43:7. An illustration of such a bamah<\/span> is the so-called Gezer high place. This Bronze Age center with its 10 huge pillars is now interpreted as a mortuary shrine instead of a sanctuary in the strict sense of the term.<\/p>\nA second word translated “high place” is ramah<\/span> (elevation), from the Hebrew meaning “to be high.” Ezekiel used this term to refer to illicit worship centers (16:24-25, 31-39) that evidently had no necessary connection with height.<\/p>\nOne of the best-known and best-preserved of all high places in the vicinity of Palestine is the great high place at Petra, discovered by George L. Robinson in 1900. Located on a ridge west of the Khazneh, or treasury, it consists of a large rectangular court and adjacent altars. The court is about 47 feet (14.3 meters) long and 21 feet (6.4 meters) wide and is cut into the rock platform to a depth of 18 inches (45.7 centimeters). West of the court stand a square and a round altar, each hewn from the solid rock. South of the court is a pool measuring about eight and a half by nine and a half feet (2.6 by 2.9 meters) and cut four feet (1.2 meters) into the rock. South of the pool stand two sacred obelisks or pillars, also cut out of the solid rock. This whole complex is reached from a lower terrace by two flights of stairs. At this center the ancient Nabatean inhabitants of Petra evidently engaged in feasts and sacrifices to honor their gods. Though the worship center in its present form does not date before the first century BC<\/span>, it preserves an ancient tradition of Transjordan and illustrates the pagan and Israelite high places of OT times.<\/p>\nThe pagan high place was usually located on a physical height, where one could feel closer to the god. Its first essential was an altar, which might be a heap of earth, unhewn stones, or a unit cut out of the solid rock. Second, there was a stone pillar (Dt 12:3) or obelisk (<\/em>matsebah<\/span>)<\/em> representing the male deity and having phallic associations; third, a tree or pole (<\/em>asherah<\/span>)<\/em> representing the female deity (a fertility goddess); and fourth, a laver for ceremonial washings. A sanctuary with an image of the deity also required a building of some sort to protect it (2 Kgs 17:29).<\/p>\nAt these pagan high places sacrifices of animals and sometimes of human beings took place, and religious prostitution or homosexual acts were common. It is natural that such practices should develop in a context of sympathetic magic, where promiscuity and breeding among human beings was supposed to influence animals and crops.<\/p>\nThe Hebrews had legitimate high places between the time of the destruction of the tabernacle at Shiloh and construction of the temple, though there was little similarity to pagan accoutrements or practices, apart from the presence of an altar and the offering of sacrifices. At one high place the people ate a sacrificial meal before Samuel anointed Saul king (1 Sm 9:12–10:1). The tabernacle was located at the high place of Gibeon during the reign of David (1 Chr 16:39; 21:29). Solomon offered sacrifices at several high places (1 Kgs 3:2-3), and at the high place of Gibeon he met God and was granted the gift of wisdom for his administration (vv 4-15). Once Solomon’s temple was completed, high places were eliminated and were off-limits for the Hebrews.<\/p>\nWhen the Hebrews entered Canaan, they encountered pagan peoples who had long worshiped at high places. God commanded the Israelites to destroy those sanctuaries (Nm 33:51-52) to avoid contamination by them, but the warning went largely unheeded. At the height of the Hebrew kingdom, after Solomon had completed the temple, he built high places for the god Chemosh of Moab, Molech of Ammon, and other gods of his pagan wives. For this sin God determined to split the Hebrew kingdom (1 Kgs 11:7-11).<\/p>\nAfter the division of the kingdom, Jeroboam established high places at Dan and Bethel, and Ahab and others proliferated their construction. Judgment was prophesied (1 Kgs 13:2-3; 2 Kgs 17:7-18), and ultimately the kingdom of Israel went into captivity to Assyria for her idolatry.<\/p>\nRehoboam, the first king of the southern kingdom, spread high places all over his domain (1 Kgs 14:23-24). Though King Asa launched a revival of true religion, he did not remove the high places (15:12-14). Jehoshaphat also initiated revival, but again the high places remained (22:43). On the other hand, his son Jehoram and his wife, Athaliah, encouraged their construction (2 Chr 21:11). Joash, during his revival, did not eliminate the high places (2 Kgs 12:3), nor did the good king Uzziah in similar efforts (15:3-4). Ahaz made no pretense of faithfulness to God, and actively encouraged the idolatry of the pagan sanctuaries (16:3-4). Finally, Hezekiah launched a campaign against the high places (2 Chr 31:1), but his policies were reversed during the reign of his wicked son Manasseh (2 Kgs 21:2-9). Josiah led the last Judean revival and again attacked the high places (23:5, 8).<\/p>\nThe prophets Isaiah (Is 15:2; 16:12), Jeremiah (Jer 48:35), Ezekiel (Ez 6:3), Hosea (Hos 10:8), and Amos (Am 7:9) roundly condemned these centers of idolatry. See<\/em> Canaanite Deities and Religion; Gods and Goddesses; Grove; Idols, Idolatry.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>HIGH PLACE<\/h3>\nPhrase commonly translated from the Hebrew bamah, which apparently derived from a word originally meaning “the back (or ridge) of an animal.” Thus it came to refer to a height or hill or a stone burial cairn. Usually it was an elevated worship center, such as the ones referred to in Numbers 33:51-52, 1 Samuel 9:13-14, 2 Kings 12:3, 2 Chronicles 21:11, and Ezekiel 36:1-2. But sometimes (as in 2 Kgs 23:8) it was a bamah<\/span> of the gate, a sanctuary with no special reference to height, located at the city gate as in Dan and Beersheba. It might even have been placed in a declivity (Jer 7:31).<\/p>\nThat a bamah<\/span> might simply be a burial place with commemorative stelae or memorial stones is clear from such a passage as Ezekiel 43:7. An illustration of such a bamah<\/span> is the so-called Gezer high place. This Bronze Age center with its 10 huge pillars is now interpreted as a mortuary shrine instead of a sanctuary in the strict sense of the term.<\/p>\nA second word translated “high place” is ramah<\/span> (elevation), from the Hebrew meaning “to be high.” Ezekiel used this term to refer to illicit worship centers (16:24-25, 31-39) that evidently had no necessary connection with height.<\/p>\nOne of the best-known and best-preserved of all high places in the vicinity of Palestine is the great high place at Petra, discovered by George L. Robinson in 1900. Located on a ridge west of the Khazneh, or treasury, it consists of a large rectangular court and adjacent altars. The court is about 47 feet (14.3 meters) long and 21 feet (6.4 meters) wide and is cut into the rock platform to a depth of 18 inches (45.7 centimeters). West of the court stand a square and a round altar, each hewn from the solid rock. South of the court is a pool measuring about eight and a half by nine and a half feet (2.6 by 2.9 meters) and cut four feet (1.2 meters) into the rock. South of the pool stand two sacred obelisks or pillars, also cut out of the solid rock. This whole complex is reached from a lower terrace by two flights of stairs. At this center the ancient Nabatean inhabitants of Petra evidently engaged in feasts and sacrifices to honor their gods. Though the worship center in its present form does not date before the first century BC<\/span>, it preserves an ancient tradition of Transjordan and illustrates the pagan and Israelite high places of OT times.<\/p>\nThe pagan high place was usually located on a physical height, where one could feel closer to the god. Its first essential was an altar, which might be a heap of earth, unhewn stones, or a unit cut out of the solid rock. Second, there was a stone pillar (Dt 12:3) or obelisk (<\/em>matsebah<\/span>)<\/em> representing the male deity and having phallic associations; third, a tree or pole (<\/em>asherah<\/span>)<\/em> representing the female deity (a fertility goddess); and fourth, a laver for ceremonial washings. A sanctuary with an image of the deity also required a building of some sort to protect it (2 Kgs 17:29).<\/p>\nAt these pagan high places sacrifices of animals and sometimes of human beings took place, and religious prostitution or homosexual acts were common. It is natural that such practices should develop in a context of sympathetic magic, where promiscuity and breeding among human beings was supposed to influence animals and crops.<\/p>\nThe Hebrews had legitimate high places between the time of the destruction of the tabernacle at Shiloh and construction of the temple, though there was little similarity to pagan accoutrements or practices, apart from the presence of an altar and the offering of sacrifices. At one high place the people ate a sacrificial meal before Samuel anointed Saul king (1 Sm 9:12–10:1). The tabernacle was located at the high place of Gibeon during the reign of David (1 Chr 16:39; 21:29). Solomon offered sacrifices at several high places (1 Kgs 3:2-3), and at the high place of Gibeon he met God and was granted the gift of wisdom for his administration (vv 4-15). Once Solomon’s temple was completed, high places were eliminated and were off-limits for the Hebrews.<\/p>\nWhen the Hebrews entered Canaan, they encountered pagan peoples who had long worshiped at high places. God commanded the Israelites to destroy those sanctuaries (Nm 33:51-52) to avoid contamination by them, but the warning went largely unheeded. At the height of the Hebrew kingdom, after Solomon had completed the temple, he built high places for the god Chemosh of Moab, Molech of Ammon, and other gods of his pagan wives. For this sin God determined to split the Hebrew kingdom (1 Kgs 11:7-11).<\/p>\nAfter the division of the kingdom, Jeroboam established high places at Dan and Bethel, and Ahab and others proliferated their construction. Judgment was prophesied (1 Kgs 13:2-3; 2 Kgs 17:7-18), and ultimately the kingdom of Israel went into captivity to Assyria for her idolatry.<\/p>\nRehoboam, the first king of the southern kingdom, spread high places all over his domain (1 Kgs 14:23-24). Though King Asa launched a revival of true religion, he did not remove the high places (15:12-14). Jehoshaphat also initiated revival, but again the high places remained (22:43). On the other hand, his son Jehoram and his wife, Athaliah, encouraged their construction (2 Chr 21:11). Joash, during his revival, did not eliminate the high places (2 Kgs 12:3), nor did the good king Uzziah in similar efforts (15:3-4). Ahaz made no pretense of faithfulness to God, and actively encouraged the idolatry of the pagan sanctuaries (16:3-4). Finally, Hezekiah launched a campaign against the high places (2 Chr 31:1), but his policies were reversed during the reign of his wicked son Manasseh (2 Kgs 21:2-9). Josiah led the last Judean revival and again attacked the high places (23:5, 8).<\/p>\nThe prophets Isaiah (Is 15:2; 16:12), Jeremiah (Jer 48:35), Ezekiel (Ez 6:3), Hosea (Hos 10:8), and Amos (Am 7:9) roundly condemned these centers of idolatry. See<\/em> Canaanite Deities and Religion; Gods and Goddesses; Grove; Idols, Idolatry.<\/p>","summary_ro":"HIGH PLACE Phrase commonly translated from the Hebrew bamah, which apparently derived from a word originally meaning “the back (or ridge) of an animal.” Thus it came to refer to a height or hill or a stone burial cairn. Usually it was an elevated worship center, such as the ones referred to in Numbers 33:51-52, 1 Samuel 9:13-14, 2 Kings 12:3, 2 Chronicles 21:11, and Ezekiel 36:1-2. But sometimes (as in 2 Kgs 23:8) it was a bamah of the gate, a sanctuary with no special reference to height, lo...","summary_en":"HIGH PLACE Phrase commonly translated from the Hebrew bamah, which apparently derived from a word originally meaning “the back (or ridge) of an animal.” Thus it came to refer to a height or hill or a stone burial cairn. Usually it was an elevated worship center, such as the ones referred to in Numbers 33:51-52, 1 Samuel 9:13-14, 2 Kings 12:3, 2 Chronicles 21:11, and Ezekiel 36:1-2. But sometimes (as in 2 Kgs 23:8) it was a bamah of the gate, a sanctuary with no special reference to height, lo...","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":24220,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Manasseh (Person)","title_en":"Manasseh (Person)","content_ro":"<h3>MANASSEH (Person<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<li>1. Firstborn son of Joseph and his Egyptian wife, Asenath (Gn 41:50-51). Manasseh, along with Ephraim his brother, visited their grandfather Jacob on his deathbed. Jacob announced that Manasseh and Ephraim were to be considered his own, not Joseph’s sons (Gn 48:5-6), and that Manasseh, the firstborn, would have descendants not quite as great as those of Ephraim (vv 13-20). This explains why Ephraim and Manasseh (in that order) provided their names for two of the 12 tribes of Israel but Joseph did not, at least in most listings (cf. Rv 7:6). Manasseh also founded the Manassite family (Dt 4:43; 2 Kgs 10:33).<\/li>\nSee also<\/em> Manasseh, Tribe of.<\/p>\n<li>2. KJV translation for Moses in Judges 18:30. In Hebrew the two names differ by only one letter. Apparently an early scribe was offended that this verse connected Moses’ grandson with idolatry, so he changed the name to Manasseh to preserve Moses’ reputation. See<\/em> Moses.<\/li>\n<li>3. Thirteenth king of Judah (697–642 BC<\/span>) and Jesus’ ancestor (Mt 1:10); notorious for his long and wicked reign, described in 2 Kings 21:1-26 and 2 Chronicles 33:1-20. His father was the godly king Hezekiah, and his mother was Hephzibah (2 Kgs 21:1).<\/li>\nAt the age of 12 he became co-ruler with his father. In 686 BC<\/span> his father died and he became sole monarch at only 23. His 55-year reign (2 Kgs 21:1) is dated from the beginning of his co-regency, so he ruled 11 years as co-regent and 44 years as sole king—longer than any other king in Judah or in Israel. Regrettably, he was the most wicked of all the Judean kings, even resorting to a series of murders, presumably to stay in power (21:16; 24:4). In addition to murder, among his sins listed in 2 Kings 21:2-9 are rebuilding the high places for pagan worship; encouraging Baal, sun, moon, and star worship; and burning his son as a child sacrifice (21:6; cf. 23:10; Jer 7:31).<\/p>\nSecond Chronicles 33:11-16 indicates that he was taken as a prisoner of war to Babylon, that he genuinely repented there, that God restored him as king, and that he tried to abolish his former pagan practices and to restore proper worship of God alone. Skepticism about this account is not warranted, even though unparalleled in 2 Kings. Surviving Assyrian records twice mention Manasseh, saying that he faithfully provided men to transport timber from Lebanon to Nineveh for the Assyrian king Esar-haddon (681–669 BC<\/span>) and that he paid tribute to King Ashurbanipal (669–627 BC<\/span>) after an Assyrian military campaign in Egypt in 667 BC<\/span>. Though Pharaoh Neco’s similar captivity and release is mentioned, Manasseh’s is not.<\/p>\nWhen Manasseh died in 642 BC<\/span>, at the age of 67, he was buried in his own garden (2 Kgs 21:18), rather than with highly regarded kings like Jehoiada and Hezekiah (2 Chr 24:16; 32:33). His son Amon reverted to his father’s wicked practices, but reigned only two years (642–640 BC<\/span>) before being assassinated. It was his godly grandson Josiah (640–609 BC<\/span>) who led the people back to the true worship of Yahweh (2 Kgs 23:4-14). But even his reforms could not avert the judgment promised on account of Manasseh’s sins (vv 26-27).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Prayer of Manasseh.<\/p>\n<li>4. Pahath-moab’s son, who obeyed Ezra’s exhortation to divorce his pagan wife after the exile (Ezr 10:30).<\/li>\n<li>5. Hashum’s son, who obeyed Ezra’s exhortation to divorce his pagan wife after the exile (Ezr 10:33).<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>MANASSEH (Person<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<li>1. Firstborn son of Joseph and his Egyptian wife, Asenath (Gn 41:50-51). Manasseh, along with Ephraim his brother, visited their grandfather Jacob on his deathbed. Jacob announced that Manasseh and Ephraim were to be considered his own, not Joseph’s sons (Gn 48:5-6), and that Manasseh, the firstborn, would have descendants not quite as great as those of Ephraim (vv 13-20). This explains why Ephraim and Manasseh (in that order) provided their names for two of the 12 tribes of Israel but Joseph did not, at least in most listings (cf. Rv 7:6). Manasseh also founded the Manassite family (Dt 4:43; 2 Kgs 10:33).<\/li>\nSee also<\/em> Manasseh, Tribe of.<\/p>\n<li>2. KJV translation for Moses in Judges 18:30. In Hebrew the two names differ by only one letter. Apparently an early scribe was offended that this verse connected Moses’ grandson with idolatry, so he changed the name to Manasseh to preserve Moses’ reputation. See<\/em> Moses.<\/li>\n<li>3. Thirteenth king of Judah (697–642 BC<\/span>) and Jesus’ ancestor (Mt 1:10); notorious for his long and wicked reign, described in 2 Kings 21:1-26 and 2 Chronicles 33:1-20. His father was the godly king Hezekiah, and his mother was Hephzibah (2 Kgs 21:1).<\/li>\nAt the age of 12 he became co-ruler with his father. In 686 BC<\/span> his father died and he became sole monarch at only 23. His 55-year reign (2 Kgs 21:1) is dated from the beginning of his co-regency, so he ruled 11 years as co-regent and 44 years as sole king—longer than any other king in Judah or in Israel. Regrettably, he was the most wicked of all the Judean kings, even resorting to a series of murders, presumably to stay in power (21:16; 24:4). In addition to murder, among his sins listed in 2 Kings 21:2-9 are rebuilding the high places for pagan worship; encouraging Baal, sun, moon, and star worship; and burning his son as a child sacrifice (21:6; cf. 23:10; Jer 7:31).<\/p>\nSecond Chronicles 33:11-16 indicates that he was taken as a prisoner of war to Babylon, that he genuinely repented there, that God restored him as king, and that he tried to abolish his former pagan practices and to restore proper worship of God alone. Skepticism about this account is not warranted, even though unparalleled in 2 Kings. Surviving Assyrian records twice mention Manasseh, saying that he faithfully provided men to transport timber from Lebanon to Nineveh for the Assyrian king Esar-haddon (681–669 BC<\/span>) and that he paid tribute to King Ashurbanipal (669–627 BC<\/span>) after an Assyrian military campaign in Egypt in 667 BC<\/span>. Though Pharaoh Neco’s similar captivity and release is mentioned, Manasseh’s is not.<\/p>\nWhen Manasseh died in 642 BC<\/span>, at the age of 67, he was buried in his own garden (2 Kgs 21:18), rather than with highly regarded kings like Jehoiada and Hezekiah (2 Chr 24:16; 32:33). His son Amon reverted to his father’s wicked practices, but reigned only two years (642–640 BC<\/span>) before being assassinated. It was his godly grandson Josiah (640–609 BC<\/span>) who led the people back to the true worship of Yahweh (2 Kgs 23:4-14). But even his reforms could not avert the judgment promised on account of Manasseh’s sins (vv 26-27).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Prayer of Manasseh.<\/p>\n<li>4. Pahath-moab’s son, who obeyed Ezra’s exhortation to divorce his pagan wife after the exile (Ezr 10:30).<\/li>\n<li>5. Hashum’s son, who obeyed Ezra’s exhortation to divorce his pagan wife after the exile (Ezr 10:33).<\/li>","summary_ro":"MANASSEH (Person) 1. Firstborn son of Joseph and his Egyptian wife, Asenath (Gn 41:50-51). Manasseh, along with Ephraim his brother, visited their grandfather Jacob on his deathbed. Jacob announced that Manasseh and Ephraim were to be considered his own, not Joseph’s sons (Gn 48:5-6), and that Manasseh, the firstborn, would have descendants not quite as great as those of Ephraim (vv 13-20). This explains why Ephraim and Manasseh (in that order) provided their names for two of the 12 tribes of...","summary_en":"MANASSEH (Person) 1. Firstborn son of Joseph and his Egyptian wife, Asenath (Gn 41:50-51). Manasseh, along with Ephraim his brother, visited their grandfather Jacob on his deathbed. Jacob announced that Manasseh and Ephraim were to be considered his own, not Joseph’s sons (Gn 48:5-6), and that Manasseh, the firstborn, would have descendants not quite as great as those of Ephraim (vv 13-20). This explains why Ephraim and Manasseh (in that order) provided their names for two of the 12 tribes of...","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":37550,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Topheth","title_en":"Topheth","content_ro":"<h3>TOPHETH<\/h3>\nLocation within the valley of Hinnom outside Jerusalem where Israel profaned the Lord by offering human sacrifices to Molech. As part of his religious reform, Josiah defiled Topheth and tore down its altars (2 Kgs 23:10). Josiah’s reforms appear to have had only temporary impact, for the practice recurred under Manasseh (2 Chr 33:6) and was later condemned by Jeremiah (Jer 7:31-32). Jeremiah prophesied that the valley would be renamed the “Valley of Slaughter” because it would be the site where the Babylonians would rout Judah during their siege of Jerusalem. Jeremiah repeated the prophecy during his parable of the potter’s flask, emphasizing the fact that Jerusalem would be destroyed so thoroughly that it would resemble Topheth (19:12). By this time, Topheth had evidently become a sort of city dump where broken pottery was thrown away and where burials that could not be accommodated in any of the city cemeteries would take place (v 11).<\/p>\nWhile Topheth is not mentioned in the NT, it is linked to Gehenna (Aramaic form of “valley of Hinnom”). Gehenna refers to the place of destruction and is typically translated “hell” in the NT (Mt 5:22, 29-30; 10:28; 18:9; Mk 9:43-47; Lk 12:5).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>TOPHETH<\/h3>\nLocation within the valley of Hinnom outside Jerusalem where Israel profaned the Lord by offering human sacrifices to Molech. As part of his religious reform, Josiah defiled Topheth and tore down its altars (2 Kgs 23:10). Josiah’s reforms appear to have had only temporary impact, for the practice recurred under Manasseh (2 Chr 33:6) and was later condemned by Jeremiah (Jer 7:31-32). Jeremiah prophesied that the valley would be renamed the “Valley of Slaughter” because it would be the site where the Babylonians would rout Judah during their siege of Jerusalem. Jeremiah repeated the prophecy during his parable of the potter’s flask, emphasizing the fact that Jerusalem would be destroyed so thoroughly that it would resemble Topheth (19:12). By this time, Topheth had evidently become a sort of city dump where broken pottery was thrown away and where burials that could not be accommodated in any of the city cemeteries would take place (v 11).<\/p>\nWhile Topheth is not mentioned in the NT, it is linked to Gehenna (Aramaic form of “valley of Hinnom”). Gehenna refers to the place of destruction and is typically translated “hell” in the NT (Mt 5:22, 29-30; 10:28; 18:9; Mk 9:43-47; Lk 12:5).<\/p>","summary_ro":"TOPHETH Location within the valley of Hinnom outside Jerusalem where Israel profaned the Lord by offering human sacrifices to Molech. As part of his religious reform, Josiah defiled Topheth and tore down its altars (2 Kgs 23:10). Josiah’s reforms appear to have had only temporary impact, for the practice recurred under Manasseh (2 Chr 33:6) and was later condemned by Jeremiah (Jer 7:31-32). Jeremiah prophesied that the valley would be renamed the “Valley of Slaughter” because it would be the ...","summary_en":"TOPHETH Location within the valley of Hinnom outside Jerusalem where Israel profaned the Lord by offering human sacrifices to Molech. As part of his religious reform, Josiah defiled Topheth and tore down its altars (2 Kgs 23:10). Josiah’s reforms appear to have had only temporary impact, for the practice recurred under Manasseh (2 Chr 33:6) and was later condemned by Jeremiah (Jer 7:31-32). Jeremiah prophesied that the valley would be renamed the “Valley of Slaughter” because it would be the ...","source":"Articles\/T.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":40020,"type":"textbox","type_label":"Notă explicativă","type_icon":"💡","type_color":"#8b5cf6","title_ro":"Did Jephthah Offer His Daughter as a Human Sacrifice?","title_en":"Jephthah Offer His Daughter as a Human Sacrifice?, Did","content_ro":"<h3>Did Jephthah Offer His Daughter as a Human Sacrifice?<\/h3>\n<blockquote>We know that human sacrifice was practiced at that time, though it was abhorred by the Hebrews and prohibited in the Mosaic law (Lv 18:21; cf. Ex 13:13). Did Jephthah, however, have his daughter killed? The text points to this sad reality. Indeed, the father’s cry seems conclusive proof that her life was to be forfeited as a sacrifice, and the language and tone of the Hebrew text bears this out. The theory that she was spared to become the founder of a sisterhood of perpetual virgins is of very late, medieval origin. The daughter exhibited extraordinary self-denial in her understanding of and respect for her father’s commitment. Such a sacrifice was by no means infrequent in Israel, and common in other cultures, however repugnant it seems to us today. For other evidences of its practice, see 2 Kings 16:3, 17:17, 21:6, Jeremiah 7:31, and Micah 6:7. That this took place illustrates how deeply ingrained Canaanite religious practice was in Israel during this dark age.<\/p><\/blockquote>\nWe should not think that God was pleased with this sacrifice. In fact, God had provided a way out for anyone who had made a rash vow. Those who made rash vows were commanded to confess their sins and then make an offering for sin, whether it be a sheep, a bird, or even fine flour (see Lv 5:4-13).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Did Jephthah Offer His Daughter as a Human Sacrifice?<\/h3>\n<blockquote>We know that human sacrifice was practiced at that time, though it was abhorred by the Hebrews and prohibited in the Mosaic law (Lv 18:21; cf. Ex 13:13). Did Jephthah, however, have his daughter killed? The text points to this sad reality. Indeed, the father’s cry seems conclusive proof that her life was to be forfeited as a sacrifice, and the language and tone of the Hebrew text bears this out. The theory that she was spared to become the founder of a sisterhood of perpetual virgins is of very late, medieval origin. The daughter exhibited extraordinary self-denial in her understanding of and respect for her father’s commitment. Such a sacrifice was by no means infrequent in Israel, and common in other cultures, however repugnant it seems to us today. For other evidences of its practice, see 2 Kings 16:3, 17:17, 21:6, Jeremiah 7:31, and Micah 6:7. That this took place illustrates how deeply ingrained Canaanite religious practice was in Israel during this dark age.<\/p><\/blockquote>\nWe should not think that God was pleased with this sacrifice. In fact, God had provided a way out for anyone who had made a rash vow. Those who made rash vows were commanded to confess their sins and then make an offering for sin, whether it be a sheep, a bird, or even fine flour (see Lv 5:4-13).<\/p>","summary_ro":"Did Jephthah Offer His Daughter as a Human Sacrifice? We know that human sacrifice was practiced at that time, though it was abhorred by the Hebrews and prohibited in the Mosaic law (Lv 18:21; cf. Ex 13:13). Did Jephthah, however, have his daughter killed? The text points to this sad reality. Indeed, the father’s cry seems conclusive proof that her life was to be forfeited as a sacrifice, and the language and tone of the Hebrew text bears this out. The theory that she was spared to become the...","summary_en":"Did Jephthah Offer His Daughter as a Human Sacrifice? We know that human sacrifice was practiced at that time, though it was abhorred by the Hebrews and prohibited in the Mosaic law (Lv 18:21; cf. Ex 13:13). Did Jephthah, however, have his daughter killed? The text points to this sad reality. Indeed, the father’s cry seems conclusive proof that her life was to be forfeited as a sacrifice, and the language and tone of the Hebrew text bears this out. The theory that she was spared to become the...","source":"Textboxes\/Textboxes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"33":[{"id":5008,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Birds","title_en":"Birds","content_ro":"<h3>BIRDS<\/h3>\n\nFeathered vertebrates of the class Aves. Over 8,000 species of birds are known. Approximately 400 species are found in the Holy Land and about 40 are mentioned in Scripture.<\/p>\nModern scientists classify organisms on the basis of internal and external structure, but the biblical writers generally classified organisms according to habitat. Thus, in the Bible, bats are listed with birds as creatures of the air (Lv 11:19; Dt 14:18).<\/p>\nPrecise identification of biblical birds is often difficult or impossible. The biblical languages were not highly specialized scientific languages. People in biblical times generally knew the difference between similar animals now categorized as separate species. For birds, however, they frequently used poetic, descriptive terms. Biblical scholars attempt to overcome the difficulties in identification by comparing the Hebrew words with similar words in related languages and by attention to the habitat, habits, and characteristics attributed to the birds in Scripture. Nevertheless, different scholars sometimes arrive at different identifications.<\/p>\nBiblical References to Birds<\/p>\nThe Bible refers to birds both in literal and figurative senses. The biblical writers were keen observers of nature, their awareness of birds and bird life being reflected in many passages. They asserted that God knows all the birds (Ps 50:11) and cares for them (Mt 10:29). They saw God’s covenant with Noah after the flood, his promise never to destroy life again by flood, as extending even to the birds and animals (Gn 9:10).<\/p>\nThe Mosaic law declared many birds “unclean,” mostly species that were scavengers or predators, or inhabited waste places. Centuries later the early Christians came to regard unclean species as clean by God’s decree, revealed in the apostle Peter’s vision (Acts 10:12). Other birds, like quail, sustained the Israelites in their wanderings (Ex 16:13). The Law prescribed birds as sacrifices for a firstborn child (Lk 2:24), for a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:10), for cleansing a leper (Lv 14:22), and as a burnt offering and sin offering (12:8).<\/p>\nBirds are easily subject to extinction, especially through human activity. God required the Israelites to practice conservation to prevent any birds from becoming extinct in the Holy Land, both for the birds’ sake and so the Israelites would have a continuous source of food. The Law allowed foraging Israelites to take eggs or the young from a bird’s nest, but they were not permitted to kill both a mother bird and her young (Dt 22:6).<\/p>\nBiblical writers turned to nature frequently for illustrations of divine principles or human characteristics. Comparisons of humans to birds sometimes carry a sense of lowness, as when King Nebuchadnezzar developed claws like a bird in his madness (Dn 4:33), or when Job remarked that birds did not know the source of wisdom (Jb 28:21). In Jesus’ parable of the sower, the birds that ate the seed scattered by the wayside may represent indifference and a lack of spiritual understanding (Mt 13:4).<\/p>\nScripture also contains sympathetic images of the plight of birds. A lonely man praying was likened to a lonely bird on a housetop (Ps 102:7). If someone was unjustly hunted by his enemies, he would understand a hunted bird’s plight (Lam 3:52). Birds were said to be affected by curses on evildoers as they fled from Jerusalem or from the face of the earth (Jer 9:10; Zep 1:3).<\/p>\nIn spite of such misfortune visited upon birds, Scripture affirms that, like other creatures, they are cared for and delighted in by God (Ps 50:11; Mt 6:26; 10:29). Both Pharaoh and Nebuchadnezzar were compared to a tree that gives shelter to the birds (Ez 31:6; Dn 4:12; cf. 2:38). Human power, however, fails eventually as when the tree representing Nebuchadnezzar was cut down, forcing the birds to flee (Dn 4:14). God’s protection, by contrast, is unfailing. Jesus likened the kingdom of God to a mustard seed, growing to become a shelter for birds (Mt 13:32). God provides a habitation for birds (Ps 104:12), although Jesus, the Son of Man, had nowhere to rest his head (Mt 8:20).<\/p>\nBirds were considered evidence of God’s handiwork (Jb 12:7). Bird lore provided examples of good sense in learning from a mistake (Prv 1:17; 6:5) and of bad judgment in failing to avoid the snares of immorality (7:23). Birds and other creatures could be tamed, unlike the wicked human tongue (Jas 3:7). Birds flying without alighting were an image of an undeserved curse (Prv 26:2). Without trust in God, people might be forced by evil to flee like a bird to the mountains (Ps 11:1). Birdsong was said to bring joy (Sg 2:12). The return of God’s people to the Promised Land would be like birds returning (Hos 11:11). Jesus expressed his love for Jerusalem by saying that he longed to gather his people to himself as a hen gathers her brood under her wing (Mt 23:37).<\/p>\nFinally, birds were occasionally regarded as ominous signs. For example, Pharaoh’s baker learned of impending death because in a dream birds ate the food from a basket on his head (Gn 40:17). Solomon warned against cursing the king, even in private, because “a little bird may tell them what you said” (Eccl 10:20). A vivid biblical image is that of scavenging, carrion-eating birds consuming the bodies of evildoers. To the Israelites, such a desecration of humanity was an image of ultimate horror (Dt 28:26; 1 Sm 17:44; Is 46:11; Jer 7:33; 12:9; Ez 29:5; 39:4; Rv 19:17, 21).<\/p>\nIndividual Species<\/p>\nBittern<\/p>\nLong-legged wading bird (Botaurus stellaris)<\/em> similar to the heron, but with shorter legs and a smaller, more compact body. Bitterns inhabit marshes, where it is easy for them to hide with their natural camouflage. A bittern’s mottled plumage of barred brown and black so duplicates the color and shape of swamp vegetation that at times the bird seems to disappear before the observer’s eyes. The neck is covered with long, soft feathers, making it appear disproportionately heavy. Bitterns are wary and solitary. During mating season the bittern’s larynx is modified to produce a mysterious-sounding cry. The body twists in an unusual manner in harmony with the notes. Bitterns nest alone in grassy marshes. Because they are shy, they have become symbols of places of desolation and loneliness.<\/p>\nThere is some question as to whether the bittern is actually mentioned in the Bible. The kjv<\/span> has “bittern” in three places (Is 14:23; 34:11; Zep 2:14). Many biblical scholars believe the Hebrew word in those verses refers not to the bittern but to the hedgehog (Is 14:23; Zep 2:14, rsv<\/span>) or porcupine (Is 34:11, rsv<\/span>). The Hebrew word is similar to an Arabic word meaning “porcupine.” Other scholars point out that the references suggest a bird rather than a mammal, especially Zephaniah 2:14, which speaks of the creature making its “lodge in her capitals” (i.e., above Nineveh’s doorposts). Bitterns are particularly abundant in the swamps of the Tigris River (near Nineveh). The bittern’s characteristics may fit the references in the three passages better than do the hedgehog’s.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Hedgehog; Animals (Porcupine).<\/p>\nBuzzard<\/p>\nHawklike soaring bird (Buteo vulgaris<\/em> or Buteo ferox).<\/em> It resembles the kite, though its tail is straight and not cleft. It is mentioned in the list of unclean birds (Dt 14:13). But other translations render the word as “glede” (kjv<\/span>) or “kite” (nasb<\/span>, neb<\/span>). The parallel list in Leviticus 11, however, substitutes “kite” (rsv<\/span>, nasb<\/span>, neb<\/span>) or “vulture” (kjv<\/span>) for “buzzard.” Thus, it is difficult to determine whether the buzzard is actually mentioned in the Bible, even though it is a common resident of Israel.<\/p>\nLike other great soaring birds, the buzzard is noted for its sharp eyesight, and may be the bird mentioned for that quality in Job 28:7 (variously translated “falcon,” “eagle,” or “vulture”). It will trail its prey for hours, and has a remarkable ability to see a carcass on which it descends to feed. Somewhat larger than the common buzzard is the long-legged buzzard, found in Israel, western Asia, and Syria.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Kestrel; Kite; Vulture (below).<\/p>\nCormorant<\/p>\nLarge, black gooselike bird (Phalacrocorax carbo),<\/em> repeatedly depicted in art from Egypt and the Holy Land. Its length varies from 19 to 40 inches (48.3 to 101.6 centimeters). Its feet have webs between all four toes. The feet, attached far back on the body, serve as propellers when the cormorant dives to catch its meal of fish, crustacea, or amphibia. The long bill is curved at the tip, and under the bill is a sac in which the cormorant keeps the captured fish.<\/p>\nCormorants live in large companies, making nests of sticks and other vegetation that they carry to trees or to rocky shelves near coasts. Up to four eggs are incubated, and the young are fed by both parents.<\/p>\nThe cormorant frequents swamps around the Sea of Galilee, Lake Huleh (the waters of Merom), and the Mediterranean coast. Its Hebrew name originally denoted the “hurling down” of the bird at its prey. Cormorants dive into deep water and sometimes seem to zoom beneath the surface in their hunt for fish. The cormorant’s greed is proverbial. It was ceremonially unclean for the Israelites (Lv 11:17; Dt 14:17).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Pelican (below).<\/p>\nCrane<\/p>\nTall wading birds (Grus grus)<\/em> resembling storks and herons but with shorter talons. The plumage has a silvery gloss and the tail feathers are wavy. Large flocks of cranes flying in wedge-shaped formations pass over the Holy Land during the daylight hours each fall on their way to Africa from the northern countries of Europe and again in the spring when they return north to breed. Migratory flocks may number as many as 2,000 birds. Jeremiah 8:7 refers to the crane’s migratory habits.<\/p>\nThe usual call of the crane is best described as a bellow, but during migratory flight they emit a chattering sound that may be referred to in Isaiah 38:14. Cranes have remarkably powerful voices, their calls seeming to carry for miles. Migrating flocks usually have a flock leader who does the calling.<\/p>\nA crane’s height may reach 40 to 60 inches (101.6 to 152.4 centimeters). Except for the ostrich, the crane is the tallest bird ever to inhabit the Holy Land. A crane’s wingspread may exceed 90 inches (228.6 centimeters). The overall color is steel gray; the head and neck are black with a longitudinal white stripe. The crane feeds on land rather than in shallow water. It feeds primarily on grass and grain yet may devour insects, snakes, small alligators, frogs, and worms, using its long, powerful bill as a sharp hammer for killing such creatures.<\/p>\nThe crane usually nests in solitary places, often in shallow water or nearby. Its nest is a mass of vegetation, holding two or three eggs that are light-colored with darker spots.<\/p>\nCuckoo<\/p>\nSmall, drab brown bird known for its parasitic habits. The term the kjv<\/span> used in Leviticus 11:16 and Deuteronomy 14:15 may refer either to the common cuckoo (Cuculus canorus)<\/em> or to the great spotted cuckoo (Clamator glandarius).<\/em> The bird acts as a brood parasite, laying its eggs in the nest of another species after pushing out one of the eggs of the host species. The young cuckoo hatches before the young of the host species and evicts the other young. The foster parents raise it as their own.<\/p>\nThe cuckoo, an insect eater, is considered ritually unclean in Scripture, which might imply that it is a predator or carrion-eater. For that reason some believe the Hebrew word actually refers to the seagull or sea mew rather than the cuckoo. Gulls, terns, and petrels are all common on the seashore and lakes of the Holy Land.<\/p>\nOther scholars believe that the Hebrew word refers not to the cuckoo but to one of the owls, possibly the long-eared owl.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Owl; Seagull (below).<\/p>\nEagle<\/p>\nLarge bird of prey, genus Aquila.<\/em> Vultures were often confused with eagles, making identification of the biblical birds difficult. Eagles’ heads are not bald as are the heads of vultures, but from a distance they appear similar. It is possible that the Hebrew word translated “eagle” (which literally means “to tear with the beak”) may have referred to all large birds of prey, eagles and vultures alike. A number of references to the eagle in Scripture are actually references to the griffon vulture (e.g., Hos 8:1; perhaps Mt 24:28). In certain passages, however, the true eagle may be meant.<\/p>\nThe Holy Land has several varieties of eagle, including the imperial eagle (Aquila heliaca)<\/em> and the less common golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos).<\/em> These birds are powerfully built with strong wings; their movements reveal suppleness and strength. A distinctive hooked beak, which enhances the eagle’s dignified and somewhat ferocious appearance, provides it with an effective instrument for tearing and killing prey. Short, powerful legs and prehensile claws enable an eagle to apply an almost unbreakable grip on a struggling victim. The strong talons have sharp points and edges. The eagle hunts by day.<\/p>\nFor Jeremiah and other prophets, the eagle was the epitome of swiftness. The golden eagle, which can fly three or four miles (5–7 kilometers) in ten minutes, may have evoked the comparisons in 2 Samuel 1:23;Jeremiah 4:13; 49:22; Lamentations 4:19 (kjv<\/span>), and Habakkuk 1:8. Moses used a similar comparison to emphasize the sudden striking power of a hostile enemy (Dt 28:49). The author of Proverbs, observing the high altitude to which the eagle soars, applied that image to the human situation (Prv 23:4-5; cf. Rv 12:14).<\/p>\nThe eagle’s strength and invincibility were mentioned often with reference to powerful nations attacking Israel. The prophet Ezekiel described Nebuchadnezzar as an eagle (Ez 17:3). Both the Babylonians and Assyrians frequently depicted the eagle in their art, especially as a deity with a man’s body and an eagle’s head. Nebuchadnezzar even had an experience of temporary insanity in which “his hair grew as long as eagles’ feathers, and his nails were like birds’ claws” (Dn 4:33, rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\nThe eagle builds its nest on inaccessible mountain peaks or at the top of the tallest trees, a fact noted by Jeremiah (Jer 49:16; cf. Jb 39:27-28; Ob 1:4). The brood consists of two or occasionally three eggs. Only the female sits on the nest, but the young eaglets are fed by both parents. Eagles are devoted to their offspring and train them with great care in the art of flying. Some commentators interpret Exodus 19:4 and Deuteronomy 32:11 as evidence of the eagle’s practice of catching its young on its wings. There is virtually no evidence from observation, however, that any eagle can perform such a feat. In some versions the wording avoids a direct statement that eagles bear their young on their wings.<\/p>\nSome eagles in captivity have lived to an age of over 100 years. This remarkable longevity caused the psalmist to speak of the eagle whose youth is renewed (Ps 103:5). Confronted by its impressive qualities, biblical authors observed the eagle with awe and wonder (Jb 39:27-30; Prv 30:18-19). Those awesome qualities also contributed to several prophetic visions, including Ezekiel’s vision of a creature with an eagle’s face (Ez 1:10) and the apostle John’s vision of a holy beast like a flying eagle (Rv 4:7).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Vulture (below).<\/p>\nFowl, Domestic<\/p>\nDomesticated poultry (Gallus gallus domesticus),<\/em> probably derived from the red jungle fowl of India. They seem to have been known already in OT times (Prv 30:31). A seal of Jaazaniah (see 2 Kgs 25:23), dating from about 600 BC<\/span>, bears the image of a fighting cock. A reference to fowls or poultry for Nehemiah’s table, however, may be to wild game rather than domestic fowl (Neh 5:18).<\/p>\nPoultry symbolized fertility, and the Jews carried a cock and hen in front of bridal couples at weddings. The motherly concern of hens gathering their broods was familiar to Jesus’ hearers (Mt 23:37; Lk 13:34).<\/p>\nSince roosters habitually crow an hour or two before dawn, the third watch of the night, from midnight to 3:00 am<\/span>, was known as the cockcrow. According to the Talmud (a commentary on Jewish law), keeping chickens was prohibited in Jerusalem in NT times to prevent the insects and larvae that breed in chicken droppings from contaminating sacrificial flesh. For that reason the cock that Peter heard (Mt 26:34, 74; Lk 22:34, 60-61) probably belonged to Romans living there or to Jews who did not follow Jewish regulations.<\/p>\nGoatsucker or Night Hawk<\/p>\nMigratory bird, dark in color and short-legged, similar to the American whippoorwill. The goatsucker (genus Caprimulgus<\/em>) resembles an owl with a flat head, large eyes, soft plumage, and a noiseless flight. It hunts insects at night, catches them on the wing, and during the day rests on branches. Goatsuckers were so named because they were thought by the ancients to milk goats. According to Leviticus 11:16 and Deuteronomy 14:15, they were ritually unclean. Although some scholars believe that an owl is intended, there seems to be good reason to accept the “night hawk” translation.<\/p>\nGoose<\/p>\nLong-necked, web-footed water birds with waterproof feathers (genus Anser<\/em>). Domestic geese were known to the Greeks of Homer’s day, since they are mentioned in the Odyssey.<\/em> They were domesticated in Egypt perhaps as early as the Old Kingdom (c. 2500 BC<\/span>) and certainly by the time of the New Kingdom (c. 1500– 1100 BC<\/span>). They were used for food and sacrifice. The breeding of geese was widespread in Canaan in biblical times; ivory carvings of the 13th or 12th century BC<\/span> showing geese have been found in excavations at Megiddo in Israel.<\/p>\nMany species of geese spend most of their lives on land even though they are waterfowl; some even build their nests in trees. Wild geese tend to inhabit flatlands and prairies rather than mountainous terrain.<\/p>\nGeese may have graced the table of King Solomon. In 1 Kings 4:23 they are referred to as “fatted fowl,” a term that may also refer to ducks, swans, guineas, pigeons, or other domestic edible birds.<\/p>\nHawk<\/p>\nSmall birds of prey found in the Holy Land. Most references are probably to the sparrow hawk (Accipter nisus).<\/em> This bird is slightly larger than the kestrel, has a grayish-brown back and a white belly with black and brown bars. It has short feathers, long, curved talons, and broad wings, rounded at the outer ends, which enable it to soar on updrafts. The long tail, acting as a rudder, helps the bird change its course swiftly in flight. It is hence very maneuverable in the air when chasing warblers or other small birds. It does not seize its prey on the ground, as does the kestrel, but hunts and attacks small birds in flight. Hawks hunt in the daytime, unlike owls that are adapted for nighttime hunting. With their eyes located on the side of the head, hawks are very keen-sighted. They usually nest in tall trees and their nests are often occupied by the same pair year after year.<\/p>\nThe Egyptians embalmed sparrow hawks and regarded all hawks highly. The god Horus was depicted with the head of a hawk hawk was ceremonially unclean to the Israelites (Lv 11:16; Dt 14:15). It was not a permanent resident of Israel but stopped off as it migrated from north to south. Its southward migration is mentioned in Job 39:26. A reference in Isaiah 34:11 to “hawk” (“cormorant,” kjv<\/span>) is uncertain. See<\/em> Kestrel or Falcon; Kite (below).<\/p>\nHeron<\/p>\nWading bird (genus Ardea<\/em>) with a long, thin neck and long legs. It has a characteristic comblike growth on the inner side of the third toe.<\/p>\nHerons are generally white, blue, green, or gray. They nest together in rookeries, and both parents bring in food for the young. Herons feed on fish, small reptiles, and insects, gulping them down in one swallow. Adults and young migrate in the late fall to warm southern climates. The white heron attains a length of more than 3 feet (.9 meter), whereas the dwarf heron is only about 22 inches (55.9 centimeters) long.<\/p>\nAt least seven varieties of heron are reported in the Holy Land. The white ibis, or buff-backed heron (Buphus russatus<\/em>), was probably the most common species. The purple heron (Ardea purpureus)<\/em> is a summer breeder found in all parts of the Holy Land where there is standing water.<\/p>\nThe blue-gray heron (Ardea cinerea<\/em>) winters in southern Europe and North Africa, migrating to northern Europe in the early spring. In Israel it builds its winter nest near water, in swamps and along riverbanks, where it feeds on fish and frogs. It will stand patiently in the water for hours, and then suddenly its long, pointed beak darts down with lightning speed to catch its prey. Often the blue-gray heron builds its nest in a tall tree to which it may return year after year.<\/p>\nAccording to Leviticus 11:19 and Deuteronomy 14:18, the heron was ceremonially unclean to the Israelites. Some scholars believe those references are to the cormorant, but most scholars think they refer to one of the herons.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Cormorant (above).<\/p>\nHoopoe<\/p>\nOne of the Holy Land’s most beautiful birds (Upupa epops<\/em>). It has vividly colored plumage, a lovely crown-shaped crest that becomes erect when the bird is alarmed, and a long, slender curved bill. The pinkish-brown hoopoe is about 11 inches (27.9 centimeters) long, with black and white bands on its back, tail, and wings. Hoopoes are basically desert-dwelling birds.<\/p>\nThe name “hoopoe” is derived from the sound of the bird’s call. To emit the sound, the neck feathers are puffed up and the head snapped in the air. When on the ground, the bird hammers its beak into the earth.<\/p>\nThe hoopoe arrives in the Holy Land in February, breeds in the summer, and leaves in September. It was held in religious reverence by the Egyptians. It was listed as ritually unclean (Lv 11:19; Dt 14:18), probably because it searches for grubs and small insects in such unsanitary places as dunghills.<\/p>\nIbis<\/p>\nWading bird (Threskiornis aethiopica<\/em>) presently unknown in the Holy Land but possibly known there in biblical times. It was well known in ancient Egypt, where it was sacred to the god Thoth. Today it has practically vanished with the disappearance of swamps along the Nile.<\/p>\nThere is some question as to whether the ibis is meant in Leviticus 11:17, where it is classified as ceremonially unclean. The same Hebrew word in Deuteronomy 14:16 and Isaiah 34:11 is translated “great owl,” a translation preferred by most scholars.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Owl, Great (below).<\/p>\nKestrel or Falcon<\/p>\nSmall hawk (Falco tinnunculus<\/em>) about a foot (30.5 centimeters) long with brown, black, and yellow feathers on its breast. It was abundant in the Holy Land in villages and in the countryside, nesting on rooftops and among rocks. Like most hawks, the kestrel is able to hover and float in midair and then swoop down on its prey, seizing it with sharp, hooklike talons. It feeds largely on mice, small reptiles, and insects.<\/p>\nEmbalmed kestrels have been found in ancient Egyptian tombs. The Egyptians also embalmed the hunting kestrel (Falco cherug),<\/em> which can be tamed and trained to hunt rabbits and other small game. Falconry (hunting with hawks of various species) was well known among the ancients and is still practiced today. That the Assyrians were familiar with falconry is seen in the records of Ashurbanipal. Because the kestrel is a predator, it was ceremonially unclean (Lv 11:14). Some translations render the word as “kite” (Lv 11:14, kjv<\/span>; Dt 14:13, kjv<\/span>, rsv<\/span>), an illustration of the difficulty of identifying biblical birds precisely.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Kite or Glede (below).<\/p>\nKite or Glede<\/p>\nLarge bird of prey (Milvus milvus).<\/em> The average length of the kite is about 19 inches (48.3 centimeters). The upper part is generally dark, but the belly is white. Kites nest high in trees and build nests of vegetation, including sticks. They rarely have more than two or three young, which they feed on snakes, grasshoppers, and so on. Sometimes kites are called snake hawks.<\/p>\nThe kite is a migratory bird that stays in Israel during the summer, especially in the mountains of southern Judea, in the trackless wastes west of the Dead Sea, and in the wilderness of Beersheba.<\/p>\nThe red kite or glede is a medium-sized bird of prey. The edges of the upper part of the bill overlap with the lower one, forming sharp scissors. The tail is forked or cleft like that of a fish. Its loud cry often includes sharp whistling notes. Other Holy Land species include the black kite (Milvus migrans)<\/em> and the black-winged kite (Elanus caeruleus).<\/em><\/p>\nThe kite is listed among the unclean birds in Mosaic law (Lv 11:14; Dt 14:13), but the precise identification of the birds mentioned there is disputed by some scholars and translators.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Buzzard; Kestrel or Falcon (above).<\/p>\n\nLammergeier<\/p>\nLargest of the vultures and less common than the other members of the family. It is grayish brown with white streaks and has a black tuft of stiff hairs in the facial area that gives it the name “bearded vulture.” Another name for it is “lamb vulture.”<\/p>\nThe lammergeier (Gypaetus barbatus)<\/em> has a unique way of killing its prey; since its beak is not particularly powerful it carries its victim high in the air and then drops it on rocks.<\/p>\nThe lammergeier is especially partial to tortoises and to marrow bone. After jackals and smaller vultures have reduced a carcass to bone, the lammergeier crushes the bones to obtain the marrow, or swallows the pieces intact. Hence it is also known as the ossifrage, from a Latin word meaning “bone crusher.” The lammergeier was unclean in Mosaic law (Lv 11:13; Dt 14:13; both translated “vulture” in nlt<\/span> and “ossifrage” in kjv<\/span>).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Vulture (below).<\/p>\nOstrich<\/p>\nTwo-toed, swift-running, flightless bird (Struthio camelus<\/em>) that lives in deserts or in areas covered with stunted bushes.<\/p>\nIn biblical times ostriches ranged as far north as Syria and were found over the entire wasteland of the Negev Desert, but they have since become extinct there. Its Hebrew name means “daughter of the desert.” It is the largest of all living birds, attaining a height of about 10 feet (3 meters) and a weight of 175 pounds (79.5 kilograms), though some males may weigh as much as 300 pounds (136.4 kilograms). The female is considerably smaller. Powerful thighs and long legs give the ostrich great speed, reported to be as high as 40 mph<\/span> (64 kph<\/span>).<\/p>\nThe ostrich is omnivorous. It eats grass, fruits, small mammals, birds, snakes, and lizards, as well as large pebbles that assist in the breakdown of food in its gizzard. The ostrich is hunted, but its eggs are generally more sought after than the bird itself. The empty shells are traded throughout the Mediterranean area for use as utensils, or when broken up as raw material for beads. The eggs—as many as 25 in one clutch—are laid in a shallow nest of sand, with some left uncovered. They may appear to be neglected by day, but only because they are ordinarily incubated at night. The cock does most of the incubating; the female participates only during cold days. The strong, thick eggshell protects the embryo from the heat of the desert.<\/p>\nOccasionally the ostrich is used for riding or even for pulling small carts. Ostrich feathers are in great demand. Ostrich plumes graced ancient royal courts as fans. An ivory-handled fan of Pharaoh Tutankhamen (King Tut) had lovely ostrich plumes. The plumes are white in the male and brownish gray in the female. The reputation of the ostrich for stupidity comes from its behavior when hunted and cornered; it fails to take evasive action even when doing so would save it. In open country, however, it is very wary and runs at great speed to escape. In contrast to the partridge, an ostrich will run away from its eggs and chicks when pursued.<\/p>\nMost biblical references to ostriches emphasize their negative characteristics. They were regarded as unclean in Jewish law (Lv 11:16; Dt 14:15). Several references associate ostriches with images of wilderness and desolation (Jb 30:29; Is 13:21; 34:13; 43:20; Jer 50:39). Their night cry, which has been compared to an ox’s lowing in pain, is referred to in Micah 1:8. Biblical writers also noted the apparent indifference of the ostrich to its brood (Jb 39:13-18; Lam 4:3).<\/p>\nOwl<\/p>\nNocturnal birds (order Strigiformes) with large heads and large, forward-looking eyes. Their wing and tail feathers are soft as velvet, helping to make their flight noiseless. The owl’s body is small and slender, about the size of a pigeon, but it appears bulky because of the thick covering of feathers. Owls have been considered bearers of misfortune and omens of disaster. In the Near East, owls now live in temple ruins and pyramids in Egypt, and in rock-hewn graves, ruins, and caves on both sides of the Jordan River in Israel. They seldom come near inhabited dwellings.<\/p>\nOwls have excellent night vision, which they use to capture rodents or other animals. Although unusually large, the owl’s eyes are almost useless in the daylight because the light dazzles them. The owl is able to swallow its prey whole because of its elastic esophagus. Indigestible hair and bones are regurgitated as pellets. The bill is short but sharply hooked.<\/p>\nOwls may lay up to ten eggs. The young are cared for on the nest by both parents. Both adults and young tend to remain in the area in which they were hatched. Eight species of owls are found in the Holy Land, of which five are plentiful. It is difficult, however, to identify a particular species with any of the four Hebrew words translated “owl” in Scripture. A fifth word translated “owl” (kjv<\/span>) is more appropriately identified with the ostrich (rsv<\/span>). Owls appear in the lists of unclean birds (Lv 11:17; Dt 14:16), and although translations differ, they concur that all species of owls, being predators, are unclean.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Ostrich (above); Owl, Barn or White; Owl, Great; Owl, Little; Owl, Scops (below).<\/p>\nOwl, Barn or White<\/p>\nLarge owl (Tyto alloa)<\/em> with a distinct heart-shaped face. It may get its Hebrew name from a snoring sound it makes when breathing in the nest. In flight it emits a frightening screech, and thus is sometimes referred to as the screech owl. Its somewhat sinister features—a large head and wide pop eyes—have led some people to consider it demonic, but they have also inspired another name, the monkey-faced owl. It is a useful bird, however, devouring rodents that raid fields and damage stored grain. Like other owls, it sleeps during the day and hunts at night with a well-developed sense of hearing and sight. Its color is light brownish yellow with a white mask around the eyes and cheeks. The whole leg is covered with feathers that protect it against the bites of struggling victims in its talons.<\/p>\nSome modern translations mention the barn or white owl by name (Lv 11:17, njb<\/span>; 11:18, nasb<\/span>; Dt 14:16, njb<\/span>, nasb<\/span>).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Owl (above), Owl, Scops (below).<\/p>\nOwl, Great<\/p>\nLarge owl, standing nearly two feet (60.9 centimeters) tall (Asio otus).<\/em> The color is mouse gray with gray-brown spots and black stripes. As one of its names indicates, it has tufted “ears” and is sometimes called the great horned owl. It feeds on rodents, such as rats and mice. It winters in Israel among ruins and in groves.<\/p>\nThe great owl may be the owl mentioned in the Bible among the birds of desolation that will inhabit devastated Edom (Is 34:11, nasb<\/span> mg). It is also mentioned by name in some translations of the lists of ritually unclean birds (Lv 11:17, kjv<\/span>, nasb<\/span>; Dt 14:16, kjv<\/span>, nasb<\/span>, rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\nOwl, Little<\/p>\nSmallest of all nocturnal birds of prey. Chiefly insectivorous, the little owl (Athene noctua glaux)<\/em> also feeds at times on tiny birds. It is the most common owl in the Holy Land, dwelling among ruins, tombstones, rocks, and thickets (perhaps the owl of Ps 102:6). Its voice sounds like that of a dying person. On occasion it may be observed perched on a rock with its large eyes gazing off into the distance, a pose that the ancients considered a sign of wisdom. The Greeks associated the little owl with the goddess Athena. It is mentioned by name in several translations (Lv 11:17, kjv<\/span>, nasb<\/span>; Dt 14:16, kjv<\/span>, nasb<\/span>, rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Owl (above).<\/p>\nOwl, Scops<\/p>\nSmall owl (Otus scops)<\/em> distinguished by two horn-shaped crests of hairlike feathers on its head. It perches in an inclined posture and hops and dances like a goat. During the hatching period, the male’s hooting sounds like a moan. The scops owl feeds on insects, rodents, and birds. During invasions of mice or locusts, these owls have appeared in large flocks and helped to destroy the pests. They have been known to attack humans who intrude on their nests. They are well-known inhabitants of Eurasia and Africa.<\/p>\nSome scholars suggest that the scops is the true screech owl, because of its whistling calls that resound through the night. The screech owl is mentioned only once in Scripture (Is 34:14, kjv<\/span>), but that translation is the subject of scholarly debate. Following traditional Jewish mythology, some translations use the Hebrew word (<\/em>lilith<\/span>)<\/em> as a proper name. In Jewish tradition Lilith was a witch-demon who, before Eve’s creation, was Adam’s wife. She became the mother of demons and was thought to attack children during the night; thus the name “Lilith” is translated “night hag” (rsv<\/span>) or “night monster” (nasb<\/span>). Most scholars favoring the mythical interpretation, however, suggest that Isaiah was using a popular legend to evoke a sense of desolation and did not himself believe in the existence of Lilith. There is little support for “screech owl” as an appropriate translation of the name.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Owl; Owl, Barn or White (above).<\/p>\nPartridge<\/p>\nMost common game bird in the Holy Land. The partridge resembles a chicken in its basic anatomy but has a less chunky body and a longer tail. Two species of partridge inhabit the Holy Land: the sand partridge (Ammoperdix heyi),<\/em> found near the Dead Sea, in the Jordan River valley, and in the Sinai Desert; and the chukar partridge (Alectoris graeca).<\/em> The sand partridge is a medium-sized bird with yellow feet. The male has sandy-buff plumage, upper tail feathers penciled and barred with brown, and a chestnut and white undersurface. The female is a grayish buff. The chukar partridge resembles the common French partridge of Europe, having a body about 16 inches (40.6 centimeters) long. It is covered with beautiful and radiantly colored feathers.<\/p>\nThe biblical reference (1 Sm 26:20; probably the sand partridge because of the geographical context) alludes to the common method of catching it by chasing. It was also hunted with snares (cf. Ps 91:3) or by hunters hiding in a blind. The fast-running partridge soon becomes exhausted, which enables hunters to run it to the ground and kill it. Nevertheless, by running and jumping, it can ascend very steep cliffs. The bird finds refuge among bushes into which its brownish-green feathers blend protectively. If it were not such a prolific breeder, it would probably have become extinct by being hunted for food.<\/p>\nThe biblical description of the partridge gathering a brood she did not hatch (Jer 17:11) seems to be based on the fact that the hen lays at least two clutches of eggs, one for herself and one for the cock to incubate.<\/p>\n\nPeacock<\/p>\nMember of the quail, partridge, and pheasant family, the peacock (Pavo cristatus)<\/em> is actually the male peafowl. Its mate is properly known as the peahen. The male attracts attention because of a stately, luxurious appearance enhanced by magnificent feathers. The breast is a brilliant metallic blue, and each tail feather has a brilliant eye near the tip. When lowered, the unusually long tail feathers form a train behind the peacock on the ground, giving it an overall length of up to six feet (1.8 meters). The train can also be raised to form a huge fan adorned with the multicolored eyes. During courtship the feathers are raised and vibrated to make a distinct rustling noise. The rather drab peahen lacks the long train.<\/p>\nBecause it is not native to the Holy Land, the peacocks referred to in 1 Kings 10:22 and 2 Chronicles 9:21 are thought by some scholars to be Old World monkeys or baboons brought from east Africa, or guinea hens from the upper Nile River region. There is evidence, however, that the Phoenicians introduced peacocks to the Egyptian pharaoh, perhaps as early as the time of King Solomon. It is possible that Solomon’s trade expeditions ranged as far as India, where the peacock is native. The peacock was also well known to the Greeks and Romans. Alexander the Great prized its beauty and forbade his soldiers to kill the bird.<\/p>\nIn the early Christian church the peacock became a symbol of the immortality promised in the resurrection of Christ. In addition, the eyes of its tail came to represent the all-seeing eye of God.<\/p>\nPelican<\/p>\nLargest of all aquatic birds, considerably larger even than the swan. The pelican (Pelecanus onocrotalus)<\/em> is generally about 50 inches (127 centimeters) long with a 16-inch (40.6-centimeters) beak, the upper part of which is hooked downward at the end, facilitating fish catching. The lower part of the bill supports a yellow pouch extending down the throat. The pouch may hold up to three gallons (11.4 liters) of food (small fish) and water. The pelican’s webbed feet are peculiar in having webs between all four toes. Pelicans are expert swimmers as well as efficient fliers. The pelican’s massive body, long neck, and comparatively small head give it proportions that make rising from the water difficult. To take off, a pelican must first flap awkwardly along the surface, pounding at the water with its legs.<\/p>\nPelicans fly and nest in groups. Both sexes care for the young that hatch from the one to four eggs. Whereas most birds feed their young by placing food into their mouths, the pelican reverses the process; the young pelican sticks its head and most of its body into its mother’s throat and plucks partially digested food from the mother’s crop. The deep penetration of the young’s beak into the mother’s gullet led ancients to believe that the young were feeding on the blood of the mother’s breast, thus giving rise to wide usage of the pelican as a symbol of Christ’s atonement, and of charity in general.<\/p>\nThe roseate pelican is white, at times with a faint rose tinge, and has black feathers growing from the wing joint farthest from the body. The legs, pouch, and skin around the eyes are yellow; the hook of the beak is red. This species may grow up to six feet (1.8 meters) long with a wingspread of up to eight feet (2.4 meters). During the breeding season, the coloration of the exposed areas of the roseate pelican’s legs and face changes from gray to bright orange or red. At the same time the white feathers acquire a beautiful pink tint originating from an oil-gland secretion. The oil is spread throughout the plumage by the bird as it preens.<\/p>\nSome scholars question whether “pelican” is an appropriate translation of the Hebrew in several verses, believing rather that the word refers to one of the owls, hawks, or vultures. Most translations include the pelican in the lists of ritually unclean birds (Lv 11:18; Dt 14:17). Opinion on the other references is more sharply divided. Some scholars maintain that the desert context of the verses eliminates the possibility of a water bird like the pelican (cf. Ps 102:6, “vulture,” rsv<\/span>; Is 34:11, “cormorant,” kjv<\/span>; “hawk,” rsv<\/span>; Zep 2:14, “cormorant,” kjv<\/span>; “vulture,” rsv<\/span>). On the other hand, the roseate pelican frequents the rivers, lakes, and marshes of the Holy Land. After flying out to sea as far as 20 miles (32.2 kilometers) to swoop down on fish near the surface, the pelican often returns inland to a deserted place to digest its enormous meal. Thus, the pelican may be the lonely wilderness bird of those passages.<\/p>\nPigeon or Dove<\/p>\nSpecies of the pigeon family (Columbidae). In common usage the names “pigeon” and “dove” are virtually interchangeable. The common domestic pigeon familiar to city dwellers the world over, for example, is actually a descendant of the wild rock dove. Both names are used in English translations of the Bible to translate the same Hebrew word. A second Hebrew word is usually translated “turtledove.” Nevertheless, it seems clear that the ancient Hebrews recognized differences among dove species.<\/p>\nAt least six species of pigeon or dove reside in modern Israel: the rock, ring, and stock doves (genus Columba<\/em>), and the turtle, collared, and palm doves (genus Streptopelia<\/em>). Of the six, the rock dove (Columba livia)<\/em> and the turtledove (Streptopelia turtur)<\/em> seem to be the two most often referred to in Scripture.<\/p>\nPigeons vary in size from 6 to over 12 inches (15 to 30 centimeters). The most colorful Israeli species is the rock dove, which can be a beautiful silvery gray with grayish-green iridescent plumage on the wings (noted by David, Ps 68:13). The smaller doves (Streptopelia)<\/em> are less colorful, mostly gray or buff with a blackish or checkered half collar on the back of the neck. Pigeons have short necks and small heads, plump bodies, and short wings controlled by strong muscles that enable them to fly considerable distances. The smaller doves have longer tails.<\/p>\nAt present, the wild rock dove is found primarily in the area around the Sea of Galilee and farther to the south in the many ravines leading down to the Dead Sea. Wild rock doves prefer to build their nests on rocks and cliff faces, a fact precisely described in Scripture (Sg 2:14; Jer 48:28). All Israeli doves build fragile nests of scraps of vegetation. Eggs are hatched twice a year. Doves seldom lay more than two eggs. The young are cared for in the nest by both parents, who rove over the fields eating seeds and weeds. The adult’s crop contains digested food in a milky condition, called pigeon’s milk, which can be regurgitated and fed to the young.<\/p>\nDuring courtship there is a great deal of rivalry among the male doves. The turtledove’s courtship dance is an awesome aerial display. The attention to courtship, the joint care of young, and the solicitude of the parents for each other, noted from earliest times, have made the dove one of the most popular symbols of love and peace (Sg 1:15; 2:14; 4:1; 5:2).<\/p>\nA major distinction between pigeons (ring doves) and turtledoves seems to have been recognized by ancient writers. Pigeons are year-round residents and easily tamed, whereas turtledoves are migratory. Turtledoves were confined in cages singly or in pairs as pets or for sacrifices. Pigeons were probably the first birds to be domesticated, perhaps as early as Noah’s time (Gn 8:8-12). They were depicted on the earliest Egyptian monuments, and their edibility was mentioned in early Egyptian texts. Before long, domestic pigeons were regarded as evidence of a household’s prosperity. In the more prosperous households they nested in dovecotes of molded pottery clay fashioned in latticelike structures (hence the “windows” of Is 60:8).<\/p>\nIn NT times there were many dovecotes in the parks around Herod the Great’s palace in Jerusalem. The dove’s popularity was due not only to its docility but also to its desirability as food and as an acceptable and relatively inexpensive sacrifice. The turtledove may have been regarded more highly as a sacrifice because of its wildness and consequent lesser availability. The two biblical references to turtledoves not in a sacrificial context refer to their migratory habits and to their arrival in Israel in the spring (Sg 2:12; Jer 8:7; cf. Hos 11:11).<\/p>\nMost of the references to doves and pigeons in the Bible are in statements about sacrificial procedures (Gn 15:7-10; Lv 1:14; 5:7; 12:6; Nm 6:10; Lk 2:24). Other references, however, include a range of observations and symbolic usages of the dove. Its throaty moaning was often observed (Is 38:14; 59:11; Ez 7:16; Na 2:7). Its power of flight was well known (Ps 55:6), as were its beauty (Sg 1:15; 4:1; 5:12), its gentleness and loyalty to its mate (Sg 2:14; 5:2; 6:9), its affection (Ps 74:19), and its innocence (Mt 10:16). The one negative reference to doves is in Hosea 7:11, where they are said to be senseless and foolish, perhaps in reference to their overly trusting nature.<\/p>\nOf NT references, perhaps the most significant is the description of the Holy Spirit at Christ’s baptism as a descending dove (Mt 3:16). The dove’s loving nature made it natural for early Christians to connect the dove image with the concept of the Comforter. Since then the dove has remained the most popular symbol of the Holy Spirit.<\/p>\n\nQuail<\/p>\nShort, stocky birds with bills and feet similar to those of chickens; hence they are adapted to eating seeds or insects. Quail (Coturnix coturnix)<\/em> are the smallest of the subfamily of poultry that also includes pheasants and partridges. Quail (or “quails,” another plural form) are about ten inches (25.4 centimeters) long and have small, rounded wings. They burst from their hiding places in the grass or bushes with a whirring sound. The belly of the quail is white. Up to 18 eggs are laid, and if the mother dies, the male has been known to assume the care of the young. Quail of the Mediterranean region winter in the Sudan and migrate northward in vast flocks in the spring. Quail cannot maintain a long sustained flight but make use of wind currents to keep them aloft.<\/p>\nEnormous flocks of quail twice served as food for the Israelites in the wilderness of Sinai, when the birds were driven down in the desert miraculously by winds (Ex 16:13; Nm 11:31-32; Ps 105:40). The second time they were probably flying along the Gulf of Aqaba and were blown off course by the east wind (Nm 11:31; Ps 78:26-28). Their inability to sustain long flight may account for their low flying level—two cubits, or about 40 inches (101.6 centimeters). When exhausted, they were easily caught by hand (Nm 11:31-32). Quail were considered clean and the most delicate eating of all game birds, and they were preserved by drying in the sun.<\/p>\nRaven<\/p>\nMember of the crow family (Corvidae). The Hebrew word for “raven” means “black one.” The raven (Corvus corax<\/em>) weighs about three pounds (1.36 kilograms) and varies from 22 to 26 inches (56 to 66 centimeters) in length. Its tail is broader in the middle than at either end. Eight species are found in Israel: three ravens, two jackdaws, one crow, one rook, and one chough. The crow, about 20 inches (50.8 centimeters) long, is smaller than a raven, and its tail is uniform in width. The raven’s most conspicuous feature is its glossy black iridescent plumage.<\/p>\nRavens and crows have survived in spite of the dislike many humans have for them. Excellent fliers, they migrate by day and congregate in great flocks of up to several hundred thousand. During the nesting season, they make nests of sticks in which two to seven eggs are laid. Ravens mate for life. Equipped with strong wings, a strong bill, and strong feet, ravens can live in isolated places from which they range widely for food. That it did not return to the ark was a good sign to Noah, indicating that the raven could find food and possibly a place to rest on dry mountaintops (Gn 8:7).<\/p>\nThe raven, essentially a scavenger, was ceremonially unclean (Lv 11:15; Dt 14:14). Yet ravens fed Elijah at God’s command (1 Kgs 17:4-6). Job was told that God gave the raven its food (Jb 38:41), as the psalmist and Jesus repeated (Ps 147:9; Lk 12:24). The raven’s glistening black plumage inspired the bride’s comparison of her beloved’s hair (Sg 5:11). They prefer desolate, uninhabited areas as their home territory (Is 34:11). Ravens are crafty, active birds. Some are capable of speaking, solving puzzles, and performing feats of memory. Bold and curious, they sometimes use their talents for theft.<\/p>\nSeagull<\/p>\nRobust seabirds, primarily scavengers (family Laridae). Several species of gulls live along the seacoast of the Holy Land. They are usually gray-backed with white heads and underparts and black wing tips. The slender bill ends in a downward curve.<\/p>\nSeagulls may be 8 to 30 inches (20 to 76 centimeters) long. Many species migrate, traveling long distances with their superb flying ability. Gulls can also swim easily because of their webbed feet. Their voice is like a harsh scream or squawk. In nesting season many nest together in any available place, such as a cliff or tree. Both male and female incubate and care for the young.<\/p>\nBecause gulls will eat almost anything, they are listed as ritually unclean birds (Lv 11:16; Dt 14:15, asv<\/span> has “sea mew,” a common European gull). Some commentators believe that those passages refer to an owl or to the cuckoo and not to the seagull.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Cuckoo (above).<\/p>\nSparrow<\/p>\nSmall bird of the finch family (Fringillidae) or the weaver finch family (Ploceidae), considered to be of little worth. The Hebrew word is a general term for “bird” and refers to any small bird such as a sparrow, finch, thrush, or starling. In translation, however, the word sometimes refers to the common English or house sparrow (Passer domestica;<\/em> Ps 84:3; Prv 26:2).<\/p>\nDull in color with a black throat, the male house sparrow is a noisy and energetic creature. The nest, when built in open places, has an opening on the side and is made of almost anything available. Sparrows also nest in sheltered places, in dwellings, boxes, or holes in trees. They lay four to seven eggs.<\/p>\nThe common or house sparrow was known in ancient Greece and Egypt. There it had a reputation for invading fields in large swarms and picking the seeds from them. It is a permanent resident of the Holy Land.<\/p>\nThe sparrow is prolific and lives in close association with humans. It was considered ritually clean. Sparrows brought low prices in countries where they were sold (Mt 10:29; Lk 12:6). Today in Near Eastern marketplaces, boys offer live sparrows for sale. Tied together in groups of four to six by strings attached to one leg, the birds fly about over the boys’ heads. Evidently such a sight was common in NT times.<\/p>\nStork<\/p>\nLong-legged, white wading bird (genus Ciconia<\/em>) having large, powerful wings with glossy black primary and secondary feathers. The flapping of its wings produces a loud rushing sound. Connecting membranes between the toes prevent the bird from sinking into the mud. Its red bill is sharp and long, serving to seize and lift its prey out of the water. Storks are mute, lacking a voice box.<\/p>\nFlocks of storks pass through the Holy Land during their September migration on the way to central and southern Africa and likewise in the spring on their return flight to their homes in northern Israel, Syria, and Europe. Storks travel in vast flocks during the day, spreading out against the sky.<\/p>\nThe stork’s faithful tending of the young is proverbial, as is its habit of returning annually to the same nesting place. Storks have the habit of adding to their nests each year, and it is possible to find nests that are 100 years old and have a height of more than three feet (.9 meter).<\/p>\nTwo species of storks frequent the Holy Land. The white stork (Ciconia alba)<\/em> is 40 inches (101.6 centimeters) tall, and its wingspread is six feet (1.8 meters), enabling it to move with a slow, sustained flight or to soar. In folklore the white stork is sometimes considered to be a harbinger of good fortune.<\/p>\nThe black stork (Ciconia nigra),<\/em> common around the Dead Sea valley, nests in trees; hence it may be the tree-dwelling species referred to in Psalm 104:17. The Hebrew name for “stork” means literally the “kingly one,” or the “loyal one,” a reference to the care of the bird for its young. Like the heron, the stork was ceremonially unclean because of its diet of aquatic organisms, refuse, small animals, birds, and reptiles (Lv 11:19; Dt 14:18). Jeremiah mentioned the stork’s uncanny and instinctive knowledge of the time of its migration (Jer 8:7). Its impressive wings figured in one of Zechariah’s visions (Zec 5:9).<\/p>\nSwallow<\/p>\nSmall, nearly black, forked-tailed bird with long, tapering wings, noted for its graceful flight (hirundo rustica).<\/em> The small, weak feet are poorly adapted for walking. Swallows resemble swifts in shape and life habits but are somewhat smaller.<\/p>\nThe swallow’s large mouth enables it to catch insects while in flight. Colors vary from brown and blue to white. Swallows often nest in buildings, a feature noticed by the psalmist, who reported a swallow’s home at the temple (Ps 84:3).<\/p>\nSwallows are basically resident in Israel, whereas the swift is a migratory bird noted for the regularity of its migratory schedule. The “swallow” of Isaiah 38:14 probably refers to a swift, as does Jeremiah 8:7, where the dependability of the bird is contrasted with the irregularity of God’s people. Proverbs 26:2 may be a reference to either the swallow or the swift.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Swift (below).<\/p>\nSwan<\/p>\nLarge, graceful water birds. Two species of swan (genus Cygnus<\/em>) are found in the Middle East as passing migrants (Cygnus olor<\/em> and Cygnus musicus).<\/em> Swans are known as the best musicians among the birds and were considered sacred to the god Apollo by the Greeks. Their voices sound like flutes and harps.<\/p>\nThe references in Leviticus 11:18 and Deuteronomy 14:16 (kjv<\/span>) are probably not to the swan but to the water hen or the barn owl, since there seems little reason to declare the vegetarian swan an unclean animal. See also<\/em> Owl, Barn or White (above); Water Hen (below).<\/p>\nSwift<\/p>\nSmall, strong flyers (genus Apus<\/em>). Like the swallow, the swift has long, bent wings and a cleft tail, enabling it to obtain great speed as it skims the ground and sweeps through the air. A swift devours a great many harmful insects, catching them in its mouth in flight. Many swifts make their nests in rooftops and in nooks and crannies of city walls. Their nests are built with strong feathers cemented together with saliva. Other swifts live in caves and clefts of rocks.<\/p>\nCommon swifts are native to Israel, and in the Jordan Valley they occur in large flocks. Isaiah 38:14 (niv<\/span>) seems to be clear reference to the swift’s plaintive call, since the swallow’s sharp chirp is not a striking simile for a distraught king’s cry. The swift has a soft, delicate voice, and its cry could be easily interpreted as melodious wailing.<\/p>\nThe migratory swifts arrive on a precise schedule in the Holy Land in late winter, and immense flocks fill the cities with their cries. Thus the reference in Jeremiah 8:7 to swallows, which are largely permanent residents, is probably to swifts.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Swallow (above).<\/p>\nVulture<\/p>\nSubfamily (Aegypiinae) of the hawk family (Accipitridae). Each of the four species of Old World vultures is found in the Holy Land: the Egyptian, griffon, black, and bearded vulture (the bearded vulture is also known as the lammergeier). These birds range in size from the 24-inch (61-centimeters) Egyptian vulture to the huge bearded vulture, largest of all flying birds in the Holy Land.<\/p>\nMost vultures are brown or black, having a short neck and a short, hooked bill with which they tear the dead animal flesh of which they are fond. All vultures, except the bearded, have bare or down-covered heads and necks, enabling these scavengers to penetrate deep into a carcass without spoiling the plumage. Excellent eyesight enables a vulture to locate a carcass from a lofty soaring position. Considering the decayed condition of most of its food, a vulture’s poor sense of smell may be a fortunate limitation. Vultures nest in any convenient place; both parents care for the young.<\/p>\nThe Hebrew word usually translated “eagle” in the OT may have been a general term for all large birds of prey, including vultures. Thus many of the passages about eagles may refer to either the eagle or the vulture (cf. Lv 11:13; Dt 14:12, nasb<\/span> mg). Such passages include references to nesting habits (Jb 39:27-28; Jer 49:16; Ob 1:4), care for fledglings (Dt 32:11), powers of flight (Ex 19:4; Dt 28:49; Jb 9:26; Lam 4:19), and extremely high soaring altitude (Prv 23:5; 30:19; Is 40:31). Despite variations among translations, the vulture clearly belongs in the list of unclean birds because of its foul diet (Lv 11:13, 18; Dt 14:12, 17).<\/p>\nSeveral references to the eagle in the kjv<\/span> have been changed to “vulture” in modern translations. The change seems appropriate in the references to the vulture as a sign of present or impending doom (Lam 4:19; Hos 8:1). Likewise the eye-plucking bird of Proverbs 30:17 is probably a vulture. The phrase “bald as the eagle” (Mi 1:16) clearly should read “bald as the vulture,” since there are no bald eagles in Israel and most vultures are bald. Since the vulture, like the eagle, was a symbol of sovereignty and domination in the ancient Near East, some gods were represented as vultures. Thus Ezekiel’s comparison of the kings of Babylon and Egypt to eagles may be conceived alternatively as comparisons to vultures (Ez 17:3, 7). Jesus’ reference to the eagles congregating around corpses at the end times (Mt 24:28) should also be revised to vultures, since eagles are usually solitary eaters, whereas vultures generally flock together around carrion.<\/p>\nSeveral kjv<\/span> references to vultures are usually translated “kite” or “falcon” in modern translations (cf. various versions of Lv 11:14; Dt 14:13; Jb 28:7; Is 34:15).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Eagle; Kestrel; Kite; Lammergeier; Vulture, Black, or Osprey; Vulture, Egyptian; Vulture, Griffon.<\/p>\nVulture, Black, or Osprey<\/p>\nDiurnal flesh eater, a little over three feet (.9 meter) long with a wingspread of over three yards (2.7 meters). The feathers of the black or osprey vulture (Aegypius monachus<\/em>) are black and the head and upper part of the neck are bald like those of other carrion eaters. It nests in the Jordan River valley and seems to have been abundant in biblical times. Today it is quite rare. The black vulture is probably the osprey of Leviticus 11:13 and Deuteronomy 14:12.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Vulture (above).<\/p>\n\nVulture, Egyptian<\/p>\nAlso known as the gier eagle or as pharaoh’s hen. The plumage of the Egyptian vulture (Neophron percnopterus<\/em>) is basically white with a naked head and yellow neck. The Egyptian vulture breaks bones left by other vultures. Its flight is slow and easy, and its voice is a croak. Measuring about 24 inches (61 centimeters) in length, it is the smallest of all the carrion-eating birds found in the Holy Land. It may be referred to in the list of unclean birds (Lv 11:18; Dt 14:17, “gier eagle,” kjv<\/span>; “carrion vulture,” rsv<\/span>, nasb<\/span>, nlt<\/span>). See<\/em> Vulture (above).<\/p>\nVulture, Griffon<\/p>\nOne of the largest flying birds in the Holy Land (Gyps fulvus).<\/em> Until a generation ago, the griffon vulture was one of the most common birds in the Holy Land. Today it is on the verge of extinction. Many have been killed by eating poisonous bait meant for foxes and jackals. In addition, its reproduction is limited; the female lays only one or two eggs a year.<\/p>\nThe griffon vulture measures about four feet (121.9 centimeters) in length and up to ten feet (3 meters) between wing tips. Its beak is extremely strong, and its short toes are fitted with blunt talons. It is a light-brown bird with a pale yellow head and neck that are almost bare, being covered only with a very fine down.<\/p>\nThe griffon vulture feeds mostly on carrion, but also on locusts and small tortoises. It is able to go without food for several days with no ill effects, but when it does break its fast, it gorges itself. It is found especially in the region of the Sea of Galilee. Most biblical references to the vulture are likely to be to the griffon vulture.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Eagle; Vulture (above).<\/p>\nWater Hen<\/p>\nSmall water bird of the rail family. The water hen listed among unclean birds (Lv 11:18; Dt 14:16, rsv<\/span> only) may be the biblical bird most difficult to identify. Several alternatives have been suggested, including the swan (kjv<\/span>), one of the owls (nasb<\/span>, neb<\/span>), or the marsh hen (tlb<\/span>). Most scholars rule out the swan, since it is a vegetarian bird and thus should not be considered unclean. An owl remains a possibility.<\/p>\nThe marsh hen is a rail, several species of which inhabit Israel. One of those species is the purple gallinule (Porphyrio porphyrio).<\/em> Rails are very thin birds varying from 6 to 20 inches (15 to 51 centimeters) in length. They live in marshes, where they eat a great variety of animal and vegetable matter, thus making them a candidate for inclusion in the Mosaic lists of unclean animals.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Animals.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BIRDS<\/h3>\n\nFeathered vertebrates of the class Aves. Over 8,000 species of birds are known. Approximately 400 species are found in the Holy Land and about 40 are mentioned in Scripture.<\/p>\nModern scientists classify organisms on the basis of internal and external structure, but the biblical writers generally classified organisms according to habitat. Thus, in the Bible, bats are listed with birds as creatures of the air (Lv 11:19; Dt 14:18).<\/p>\nPrecise identification of biblical birds is often difficult or impossible. The biblical languages were not highly specialized scientific languages. People in biblical times generally knew the difference between similar animals now categorized as separate species. For birds, however, they frequently used poetic, descriptive terms. Biblical scholars attempt to overcome the difficulties in identification by comparing the Hebrew words with similar words in related languages and by attention to the habitat, habits, and characteristics attributed to the birds in Scripture. Nevertheless, different scholars sometimes arrive at different identifications.<\/p>\nBiblical References to Birds<\/p>\nThe Bible refers to birds both in literal and figurative senses. The biblical writers were keen observers of nature, their awareness of birds and bird life being reflected in many passages. They asserted that God knows all the birds (Ps 50:11) and cares for them (Mt 10:29). They saw God’s covenant with Noah after the flood, his promise never to destroy life again by flood, as extending even to the birds and animals (Gn 9:10).<\/p>\nThe Mosaic law declared many birds “unclean,” mostly species that were scavengers or predators, or inhabited waste places. Centuries later the early Christians came to regard unclean species as clean by God’s decree, revealed in the apostle Peter’s vision (Acts 10:12). Other birds, like quail, sustained the Israelites in their wanderings (Ex 16:13). The Law prescribed birds as sacrifices for a firstborn child (Lk 2:24), for a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:10), for cleansing a leper (Lv 14:22), and as a burnt offering and sin offering (12:8).<\/p>\nBirds are easily subject to extinction, especially through human activity. God required the Israelites to practice conservation to prevent any birds from becoming extinct in the Holy Land, both for the birds’ sake and so the Israelites would have a continuous source of food. The Law allowed foraging Israelites to take eggs or the young from a bird’s nest, but they were not permitted to kill both a mother bird and her young (Dt 22:6).<\/p>\nBiblical writers turned to nature frequently for illustrations of divine principles or human characteristics. Comparisons of humans to birds sometimes carry a sense of lowness, as when King Nebuchadnezzar developed claws like a bird in his madness (Dn 4:33), or when Job remarked that birds did not know the source of wisdom (Jb 28:21). In Jesus’ parable of the sower, the birds that ate the seed scattered by the wayside may represent indifference and a lack of spiritual understanding (Mt 13:4).<\/p>\nScripture also contains sympathetic images of the plight of birds. A lonely man praying was likened to a lonely bird on a housetop (Ps 102:7). If someone was unjustly hunted by his enemies, he would understand a hunted bird’s plight (Lam 3:52). Birds were said to be affected by curses on evildoers as they fled from Jerusalem or from the face of the earth (Jer 9:10; Zep 1:3).<\/p>\nIn spite of such misfortune visited upon birds, Scripture affirms that, like other creatures, they are cared for and delighted in by God (Ps 50:11; Mt 6:26; 10:29). Both Pharaoh and Nebuchadnezzar were compared to a tree that gives shelter to the birds (Ez 31:6; Dn 4:12; cf. 2:38). Human power, however, fails eventually as when the tree representing Nebuchadnezzar was cut down, forcing the birds to flee (Dn 4:14). God’s protection, by contrast, is unfailing. Jesus likened the kingdom of God to a mustard seed, growing to become a shelter for birds (Mt 13:32). God provides a habitation for birds (Ps 104:12), although Jesus, the Son of Man, had nowhere to rest his head (Mt 8:20).<\/p>\nBirds were considered evidence of God’s handiwork (Jb 12:7). Bird lore provided examples of good sense in learning from a mistake (Prv 1:17; 6:5) and of bad judgment in failing to avoid the snares of immorality (7:23). Birds and other creatures could be tamed, unlike the wicked human tongue (Jas 3:7). Birds flying without alighting were an image of an undeserved curse (Prv 26:2). Without trust in God, people might be forced by evil to flee like a bird to the mountains (Ps 11:1). Birdsong was said to bring joy (Sg 2:12). The return of God’s people to the Promised Land would be like birds returning (Hos 11:11). Jesus expressed his love for Jerusalem by saying that he longed to gather his people to himself as a hen gathers her brood under her wing (Mt 23:37).<\/p>\nFinally, birds were occasionally regarded as ominous signs. For example, Pharaoh’s baker learned of impending death because in a dream birds ate the food from a basket on his head (Gn 40:17). Solomon warned against cursing the king, even in private, because “a little bird may tell them what you said” (Eccl 10:20). A vivid biblical image is that of scavenging, carrion-eating birds consuming the bodies of evildoers. To the Israelites, such a desecration of humanity was an image of ultimate horror (Dt 28:26; 1 Sm 17:44; Is 46:11; Jer 7:33; 12:9; Ez 29:5; 39:4; Rv 19:17, 21).<\/p>\nIndividual Species<\/p>\nBittern<\/p>\nLong-legged wading bird (Botaurus stellaris)<\/em> similar to the heron, but with shorter legs and a smaller, more compact body. Bitterns inhabit marshes, where it is easy for them to hide with their natural camouflage. A bittern’s mottled plumage of barred brown and black so duplicates the color and shape of swamp vegetation that at times the bird seems to disappear before the observer’s eyes. The neck is covered with long, soft feathers, making it appear disproportionately heavy. Bitterns are wary and solitary. During mating season the bittern’s larynx is modified to produce a mysterious-sounding cry. The body twists in an unusual manner in harmony with the notes. Bitterns nest alone in grassy marshes. Because they are shy, they have become symbols of places of desolation and loneliness.<\/p>\nThere is some question as to whether the bittern is actually mentioned in the Bible. The kjv<\/span> has “bittern” in three places (Is 14:23; 34:11; Zep 2:14). Many biblical scholars believe the Hebrew word in those verses refers not to the bittern but to the hedgehog (Is 14:23; Zep 2:14, rsv<\/span>) or porcupine (Is 34:11, rsv<\/span>). The Hebrew word is similar to an Arabic word meaning “porcupine.” Other scholars point out that the references suggest a bird rather than a mammal, especially Zephaniah 2:14, which speaks of the creature making its “lodge in her capitals” (i.e., above Nineveh’s doorposts). Bitterns are particularly abundant in the swamps of the Tigris River (near Nineveh). The bittern’s characteristics may fit the references in the three passages better than do the hedgehog’s.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Hedgehog; Animals (Porcupine).<\/p>\nBuzzard<\/p>\nHawklike soaring bird (Buteo vulgaris<\/em> or Buteo ferox).<\/em> It resembles the kite, though its tail is straight and not cleft. It is mentioned in the list of unclean birds (Dt 14:13). But other translations render the word as “glede” (kjv<\/span>) or “kite” (nasb<\/span>, neb<\/span>). The parallel list in Leviticus 11, however, substitutes “kite” (rsv<\/span>, nasb<\/span>, neb<\/span>) or “vulture” (kjv<\/span>) for “buzzard.” Thus, it is difficult to determine whether the buzzard is actually mentioned in the Bible, even though it is a common resident of Israel.<\/p>\nLike other great soaring birds, the buzzard is noted for its sharp eyesight, and may be the bird mentioned for that quality in Job 28:7 (variously translated “falcon,” “eagle,” or “vulture”). It will trail its prey for hours, and has a remarkable ability to see a carcass on which it descends to feed. Somewhat larger than the common buzzard is the long-legged buzzard, found in Israel, western Asia, and Syria.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Kestrel; Kite; Vulture (below).<\/p>\nCormorant<\/p>\nLarge, black gooselike bird (Phalacrocorax carbo),<\/em> repeatedly depicted in art from Egypt and the Holy Land. Its length varies from 19 to 40 inches (48.3 to 101.6 centimeters). Its feet have webs between all four toes. The feet, attached far back on the body, serve as propellers when the cormorant dives to catch its meal of fish, crustacea, or amphibia. The long bill is curved at the tip, and under the bill is a sac in which the cormorant keeps the captured fish.<\/p>\nCormorants live in large companies, making nests of sticks and other vegetation that they carry to trees or to rocky shelves near coasts. Up to four eggs are incubated, and the young are fed by both parents.<\/p>\nThe cormorant frequents swamps around the Sea of Galilee, Lake Huleh (the waters of Merom), and the Mediterranean coast. Its Hebrew name originally denoted the “hurling down” of the bird at its prey. Cormorants dive into deep water and sometimes seem to zoom beneath the surface in their hunt for fish. The cormorant’s greed is proverbial. It was ceremonially unclean for the Israelites (Lv 11:17; Dt 14:17).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Pelican (below).<\/p>\nCrane<\/p>\nTall wading birds (Grus grus)<\/em> resembling storks and herons but with shorter talons. The plumage has a silvery gloss and the tail feathers are wavy. Large flocks of cranes flying in wedge-shaped formations pass over the Holy Land during the daylight hours each fall on their way to Africa from the northern countries of Europe and again in the spring when they return north to breed. Migratory flocks may number as many as 2,000 birds. Jeremiah 8:7 refers to the crane’s migratory habits.<\/p>\nThe usual call of the crane is best described as a bellow, but during migratory flight they emit a chattering sound that may be referred to in Isaiah 38:14. Cranes have remarkably powerful voices, their calls seeming to carry for miles. Migrating flocks usually have a flock leader who does the calling.<\/p>\nA crane’s height may reach 40 to 60 inches (101.6 to 152.4 centimeters). Except for the ostrich, the crane is the tallest bird ever to inhabit the Holy Land. A crane’s wingspread may exceed 90 inches (228.6 centimeters). The overall color is steel gray; the head and neck are black with a longitudinal white stripe. The crane feeds on land rather than in shallow water. It feeds primarily on grass and grain yet may devour insects, snakes, small alligators, frogs, and worms, using its long, powerful bill as a sharp hammer for killing such creatures.<\/p>\nThe crane usually nests in solitary places, often in shallow water or nearby. Its nest is a mass of vegetation, holding two or three eggs that are light-colored with darker spots.<\/p>\nCuckoo<\/p>\nSmall, drab brown bird known for its parasitic habits. The term the kjv<\/span> used in Leviticus 11:16 and Deuteronomy 14:15 may refer either to the common cuckoo (Cuculus canorus)<\/em> or to the great spotted cuckoo (Clamator glandarius).<\/em> The bird acts as a brood parasite, laying its eggs in the nest of another species after pushing out one of the eggs of the host species. The young cuckoo hatches before the young of the host species and evicts the other young. The foster parents raise it as their own.<\/p>\nThe cuckoo, an insect eater, is considered ritually unclean in Scripture, which might imply that it is a predator or carrion-eater. For that reason some believe the Hebrew word actually refers to the seagull or sea mew rather than the cuckoo. Gulls, terns, and petrels are all common on the seashore and lakes of the Holy Land.<\/p>\nOther scholars believe that the Hebrew word refers not to the cuckoo but to one of the owls, possibly the long-eared owl.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Owl; Seagull (below).<\/p>\nEagle<\/p>\nLarge bird of prey, genus Aquila.<\/em> Vultures were often confused with eagles, making identification of the biblical birds difficult. Eagles’ heads are not bald as are the heads of vultures, but from a distance they appear similar. It is possible that the Hebrew word translated “eagle” (which literally means “to tear with the beak”) may have referred to all large birds of prey, eagles and vultures alike. A number of references to the eagle in Scripture are actually references to the griffon vulture (e.g., Hos 8:1; perhaps Mt 24:28). In certain passages, however, the true eagle may be meant.<\/p>\nThe Holy Land has several varieties of eagle, including the imperial eagle (Aquila heliaca)<\/em> and the less common golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos).<\/em> These birds are powerfully built with strong wings; their movements reveal suppleness and strength. A distinctive hooked beak, which enhances the eagle’s dignified and somewhat ferocious appearance, provides it with an effective instrument for tearing and killing prey. Short, powerful legs and prehensile claws enable an eagle to apply an almost unbreakable grip on a struggling victim. The strong talons have sharp points and edges. The eagle hunts by day.<\/p>\nFor Jeremiah and other prophets, the eagle was the epitome of swiftness. The golden eagle, which can fly three or four miles (5–7 kilometers) in ten minutes, may have evoked the comparisons in 2 Samuel 1:23;Jeremiah 4:13; 49:22; Lamentations 4:19 (kjv<\/span>), and Habakkuk 1:8. Moses used a similar comparison to emphasize the sudden striking power of a hostile enemy (Dt 28:49). The author of Proverbs, observing the high altitude to which the eagle soars, applied that image to the human situation (Prv 23:4-5; cf. Rv 12:14).<\/p>\nThe eagle’s strength and invincibility were mentioned often with reference to powerful nations attacking Israel. The prophet Ezekiel described Nebuchadnezzar as an eagle (Ez 17:3). Both the Babylonians and Assyrians frequently depicted the eagle in their art, especially as a deity with a man’s body and an eagle’s head. Nebuchadnezzar even had an experience of temporary insanity in which “his hair grew as long as eagles’ feathers, and his nails were like birds’ claws” (Dn 4:33, rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\nThe eagle builds its nest on inaccessible mountain peaks or at the top of the tallest trees, a fact noted by Jeremiah (Jer 49:16; cf. Jb 39:27-28; Ob 1:4). The brood consists of two or occasionally three eggs. Only the female sits on the nest, but the young eaglets are fed by both parents. Eagles are devoted to their offspring and train them with great care in the art of flying. Some commentators interpret Exodus 19:4 and Deuteronomy 32:11 as evidence of the eagle’s practice of catching its young on its wings. There is virtually no evidence from observation, however, that any eagle can perform such a feat. In some versions the wording avoids a direct statement that eagles bear their young on their wings.<\/p>\nSome eagles in captivity have lived to an age of over 100 years. This remarkable longevity caused the psalmist to speak of the eagle whose youth is renewed (Ps 103:5). Confronted by its impressive qualities, biblical authors observed the eagle with awe and wonder (Jb 39:27-30; Prv 30:18-19). Those awesome qualities also contributed to several prophetic visions, including Ezekiel’s vision of a creature with an eagle’s face (Ez 1:10) and the apostle John’s vision of a holy beast like a flying eagle (Rv 4:7).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Vulture (below).<\/p>\nFowl, Domestic<\/p>\nDomesticated poultry (Gallus gallus domesticus),<\/em> probably derived from the red jungle fowl of India. They seem to have been known already in OT times (Prv 30:31). A seal of Jaazaniah (see 2 Kgs 25:23), dating from about 600 BC<\/span>, bears the image of a fighting cock. A reference to fowls or poultry for Nehemiah’s table, however, may be to wild game rather than domestic fowl (Neh 5:18).<\/p>\nPoultry symbolized fertility, and the Jews carried a cock and hen in front of bridal couples at weddings. The motherly concern of hens gathering their broods was familiar to Jesus’ hearers (Mt 23:37; Lk 13:34).<\/p>\nSince roosters habitually crow an hour or two before dawn, the third watch of the night, from midnight to 3:00 am<\/span>, was known as the cockcrow. According to the Talmud (a commentary on Jewish law), keeping chickens was prohibited in Jerusalem in NT times to prevent the insects and larvae that breed in chicken droppings from contaminating sacrificial flesh. For that reason the cock that Peter heard (Mt 26:34, 74; Lk 22:34, 60-61) probably belonged to Romans living there or to Jews who did not follow Jewish regulations.<\/p>\nGoatsucker or Night Hawk<\/p>\nMigratory bird, dark in color and short-legged, similar to the American whippoorwill. The goatsucker (genus Caprimulgus<\/em>) resembles an owl with a flat head, large eyes, soft plumage, and a noiseless flight. It hunts insects at night, catches them on the wing, and during the day rests on branches. Goatsuckers were so named because they were thought by the ancients to milk goats. According to Leviticus 11:16 and Deuteronomy 14:15, they were ritually unclean. Although some scholars believe that an owl is intended, there seems to be good reason to accept the “night hawk” translation.<\/p>\nGoose<\/p>\nLong-necked, web-footed water birds with waterproof feathers (genus Anser<\/em>). Domestic geese were known to the Greeks of Homer’s day, since they are mentioned in the Odyssey.<\/em> They were domesticated in Egypt perhaps as early as the Old Kingdom (c. 2500 BC<\/span>) and certainly by the time of the New Kingdom (c. 1500– 1100 BC<\/span>). They were used for food and sacrifice. The breeding of geese was widespread in Canaan in biblical times; ivory carvings of the 13th or 12th century BC<\/span> showing geese have been found in excavations at Megiddo in Israel.<\/p>\nMany species of geese spend most of their lives on land even though they are waterfowl; some even build their nests in trees. Wild geese tend to inhabit flatlands and prairies rather than mountainous terrain.<\/p>\nGeese may have graced the table of King Solomon. In 1 Kings 4:23 they are referred to as “fatted fowl,” a term that may also refer to ducks, swans, guineas, pigeons, or other domestic edible birds.<\/p>\nHawk<\/p>\nSmall birds of prey found in the Holy Land. Most references are probably to the sparrow hawk (Accipter nisus).<\/em> This bird is slightly larger than the kestrel, has a grayish-brown back and a white belly with black and brown bars. It has short feathers, long, curved talons, and broad wings, rounded at the outer ends, which enable it to soar on updrafts. The long tail, acting as a rudder, helps the bird change its course swiftly in flight. It is hence very maneuverable in the air when chasing warblers or other small birds. It does not seize its prey on the ground, as does the kestrel, but hunts and attacks small birds in flight. Hawks hunt in the daytime, unlike owls that are adapted for nighttime hunting. With their eyes located on the side of the head, hawks are very keen-sighted. They usually nest in tall trees and their nests are often occupied by the same pair year after year.<\/p>\nThe Egyptians embalmed sparrow hawks and regarded all hawks highly. The god Horus was depicted with the head of a hawk hawk was ceremonially unclean to the Israelites (Lv 11:16; Dt 14:15). It was not a permanent resident of Israel but stopped off as it migrated from north to south. Its southward migration is mentioned in Job 39:26. A reference in Isaiah 34:11 to “hawk” (“cormorant,” kjv<\/span>) is uncertain. See<\/em> Kestrel or Falcon; Kite (below).<\/p>\nHeron<\/p>\nWading bird (genus Ardea<\/em>) with a long, thin neck and long legs. It has a characteristic comblike growth on the inner side of the third toe.<\/p>\nHerons are generally white, blue, green, or gray. They nest together in rookeries, and both parents bring in food for the young. Herons feed on fish, small reptiles, and insects, gulping them down in one swallow. Adults and young migrate in the late fall to warm southern climates. The white heron attains a length of more than 3 feet (.9 meter), whereas the dwarf heron is only about 22 inches (55.9 centimeters) long.<\/p>\nAt least seven varieties of heron are reported in the Holy Land. The white ibis, or buff-backed heron (Buphus russatus<\/em>), was probably the most common species. The purple heron (Ardea purpureus)<\/em> is a summer breeder found in all parts of the Holy Land where there is standing water.<\/p>\nThe blue-gray heron (Ardea cinerea<\/em>) winters in southern Europe and North Africa, migrating to northern Europe in the early spring. In Israel it builds its winter nest near water, in swamps and along riverbanks, where it feeds on fish and frogs. It will stand patiently in the water for hours, and then suddenly its long, pointed beak darts down with lightning speed to catch its prey. Often the blue-gray heron builds its nest in a tall tree to which it may return year after year.<\/p>\nAccording to Leviticus 11:19 and Deuteronomy 14:18, the heron was ceremonially unclean to the Israelites. Some scholars believe those references are to the cormorant, but most scholars think they refer to one of the herons.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Cormorant (above).<\/p>\nHoopoe<\/p>\nOne of the Holy Land’s most beautiful birds (Upupa epops<\/em>). It has vividly colored plumage, a lovely crown-shaped crest that becomes erect when the bird is alarmed, and a long, slender curved bill. The pinkish-brown hoopoe is about 11 inches (27.9 centimeters) long, with black and white bands on its back, tail, and wings. Hoopoes are basically desert-dwelling birds.<\/p>\nThe name “hoopoe” is derived from the sound of the bird’s call. To emit the sound, the neck feathers are puffed up and the head snapped in the air. When on the ground, the bird hammers its beak into the earth.<\/p>\nThe hoopoe arrives in the Holy Land in February, breeds in the summer, and leaves in September. It was held in religious reverence by the Egyptians. It was listed as ritually unclean (Lv 11:19; Dt 14:18), probably because it searches for grubs and small insects in such unsanitary places as dunghills.<\/p>\nIbis<\/p>\nWading bird (Threskiornis aethiopica<\/em>) presently unknown in the Holy Land but possibly known there in biblical times. It was well known in ancient Egypt, where it was sacred to the god Thoth. Today it has practically vanished with the disappearance of swamps along the Nile.<\/p>\nThere is some question as to whether the ibis is meant in Leviticus 11:17, where it is classified as ceremonially unclean. The same Hebrew word in Deuteronomy 14:16 and Isaiah 34:11 is translated “great owl,” a translation preferred by most scholars.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Owl, Great (below).<\/p>\nKestrel or Falcon<\/p>\nSmall hawk (Falco tinnunculus<\/em>) about a foot (30.5 centimeters) long with brown, black, and yellow feathers on its breast. It was abundant in the Holy Land in villages and in the countryside, nesting on rooftops and among rocks. Like most hawks, the kestrel is able to hover and float in midair and then swoop down on its prey, seizing it with sharp, hooklike talons. It feeds largely on mice, small reptiles, and insects.<\/p>\nEmbalmed kestrels have been found in ancient Egyptian tombs. The Egyptians also embalmed the hunting kestrel (Falco cherug),<\/em> which can be tamed and trained to hunt rabbits and other small game. Falconry (hunting with hawks of various species) was well known among the ancients and is still practiced today. That the Assyrians were familiar with falconry is seen in the records of Ashurbanipal. Because the kestrel is a predator, it was ceremonially unclean (Lv 11:14). Some translations render the word as “kite” (Lv 11:14, kjv<\/span>; Dt 14:13, kjv<\/span>, rsv<\/span>), an illustration of the difficulty of identifying biblical birds precisely.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Kite or Glede (below).<\/p>\nKite or Glede<\/p>\nLarge bird of prey (Milvus milvus).<\/em> The average length of the kite is about 19 inches (48.3 centimeters). The upper part is generally dark, but the belly is white. Kites nest high in trees and build nests of vegetation, including sticks. They rarely have more than two or three young, which they feed on snakes, grasshoppers, and so on. Sometimes kites are called snake hawks.<\/p>\nThe kite is a migratory bird that stays in Israel during the summer, especially in the mountains of southern Judea, in the trackless wastes west of the Dead Sea, and in the wilderness of Beersheba.<\/p>\nThe red kite or glede is a medium-sized bird of prey. The edges of the upper part of the bill overlap with the lower one, forming sharp scissors. The tail is forked or cleft like that of a fish. Its loud cry often includes sharp whistling notes. Other Holy Land species include the black kite (Milvus migrans)<\/em> and the black-winged kite (Elanus caeruleus).<\/em><\/p>\nThe kite is listed among the unclean birds in Mosaic law (Lv 11:14; Dt 14:13), but the precise identification of the birds mentioned there is disputed by some scholars and translators.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Buzzard; Kestrel or Falcon (above).<\/p>\n\nLammergeier<\/p>\nLargest of the vultures and less common than the other members of the family. It is grayish brown with white streaks and has a black tuft of stiff hairs in the facial area that gives it the name “bearded vulture.” Another name for it is “lamb vulture.”<\/p>\nThe lammergeier (Gypaetus barbatus)<\/em> has a unique way of killing its prey; since its beak is not particularly powerful it carries its victim high in the air and then drops it on rocks.<\/p>\nThe lammergeier is especially partial to tortoises and to marrow bone. After jackals and smaller vultures have reduced a carcass to bone, the lammergeier crushes the bones to obtain the marrow, or swallows the pieces intact. Hence it is also known as the ossifrage, from a Latin word meaning “bone crusher.” The lammergeier was unclean in Mosaic law (Lv 11:13; Dt 14:13; both translated “vulture” in nlt<\/span> and “ossifrage” in kjv<\/span>).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Vulture (below).<\/p>\nOstrich<\/p>\nTwo-toed, swift-running, flightless bird (Struthio camelus<\/em>) that lives in deserts or in areas covered with stunted bushes.<\/p>\nIn biblical times ostriches ranged as far north as Syria and were found over the entire wasteland of the Negev Desert, but they have since become extinct there. Its Hebrew name means “daughter of the desert.” It is the largest of all living birds, attaining a height of about 10 feet (3 meters) and a weight of 175 pounds (79.5 kilograms), though some males may weigh as much as 300 pounds (136.4 kilograms). The female is considerably smaller. Powerful thighs and long legs give the ostrich great speed, reported to be as high as 40 mph<\/span> (64 kph<\/span>).<\/p>\nThe ostrich is omnivorous. It eats grass, fruits, small mammals, birds, snakes, and lizards, as well as large pebbles that assist in the breakdown of food in its gizzard. The ostrich is hunted, but its eggs are generally more sought after than the bird itself. The empty shells are traded throughout the Mediterranean area for use as utensils, or when broken up as raw material for beads. The eggs—as many as 25 in one clutch—are laid in a shallow nest of sand, with some left uncovered. They may appear to be neglected by day, but only because they are ordinarily incubated at night. The cock does most of the incubating; the female participates only during cold days. The strong, thick eggshell protects the embryo from the heat of the desert.<\/p>\nOccasionally the ostrich is used for riding or even for pulling small carts. Ostrich feathers are in great demand. Ostrich plumes graced ancient royal courts as fans. An ivory-handled fan of Pharaoh Tutankhamen (King Tut) had lovely ostrich plumes. The plumes are white in the male and brownish gray in the female. The reputation of the ostrich for stupidity comes from its behavior when hunted and cornered; it fails to take evasive action even when doing so would save it. In open country, however, it is very wary and runs at great speed to escape. In contrast to the partridge, an ostrich will run away from its eggs and chicks when pursued.<\/p>\nMost biblical references to ostriches emphasize their negative characteristics. They were regarded as unclean in Jewish law (Lv 11:16; Dt 14:15). Several references associate ostriches with images of wilderness and desolation (Jb 30:29; Is 13:21; 34:13; 43:20; Jer 50:39). Their night cry, which has been compared to an ox’s lowing in pain, is referred to in Micah 1:8. Biblical writers also noted the apparent indifference of the ostrich to its brood (Jb 39:13-18; Lam 4:3).<\/p>\nOwl<\/p>\nNocturnal birds (order Strigiformes) with large heads and large, forward-looking eyes. Their wing and tail feathers are soft as velvet, helping to make their flight noiseless. The owl’s body is small and slender, about the size of a pigeon, but it appears bulky because of the thick covering of feathers. Owls have been considered bearers of misfortune and omens of disaster. In the Near East, owls now live in temple ruins and pyramids in Egypt, and in rock-hewn graves, ruins, and caves on both sides of the Jordan River in Israel. They seldom come near inhabited dwellings.<\/p>\nOwls have excellent night vision, which they use to capture rodents or other animals. Although unusually large, the owl’s eyes are almost useless in the daylight because the light dazzles them. The owl is able to swallow its prey whole because of its elastic esophagus. Indigestible hair and bones are regurgitated as pellets. The bill is short but sharply hooked.<\/p>\nOwls may lay up to ten eggs. The young are cared for on the nest by both parents. Both adults and young tend to remain in the area in which they were hatched. Eight species of owls are found in the Holy Land, of which five are plentiful. It is difficult, however, to identify a particular species with any of the four Hebrew words translated “owl” in Scripture. A fifth word translated “owl” (kjv<\/span>) is more appropriately identified with the ostrich (rsv<\/span>). Owls appear in the lists of unclean birds (Lv 11:17; Dt 14:16), and although translations differ, they concur that all species of owls, being predators, are unclean.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Ostrich (above); Owl, Barn or White; Owl, Great; Owl, Little; Owl, Scops (below).<\/p>\nOwl, Barn or White<\/p>\nLarge owl (Tyto alloa)<\/em> with a distinct heart-shaped face. It may get its Hebrew name from a snoring sound it makes when breathing in the nest. In flight it emits a frightening screech, and thus is sometimes referred to as the screech owl. Its somewhat sinister features—a large head and wide pop eyes—have led some people to consider it demonic, but they have also inspired another name, the monkey-faced owl. It is a useful bird, however, devouring rodents that raid fields and damage stored grain. Like other owls, it sleeps during the day and hunts at night with a well-developed sense of hearing and sight. Its color is light brownish yellow with a white mask around the eyes and cheeks. The whole leg is covered with feathers that protect it against the bites of struggling victims in its talons.<\/p>\nSome modern translations mention the barn or white owl by name (Lv 11:17, njb<\/span>; 11:18, nasb<\/span>; Dt 14:16, njb<\/span>, nasb<\/span>).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Owl (above), Owl, Scops (below).<\/p>\nOwl, Great<\/p>\nLarge owl, standing nearly two feet (60.9 centimeters) tall (Asio otus).<\/em> The color is mouse gray with gray-brown spots and black stripes. As one of its names indicates, it has tufted “ears” and is sometimes called the great horned owl. It feeds on rodents, such as rats and mice. It winters in Israel among ruins and in groves.<\/p>\nThe great owl may be the owl mentioned in the Bible among the birds of desolation that will inhabit devastated Edom (Is 34:11, nasb<\/span> mg). It is also mentioned by name in some translations of the lists of ritually unclean birds (Lv 11:17, kjv<\/span>, nasb<\/span>; Dt 14:16, kjv<\/span>, nasb<\/span>, rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\nOwl, Little<\/p>\nSmallest of all nocturnal birds of prey. Chiefly insectivorous, the little owl (Athene noctua glaux)<\/em> also feeds at times on tiny birds. It is the most common owl in the Holy Land, dwelling among ruins, tombstones, rocks, and thickets (perhaps the owl of Ps 102:6). Its voice sounds like that of a dying person. On occasion it may be observed perched on a rock with its large eyes gazing off into the distance, a pose that the ancients considered a sign of wisdom. The Greeks associated the little owl with the goddess Athena. It is mentioned by name in several translations (Lv 11:17, kjv<\/span>, nasb<\/span>; Dt 14:16, kjv<\/span>, nasb<\/span>, rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Owl (above).<\/p>\nOwl, Scops<\/p>\nSmall owl (Otus scops)<\/em> distinguished by two horn-shaped crests of hairlike feathers on its head. It perches in an inclined posture and hops and dances like a goat. During the hatching period, the male’s hooting sounds like a moan. The scops owl feeds on insects, rodents, and birds. During invasions of mice or locusts, these owls have appeared in large flocks and helped to destroy the pests. They have been known to attack humans who intrude on their nests. They are well-known inhabitants of Eurasia and Africa.<\/p>\nSome scholars suggest that the scops is the true screech owl, because of its whistling calls that resound through the night. The screech owl is mentioned only once in Scripture (Is 34:14, kjv<\/span>), but that translation is the subject of scholarly debate. Following traditional Jewish mythology, some translations use the Hebrew word (<\/em>lilith<\/span>)<\/em> as a proper name. In Jewish tradition Lilith was a witch-demon who, before Eve’s creation, was Adam’s wife. She became the mother of demons and was thought to attack children during the night; thus the name “Lilith” is translated “night hag” (rsv<\/span>) or “night monster” (nasb<\/span>). Most scholars favoring the mythical interpretation, however, suggest that Isaiah was using a popular legend to evoke a sense of desolation and did not himself believe in the existence of Lilith. There is little support for “screech owl” as an appropriate translation of the name.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Owl; Owl, Barn or White (above).<\/p>\nPartridge<\/p>\nMost common game bird in the Holy Land. The partridge resembles a chicken in its basic anatomy but has a less chunky body and a longer tail. Two species of partridge inhabit the Holy Land: the sand partridge (Ammoperdix heyi),<\/em> found near the Dead Sea, in the Jordan River valley, and in the Sinai Desert; and the chukar partridge (Alectoris graeca).<\/em> The sand partridge is a medium-sized bird with yellow feet. The male has sandy-buff plumage, upper tail feathers penciled and barred with brown, and a chestnut and white undersurface. The female is a grayish buff. The chukar partridge resembles the common French partridge of Europe, having a body about 16 inches (40.6 centimeters) long. It is covered with beautiful and radiantly colored feathers.<\/p>\nThe biblical reference (1 Sm 26:20; probably the sand partridge because of the geographical context) alludes to the common method of catching it by chasing. It was also hunted with snares (cf. Ps 91:3) or by hunters hiding in a blind. The fast-running partridge soon becomes exhausted, which enables hunters to run it to the ground and kill it. Nevertheless, by running and jumping, it can ascend very steep cliffs. The bird finds refuge among bushes into which its brownish-green feathers blend protectively. If it were not such a prolific breeder, it would probably have become extinct by being hunted for food.<\/p>\nThe biblical description of the partridge gathering a brood she did not hatch (Jer 17:11) seems to be based on the fact that the hen lays at least two clutches of eggs, one for herself and one for the cock to incubate.<\/p>\n\nPeacock<\/p>\nMember of the quail, partridge, and pheasant family, the peacock (Pavo cristatus)<\/em> is actually the male peafowl. Its mate is properly known as the peahen. The male attracts attention because of a stately, luxurious appearance enhanced by magnificent feathers. The breast is a brilliant metallic blue, and each tail feather has a brilliant eye near the tip. When lowered, the unusually long tail feathers form a train behind the peacock on the ground, giving it an overall length of up to six feet (1.8 meters). The train can also be raised to form a huge fan adorned with the multicolored eyes. During courtship the feathers are raised and vibrated to make a distinct rustling noise. The rather drab peahen lacks the long train.<\/p>\nBecause it is not native to the Holy Land, the peacocks referred to in 1 Kings 10:22 and 2 Chronicles 9:21 are thought by some scholars to be Old World monkeys or baboons brought from east Africa, or guinea hens from the upper Nile River region. There is evidence, however, that the Phoenicians introduced peacocks to the Egyptian pharaoh, perhaps as early as the time of King Solomon. It is possible that Solomon’s trade expeditions ranged as far as India, where the peacock is native. The peacock was also well known to the Greeks and Romans. Alexander the Great prized its beauty and forbade his soldiers to kill the bird.<\/p>\nIn the early Christian church the peacock became a symbol of the immortality promised in the resurrection of Christ. In addition, the eyes of its tail came to represent the all-seeing eye of God.<\/p>\nPelican<\/p>\nLargest of all aquatic birds, considerably larger even than the swan. The pelican (Pelecanus onocrotalus)<\/em> is generally about 50 inches (127 centimeters) long with a 16-inch (40.6-centimeters) beak, the upper part of which is hooked downward at the end, facilitating fish catching. The lower part of the bill supports a yellow pouch extending down the throat. The pouch may hold up to three gallons (11.4 liters) of food (small fish) and water. The pelican’s webbed feet are peculiar in having webs between all four toes. Pelicans are expert swimmers as well as efficient fliers. The pelican’s massive body, long neck, and comparatively small head give it proportions that make rising from the water difficult. To take off, a pelican must first flap awkwardly along the surface, pounding at the water with its legs.<\/p>\nPelicans fly and nest in groups. Both sexes care for the young that hatch from the one to four eggs. Whereas most birds feed their young by placing food into their mouths, the pelican reverses the process; the young pelican sticks its head and most of its body into its mother’s throat and plucks partially digested food from the mother’s crop. The deep penetration of the young’s beak into the mother’s gullet led ancients to believe that the young were feeding on the blood of the mother’s breast, thus giving rise to wide usage of the pelican as a symbol of Christ’s atonement, and of charity in general.<\/p>\nThe roseate pelican is white, at times with a faint rose tinge, and has black feathers growing from the wing joint farthest from the body. The legs, pouch, and skin around the eyes are yellow; the hook of the beak is red. This species may grow up to six feet (1.8 meters) long with a wingspread of up to eight feet (2.4 meters). During the breeding season, the coloration of the exposed areas of the roseate pelican’s legs and face changes from gray to bright orange or red. At the same time the white feathers acquire a beautiful pink tint originating from an oil-gland secretion. The oil is spread throughout the plumage by the bird as it preens.<\/p>\nSome scholars question whether “pelican” is an appropriate translation of the Hebrew in several verses, believing rather that the word refers to one of the owls, hawks, or vultures. Most translations include the pelican in the lists of ritually unclean birds (Lv 11:18; Dt 14:17). Opinion on the other references is more sharply divided. Some scholars maintain that the desert context of the verses eliminates the possibility of a water bird like the pelican (cf. Ps 102:6, “vulture,” rsv<\/span>; Is 34:11, “cormorant,” kjv<\/span>; “hawk,” rsv<\/span>; Zep 2:14, “cormorant,” kjv<\/span>; “vulture,” rsv<\/span>). On the other hand, the roseate pelican frequents the rivers, lakes, and marshes of the Holy Land. After flying out to sea as far as 20 miles (32.2 kilometers) to swoop down on fish near the surface, the pelican often returns inland to a deserted place to digest its enormous meal. Thus, the pelican may be the lonely wilderness bird of those passages.<\/p>\nPigeon or Dove<\/p>\nSpecies of the pigeon family (Columbidae). In common usage the names “pigeon” and “dove” are virtually interchangeable. The common domestic pigeon familiar to city dwellers the world over, for example, is actually a descendant of the wild rock dove. Both names are used in English translations of the Bible to translate the same Hebrew word. A second Hebrew word is usually translated “turtledove.” Nevertheless, it seems clear that the ancient Hebrews recognized differences among dove species.<\/p>\nAt least six species of pigeon or dove reside in modern Israel: the rock, ring, and stock doves (genus Columba<\/em>), and the turtle, collared, and palm doves (genus Streptopelia<\/em>). Of the six, the rock dove (Columba livia)<\/em> and the turtledove (Streptopelia turtur)<\/em> seem to be the two most often referred to in Scripture.<\/p>\nPigeons vary in size from 6 to over 12 inches (15 to 30 centimeters). The most colorful Israeli species is the rock dove, which can be a beautiful silvery gray with grayish-green iridescent plumage on the wings (noted by David, Ps 68:13). The smaller doves (Streptopelia)<\/em> are less colorful, mostly gray or buff with a blackish or checkered half collar on the back of the neck. Pigeons have short necks and small heads, plump bodies, and short wings controlled by strong muscles that enable them to fly considerable distances. The smaller doves have longer tails.<\/p>\nAt present, the wild rock dove is found primarily in the area around the Sea of Galilee and farther to the south in the many ravines leading down to the Dead Sea. Wild rock doves prefer to build their nests on rocks and cliff faces, a fact precisely described in Scripture (Sg 2:14; Jer 48:28). All Israeli doves build fragile nests of scraps of vegetation. Eggs are hatched twice a year. Doves seldom lay more than two eggs. The young are cared for in the nest by both parents, who rove over the fields eating seeds and weeds. The adult’s crop contains digested food in a milky condition, called pigeon’s milk, which can be regurgitated and fed to the young.<\/p>\nDuring courtship there is a great deal of rivalry among the male doves. The turtledove’s courtship dance is an awesome aerial display. The attention to courtship, the joint care of young, and the solicitude of the parents for each other, noted from earliest times, have made the dove one of the most popular symbols of love and peace (Sg 1:15; 2:14; 4:1; 5:2).<\/p>\nA major distinction between pigeons (ring doves) and turtledoves seems to have been recognized by ancient writers. Pigeons are year-round residents and easily tamed, whereas turtledoves are migratory. Turtledoves were confined in cages singly or in pairs as pets or for sacrifices. Pigeons were probably the first birds to be domesticated, perhaps as early as Noah’s time (Gn 8:8-12). They were depicted on the earliest Egyptian monuments, and their edibility was mentioned in early Egyptian texts. Before long, domestic pigeons were regarded as evidence of a household’s prosperity. In the more prosperous households they nested in dovecotes of molded pottery clay fashioned in latticelike structures (hence the “windows” of Is 60:8).<\/p>\nIn NT times there were many dovecotes in the parks around Herod the Great’s palace in Jerusalem. The dove’s popularity was due not only to its docility but also to its desirability as food and as an acceptable and relatively inexpensive sacrifice. The turtledove may have been regarded more highly as a sacrifice because of its wildness and consequent lesser availability. The two biblical references to turtledoves not in a sacrificial context refer to their migratory habits and to their arrival in Israel in the spring (Sg 2:12; Jer 8:7; cf. Hos 11:11).<\/p>\nMost of the references to doves and pigeons in the Bible are in statements about sacrificial procedures (Gn 15:7-10; Lv 1:14; 5:7; 12:6; Nm 6:10; Lk 2:24). Other references, however, include a range of observations and symbolic usages of the dove. Its throaty moaning was often observed (Is 38:14; 59:11; Ez 7:16; Na 2:7). Its power of flight was well known (Ps 55:6), as were its beauty (Sg 1:15; 4:1; 5:12), its gentleness and loyalty to its mate (Sg 2:14; 5:2; 6:9), its affection (Ps 74:19), and its innocence (Mt 10:16). The one negative reference to doves is in Hosea 7:11, where they are said to be senseless and foolish, perhaps in reference to their overly trusting nature.<\/p>\nOf NT references, perhaps the most significant is the description of the Holy Spirit at Christ’s baptism as a descending dove (Mt 3:16). The dove’s loving nature made it natural for early Christians to connect the dove image with the concept of the Comforter. Since then the dove has remained the most popular symbol of the Holy Spirit.<\/p>\n\nQuail<\/p>\nShort, stocky birds with bills and feet similar to those of chickens; hence they are adapted to eating seeds or insects. Quail (Coturnix coturnix)<\/em> are the smallest of the subfamily of poultry that also includes pheasants and partridges. Quail (or “quails,” another plural form) are about ten inches (25.4 centimeters) long and have small, rounded wings. They burst from their hiding places in the grass or bushes with a whirring sound. The belly of the quail is white. Up to 18 eggs are laid, and if the mother dies, the male has been known to assume the care of the young. Quail of the Mediterranean region winter in the Sudan and migrate northward in vast flocks in the spring. Quail cannot maintain a long sustained flight but make use of wind currents to keep them aloft.<\/p>\nEnormous flocks of quail twice served as food for the Israelites in the wilderness of Sinai, when the birds were driven down in the desert miraculously by winds (Ex 16:13; Nm 11:31-32; Ps 105:40). The second time they were probably flying along the Gulf of Aqaba and were blown off course by the east wind (Nm 11:31; Ps 78:26-28). Their inability to sustain long flight may account for their low flying level—two cubits, or about 40 inches (101.6 centimeters). When exhausted, they were easily caught by hand (Nm 11:31-32). Quail were considered clean and the most delicate eating of all game birds, and they were preserved by drying in the sun.<\/p>\nRaven<\/p>\nMember of the crow family (Corvidae). The Hebrew word for “raven” means “black one.” The raven (Corvus corax<\/em>) weighs about three pounds (1.36 kilograms) and varies from 22 to 26 inches (56 to 66 centimeters) in length. Its tail is broader in the middle than at either end. Eight species are found in Israel: three ravens, two jackdaws, one crow, one rook, and one chough. The crow, about 20 inches (50.8 centimeters) long, is smaller than a raven, and its tail is uniform in width. The raven’s most conspicuous feature is its glossy black iridescent plumage.<\/p>\nRavens and crows have survived in spite of the dislike many humans have for them. Excellent fliers, they migrate by day and congregate in great flocks of up to several hundred thousand. During the nesting season, they make nests of sticks in which two to seven eggs are laid. Ravens mate for life. Equipped with strong wings, a strong bill, and strong feet, ravens can live in isolated places from which they range widely for food. That it did not return to the ark was a good sign to Noah, indicating that the raven could find food and possibly a place to rest on dry mountaintops (Gn 8:7).<\/p>\nThe raven, essentially a scavenger, was ceremonially unclean (Lv 11:15; Dt 14:14). Yet ravens fed Elijah at God’s command (1 Kgs 17:4-6). Job was told that God gave the raven its food (Jb 38:41), as the psalmist and Jesus repeated (Ps 147:9; Lk 12:24). The raven’s glistening black plumage inspired the bride’s comparison of her beloved’s hair (Sg 5:11). They prefer desolate, uninhabited areas as their home territory (Is 34:11). Ravens are crafty, active birds. Some are capable of speaking, solving puzzles, and performing feats of memory. Bold and curious, they sometimes use their talents for theft.<\/p>\nSeagull<\/p>\nRobust seabirds, primarily scavengers (family Laridae). Several species of gulls live along the seacoast of the Holy Land. They are usually gray-backed with white heads and underparts and black wing tips. The slender bill ends in a downward curve.<\/p>\nSeagulls may be 8 to 30 inches (20 to 76 centimeters) long. Many species migrate, traveling long distances with their superb flying ability. Gulls can also swim easily because of their webbed feet. Their voice is like a harsh scream or squawk. In nesting season many nest together in any available place, such as a cliff or tree. Both male and female incubate and care for the young.<\/p>\nBecause gulls will eat almost anything, they are listed as ritually unclean birds (Lv 11:16; Dt 14:15, asv<\/span> has “sea mew,” a common European gull). Some commentators believe that those passages refer to an owl or to the cuckoo and not to the seagull.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Cuckoo (above).<\/p>\nSparrow<\/p>\nSmall bird of the finch family (Fringillidae) or the weaver finch family (Ploceidae), considered to be of little worth. The Hebrew word is a general term for “bird” and refers to any small bird such as a sparrow, finch, thrush, or starling. In translation, however, the word sometimes refers to the common English or house sparrow (Passer domestica;<\/em> Ps 84:3; Prv 26:2).<\/p>\nDull in color with a black throat, the male house sparrow is a noisy and energetic creature. The nest, when built in open places, has an opening on the side and is made of almost anything available. Sparrows also nest in sheltered places, in dwellings, boxes, or holes in trees. They lay four to seven eggs.<\/p>\nThe common or house sparrow was known in ancient Greece and Egypt. There it had a reputation for invading fields in large swarms and picking the seeds from them. It is a permanent resident of the Holy Land.<\/p>\nThe sparrow is prolific and lives in close association with humans. It was considered ritually clean. Sparrows brought low prices in countries where they were sold (Mt 10:29; Lk 12:6). Today in Near Eastern marketplaces, boys offer live sparrows for sale. Tied together in groups of four to six by strings attached to one leg, the birds fly about over the boys’ heads. Evidently such a sight was common in NT times.<\/p>\nStork<\/p>\nLong-legged, white wading bird (genus Ciconia<\/em>) having large, powerful wings with glossy black primary and secondary feathers. The flapping of its wings produces a loud rushing sound. Connecting membranes between the toes prevent the bird from sinking into the mud. Its red bill is sharp and long, serving to seize and lift its prey out of the water. Storks are mute, lacking a voice box.<\/p>\nFlocks of storks pass through the Holy Land during their September migration on the way to central and southern Africa and likewise in the spring on their return flight to their homes in northern Israel, Syria, and Europe. Storks travel in vast flocks during the day, spreading out against the sky.<\/p>\nThe stork’s faithful tending of the young is proverbial, as is its habit of returning annually to the same nesting place. Storks have the habit of adding to their nests each year, and it is possible to find nests that are 100 years old and have a height of more than three feet (.9 meter).<\/p>\nTwo species of storks frequent the Holy Land. The white stork (Ciconia alba)<\/em> is 40 inches (101.6 centimeters) tall, and its wingspread is six feet (1.8 meters), enabling it to move with a slow, sustained flight or to soar. In folklore the white stork is sometimes considered to be a harbinger of good fortune.<\/p>\nThe black stork (Ciconia nigra),<\/em> common around the Dead Sea valley, nests in trees; hence it may be the tree-dwelling species referred to in Psalm 104:17. The Hebrew name for “stork” means literally the “kingly one,” or the “loyal one,” a reference to the care of the bird for its young. Like the heron, the stork was ceremonially unclean because of its diet of aquatic organisms, refuse, small animals, birds, and reptiles (Lv 11:19; Dt 14:18). Jeremiah mentioned the stork’s uncanny and instinctive knowledge of the time of its migration (Jer 8:7). Its impressive wings figured in one of Zechariah’s visions (Zec 5:9).<\/p>\nSwallow<\/p>\nSmall, nearly black, forked-tailed bird with long, tapering wings, noted for its graceful flight (hirundo rustica).<\/em> The small, weak feet are poorly adapted for walking. Swallows resemble swifts in shape and life habits but are somewhat smaller.<\/p>\nThe swallow’s large mouth enables it to catch insects while in flight. Colors vary from brown and blue to white. Swallows often nest in buildings, a feature noticed by the psalmist, who reported a swallow’s home at the temple (Ps 84:3).<\/p>\nSwallows are basically resident in Israel, whereas the swift is a migratory bird noted for the regularity of its migratory schedule. The “swallow” of Isaiah 38:14 probably refers to a swift, as does Jeremiah 8:7, where the dependability of the bird is contrasted with the irregularity of God’s people. Proverbs 26:2 may be a reference to either the swallow or the swift.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Swift (below).<\/p>\nSwan<\/p>\nLarge, graceful water birds. Two species of swan (genus Cygnus<\/em>) are found in the Middle East as passing migrants (Cygnus olor<\/em> and Cygnus musicus).<\/em> Swans are known as the best musicians among the birds and were considered sacred to the god Apollo by the Greeks. Their voices sound like flutes and harps.<\/p>\nThe references in Leviticus 11:18 and Deuteronomy 14:16 (kjv<\/span>) are probably not to the swan but to the water hen or the barn owl, since there seems little reason to declare the vegetarian swan an unclean animal. See also<\/em> Owl, Barn or White (above); Water Hen (below).<\/p>\nSwift<\/p>\nSmall, strong flyers (genus Apus<\/em>). Like the swallow, the swift has long, bent wings and a cleft tail, enabling it to obtain great speed as it skims the ground and sweeps through the air. A swift devours a great many harmful insects, catching them in its mouth in flight. Many swifts make their nests in rooftops and in nooks and crannies of city walls. Their nests are built with strong feathers cemented together with saliva. Other swifts live in caves and clefts of rocks.<\/p>\nCommon swifts are native to Israel, and in the Jordan Valley they occur in large flocks. Isaiah 38:14 (niv<\/span>) seems to be clear reference to the swift’s plaintive call, since the swallow’s sharp chirp is not a striking simile for a distraught king’s cry. The swift has a soft, delicate voice, and its cry could be easily interpreted as melodious wailing.<\/p>\nThe migratory swifts arrive on a precise schedule in the Holy Land in late winter, and immense flocks fill the cities with their cries. Thus the reference in Jeremiah 8:7 to swallows, which are largely permanent residents, is probably to swifts.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Swallow (above).<\/p>\nVulture<\/p>\nSubfamily (Aegypiinae) of the hawk family (Accipitridae). Each of the four species of Old World vultures is found in the Holy Land: the Egyptian, griffon, black, and bearded vulture (the bearded vulture is also known as the lammergeier). These birds range in size from the 24-inch (61-centimeters) Egyptian vulture to the huge bearded vulture, largest of all flying birds in the Holy Land.<\/p>\nMost vultures are brown or black, having a short neck and a short, hooked bill with which they tear the dead animal flesh of which they are fond. All vultures, except the bearded, have bare or down-covered heads and necks, enabling these scavengers to penetrate deep into a carcass without spoiling the plumage. Excellent eyesight enables a vulture to locate a carcass from a lofty soaring position. Considering the decayed condition of most of its food, a vulture’s poor sense of smell may be a fortunate limitation. Vultures nest in any convenient place; both parents care for the young.<\/p>\nThe Hebrew word usually translated “eagle” in the OT may have been a general term for all large birds of prey, including vultures. Thus many of the passages about eagles may refer to either the eagle or the vulture (cf. Lv 11:13; Dt 14:12, nasb<\/span> mg). Such passages include references to nesting habits (Jb 39:27-28; Jer 49:16; Ob 1:4), care for fledglings (Dt 32:11), powers of flight (Ex 19:4; Dt 28:49; Jb 9:26; Lam 4:19), and extremely high soaring altitude (Prv 23:5; 30:19; Is 40:31). Despite variations among translations, the vulture clearly belongs in the list of unclean birds because of its foul diet (Lv 11:13, 18; Dt 14:12, 17).<\/p>\nSeveral references to the eagle in the kjv<\/span> have been changed to “vulture” in modern translations. The change seems appropriate in the references to the vulture as a sign of present or impending doom (Lam 4:19; Hos 8:1). Likewise the eye-plucking bird of Proverbs 30:17 is probably a vulture. The phrase “bald as the eagle” (Mi 1:16) clearly should read “bald as the vulture,” since there are no bald eagles in Israel and most vultures are bald. Since the vulture, like the eagle, was a symbol of sovereignty and domination in the ancient Near East, some gods were represented as vultures. Thus Ezekiel’s comparison of the kings of Babylon and Egypt to eagles may be conceived alternatively as comparisons to vultures (Ez 17:3, 7). Jesus’ reference to the eagles congregating around corpses at the end times (Mt 24:28) should also be revised to vultures, since eagles are usually solitary eaters, whereas vultures generally flock together around carrion.<\/p>\nSeveral kjv<\/span> references to vultures are usually translated “kite” or “falcon” in modern translations (cf. various versions of Lv 11:14; Dt 14:13; Jb 28:7; Is 34:15).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Eagle; Kestrel; Kite; Lammergeier; Vulture, Black, or Osprey; Vulture, Egyptian; Vulture, Griffon.<\/p>\nVulture, Black, or Osprey<\/p>\nDiurnal flesh eater, a little over three feet (.9 meter) long with a wingspread of over three yards (2.7 meters). The feathers of the black or osprey vulture (Aegypius monachus<\/em>) are black and the head and upper part of the neck are bald like those of other carrion eaters. It nests in the Jordan River valley and seems to have been abundant in biblical times. Today it is quite rare. The black vulture is probably the osprey of Leviticus 11:13 and Deuteronomy 14:12.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Vulture (above).<\/p>\n\nVulture, Egyptian<\/p>\nAlso known as the gier eagle or as pharaoh’s hen. The plumage of the Egyptian vulture (Neophron percnopterus<\/em>) is basically white with a naked head and yellow neck. The Egyptian vulture breaks bones left by other vultures. Its flight is slow and easy, and its voice is a croak. Measuring about 24 inches (61 centimeters) in length, it is the smallest of all the carrion-eating birds found in the Holy Land. It may be referred to in the list of unclean birds (Lv 11:18; Dt 14:17, “gier eagle,” kjv<\/span>; “carrion vulture,” rsv<\/span>, nasb<\/span>, nlt<\/span>). See<\/em> Vulture (above).<\/p>\nVulture, Griffon<\/p>\nOne of the largest flying birds in the Holy Land (Gyps fulvus).<\/em> Until a generation ago, the griffon vulture was one of the most common birds in the Holy Land. Today it is on the verge of extinction. Many have been killed by eating poisonous bait meant for foxes and jackals. In addition, its reproduction is limited; the female lays only one or two eggs a year.<\/p>\nThe griffon vulture measures about four feet (121.9 centimeters) in length and up to ten feet (3 meters) between wing tips. Its beak is extremely strong, and its short toes are fitted with blunt talons. It is a light-brown bird with a pale yellow head and neck that are almost bare, being covered only with a very fine down.<\/p>\nThe griffon vulture feeds mostly on carrion, but also on locusts and small tortoises. It is able to go without food for several days with no ill effects, but when it does break its fast, it gorges itself. It is found especially in the region of the Sea of Galilee. Most biblical references to the vulture are likely to be to the griffon vulture.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Eagle; Vulture (above).<\/p>\nWater Hen<\/p>\nSmall water bird of the rail family. The water hen listed among unclean birds (Lv 11:18; Dt 14:16, rsv<\/span> only) may be the biblical bird most difficult to identify. Several alternatives have been suggested, including the swan (kjv<\/span>), one of the owls (nasb<\/span>, neb<\/span>), or the marsh hen (tlb<\/span>). Most scholars rule out the swan, since it is a vegetarian bird and thus should not be considered unclean. An owl remains a possibility.<\/p>\nThe marsh hen is a rail, several species of which inhabit Israel. One of those species is the purple gallinule (Porphyrio porphyrio).<\/em> Rails are very thin birds varying from 6 to 20 inches (15 to 51 centimeters) in length. They live in marshes, where they eat a great variety of animal and vegetable matter, thus making them a candidate for inclusion in the Mosaic lists of unclean animals.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Animals.<\/p>","summary_ro":"BIRDS Feathered vertebrates of the class Aves. Over 8,000 species of birds are known. Approximately 400 species are found in the Holy Land and about 40 are mentioned in Scripture. Modern scientists classify organisms on the basis of internal and external structure, but the biblical writers generally classified organisms according to habitat. Thus, in the Bible, bats are listed with birds as creatures of the air (Lv 11:19; Dt 14:18). Precise identification of biblical birds is often difficult ...","summary_en":"BIRDS Feathered vertebrates of the class Aves. Over 8,000 species of birds are known. Approximately 400 species are found in the Holy Land and about 40 are mentioned in Scripture. Modern scientists classify organisms on the basis of internal and external structure, but the biblical writers generally classified organisms according to habitat. Thus, in the Bible, bats are listed with birds as creatures of the air (Lv 11:19; Dt 14:18). Precise identification of biblical birds is often difficult ...","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"34":[{"id":9391,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Desert","title_en":"Desert","content_ro":"<h3>DESERT<\/h3>\n\nEmpty waste place, often arid, sandy, and incapable of sustaining vegetable life, as for example the Negev of southern Palestine. A desert frequently includes local areas where marginal life is possible. The most common Hebrew term for desert means “wilderness” and is perhaps related to a verb meaning “to drive,” as a shepherd drives sheep to pasturage. The Greek word commonly used in the NT and in the Septuagint (ancient Greek translation of the OT) implies an unenclosed, uncultivated area where wild beasts roam (Dt 32:10; Jb 24:5). The wilderness is also sometimes a place of pasturage (Ex 3:1; Ps 65:12; Jer 23:10; Jl 2:22).<\/p>\nThe Bible often refers to wilderness regions (e.g., Gn 16:7; 21:20; 1 Sm 17:28; Mt 3:1; Mk 1:13; Lk 15:4). “Wilderness” is usually a place with no settled population (Nm 14:33; Dt 32:10; Jb 38:26; Prv 21:19; Jer 9:2) but is the dwelling place of wildlife: the vulture (Ps 102:6), wild asses (Jb 24:5), jackals (Mal 1:3), and ostriches (Lam 4:3). The term is also used figuratively (Hos 2:3; Jer 2:31).<\/p>\nAnother Hebrew term for desert, from a root meaning “to be arid,” refers to an infertile, desolate, bare steppe (Jb 24:5; Is 33:9; Jer 51:43). The plural form of that word describes topographical features of the desert plains of Moab (Nm 22:1; 26:3, 63; Dt 34:1) and of Jericho (Jos 4:13; 5:10; 2 Kgs 25:5). With the definite article, that word (the Arabah) is the plain of the Jordan Valley and of the environs of the Dead Sea. The geography of that region contains sharp contrasts; the Jordan Valley, dense with a junglelike forest sheltering wild beasts (including lions in biblical times), gives way to the steppe lands of the Dead Sea area, which have always been desert.<\/p>\nTwo other Hebrew terms, meaning “waste” and “ruin,” refer to districts or settlements once inhabited but later devastated (Is 1:7; 5:9; 6:11; Jer 42:18; Ez 35:7). They are also used more generally for any desolate or waste place (Lv 26:31, 33; Jb 3:14; Pss 9:6; 109:10; Is 5:17; 44:26; 51:3; 52:9; Jer 7:34; Ez 5:14). One of them is also used once for the wilderness of the exodus (Is 48:21). Another word meaning “waste” (Ps 78:40; Is 43:19-20), when prefixed with the definite article, is a proper name for Jeshimon, a tract of land west of the Dead Sea (Nm 21:20; 1 Sm 23:24; 26:1).<\/p>\nIn the NT the noun for “wilderness” and the adjective “desert” (Mt 3:1; 24:26; Lk 5:16; Jn 6:31; Acts 8:26) come from the same Greek root.<\/p>\nThe whole of biblical history has been interpreted as having a desert or wilderness motif. It can be seen in the realm of disobedient human experience outside the Garden of Eden; in the wandering of Israel during the exodus; in the struggle between pure faith in the desert and soft, idolatrous city life. The desert is viewed as a realm of demons and death (Dt 32:17; Is 34:13-14); its demonic wildness resembles the primeval chaos of the Creation (Gn 1:2; Jb 26:7). Several moving passages of Scripture deal with renewal of life in a desert valley (e.g., Ez 37), or with transformation of arid land into a productive garden (Is 41:18-20).<\/p>\nThe desert is also a place where God is close to his people (Dt 32:10-12), both watching over them and testing their obedience (Jer 2:2; Hos 2:14-15). Finally, the desert is a place of refuge, cleansing, and consecration. In the Gospels the desert theme of the exodus recurs in the 40 days and nights in which Jesus was tempted in the wilderness (Mk 1:13; cf. Ps 91). The desert fathers of the early church and the hermits of the Middle Ages emulated the prophet Elijah and John the Baptist (1 Kgs 19:4-8; Mt 3:1-6).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Negeb, Negev; Palestine; Wilderness.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>DESERT<\/h3>\n\nEmpty waste place, often arid, sandy, and incapable of sustaining vegetable life, as for example the Negev of southern Palestine. A desert frequently includes local areas where marginal life is possible. The most common Hebrew term for desert means “wilderness” and is perhaps related to a verb meaning “to drive,” as a shepherd drives sheep to pasturage. The Greek word commonly used in the NT and in the Septuagint (ancient Greek translation of the OT) implies an unenclosed, uncultivated area where wild beasts roam (Dt 32:10; Jb 24:5). The wilderness is also sometimes a place of pasturage (Ex 3:1; Ps 65:12; Jer 23:10; Jl 2:22).<\/p>\nThe Bible often refers to wilderness regions (e.g., Gn 16:7; 21:20; 1 Sm 17:28; Mt 3:1; Mk 1:13; Lk 15:4). “Wilderness” is usually a place with no settled population (Nm 14:33; Dt 32:10; Jb 38:26; Prv 21:19; Jer 9:2) but is the dwelling place of wildlife: the vulture (Ps 102:6), wild asses (Jb 24:5), jackals (Mal 1:3), and ostriches (Lam 4:3). The term is also used figuratively (Hos 2:3; Jer 2:31).<\/p>\nAnother Hebrew term for desert, from a root meaning “to be arid,” refers to an infertile, desolate, bare steppe (Jb 24:5; Is 33:9; Jer 51:43). The plural form of that word describes topographical features of the desert plains of Moab (Nm 22:1; 26:3, 63; Dt 34:1) and of Jericho (Jos 4:13; 5:10; 2 Kgs 25:5). With the definite article, that word (the Arabah) is the plain of the Jordan Valley and of the environs of the Dead Sea. The geography of that region contains sharp contrasts; the Jordan Valley, dense with a junglelike forest sheltering wild beasts (including lions in biblical times), gives way to the steppe lands of the Dead Sea area, which have always been desert.<\/p>\nTwo other Hebrew terms, meaning “waste” and “ruin,” refer to districts or settlements once inhabited but later devastated (Is 1:7; 5:9; 6:11; Jer 42:18; Ez 35:7). They are also used more generally for any desolate or waste place (Lv 26:31, 33; Jb 3:14; Pss 9:6; 109:10; Is 5:17; 44:26; 51:3; 52:9; Jer 7:34; Ez 5:14). One of them is also used once for the wilderness of the exodus (Is 48:21). Another word meaning “waste” (Ps 78:40; Is 43:19-20), when prefixed with the definite article, is a proper name for Jeshimon, a tract of land west of the Dead Sea (Nm 21:20; 1 Sm 23:24; 26:1).<\/p>\nIn the NT the noun for “wilderness” and the adjective “desert” (Mt 3:1; 24:26; Lk 5:16; Jn 6:31; Acts 8:26) come from the same Greek root.<\/p>\nThe whole of biblical history has been interpreted as having a desert or wilderness motif. It can be seen in the realm of disobedient human experience outside the Garden of Eden; in the wandering of Israel during the exodus; in the struggle between pure faith in the desert and soft, idolatrous city life. The desert is viewed as a realm of demons and death (Dt 32:17; Is 34:13-14); its demonic wildness resembles the primeval chaos of the Creation (Gn 1:2; Jb 26:7). Several moving passages of Scripture deal with renewal of life in a desert valley (e.g., Ez 37), or with transformation of arid land into a productive garden (Is 41:18-20).<\/p>\nThe desert is also a place where God is close to his people (Dt 32:10-12), both watching over them and testing their obedience (Jer 2:2; Hos 2:14-15). Finally, the desert is a place of refuge, cleansing, and consecration. In the Gospels the desert theme of the exodus recurs in the 40 days and nights in which Jesus was tempted in the wilderness (Mk 1:13; cf. Ps 91). The desert fathers of the early church and the hermits of the Middle Ages emulated the prophet Elijah and John the Baptist (1 Kgs 19:4-8; Mt 3:1-6).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Negeb, Negev; Palestine; Wilderness.<\/p>","summary_ro":"DESERT Empty waste place, often arid, sandy, and incapable of sustaining vegetable life, as for example the Negev of southern Palestine. A desert frequently includes local areas where marginal life is possible. The most common Hebrew term for desert means “wilderness” and is perhaps related to a verb meaning “to drive,” as a shepherd drives sheep to pasturage. The Greek word commonly used in the NT and in the Septuagint (ancient Greek translation of the OT) implies an unenclosed, uncultivated...","summary_en":"DESERT Empty waste place, often arid, sandy, and incapable of sustaining vegetable life, as for example the Negev of southern Palestine. A desert frequently includes local areas where marginal life is possible. The most common Hebrew term for desert means “wilderness” and is perhaps related to a verb meaning “to drive,” as a shepherd drives sheep to pasturage. The Greek word commonly used in the NT and in the Septuagint (ancient Greek translation of the OT) implies an unenclosed, uncultivated...","source":"Articles\/D.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":24535,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Marriage Customs Marriage","title_en":"Marriage Customs Marriage","content_ro":"<h3>MARRIAGE, MARRIAGE CUSTOMS<\/h3>\nThe joining together of male and female in matrimony, as practiced by various cultures.<\/p>\nThe idea of marriage was ordained by God in his instruction to Adam that a man should leave his father and mother, and that he and his wife should be as one flesh (Gn 2:24).<\/p>\nSeveral forms of marriage are referred to in the OT, the earliest of which seems to be based on a matrilineal principle. Although there appears to be some evidence for this in the middle Bronze Age and in the early monarchy, it is difficult to be certain about the matter, despite the importance in Egypt, and perhaps elsewhere, of the role of the mother in determining descent.<\/p>\nGenerally, the bride left her parents when she married and went to live with her husband’s clan, as Rebekah did (Gn 24:58-59). The phrase “to marry a wife” is from a root meaning to “become master” (Dt 21:13), and the wife frequently treated her husband as, and referred to him as, master.<\/p>\nHebrew genealogical lists indicate that descent was reckoned through the male line (Gn 5:10; 36:9-43; Nm 1:1-15; Ru 4:18-22; 1 Chr 1:1-9). The important right of naming a child, indicating power and authority over that child, was exercised almost equally between father and mother in biblical references (cf. Gn 4:1, 25-26; 5:29; 35:18; 1 Sm 1:20; 4:21; Is 8:3; Hos 1:4-9). Sons were frequently named after their fathers and were identified with them.<\/p>\nThe father was the authority figure in the home in a patriarchal society. His wife and children were regarded as his possessions in somewhat the same way as his fields and livestock (Ex 20:17; Dt 5:21). He had the right to sell his daughters (Ex 21:7; Neh 5:5), and even had the power of life and death over his children.<\/p>\nThe ease with which a man could terminate a marriage by divorcing his wife also shows the measure of his authority in the family (Dt 24:1-4; cf. 22:13-21).<\/p>\nA levirate marriage was instituted to preserve a family name and inheritance. When a man died, the responsibility for maintaining his widow and any children that she might have fell upon her husband’s closest male relative. The order of responsibility is set out in Deuteronomy 25:5-10. Normally, the brother of the deceased husband living with the clan was expected to enter into a levirate marriage with the widow. If she was childless, the firstborn of the new marriage was regarded as a child of the deceased. Levirate marriage was also known to the Canaanites, Assyrians, and Hittites.<\/p>\nThe most familiar levirate situation in the OT, although not conforming strictly to the law of Deuteronomy 25, is described in the book of Ruth. It was essential for Ruth to find some close male relative to marry her so that the family name and property could be preserved. The closest male relative declined the responsibility, feeling that it was a double imposition, first, to have to purchase the land and support Ruth, and second, to know that the first son would be regarded as her dead husband’s child, bearing his name and inheriting the land. Boaz agreed to undertake the responsibility (Ru 2:20–4:10).<\/p>\nDespite numerous examples of polygamy cited in the OT, there is no doubt that the vast majority of the Israelites were monogamous. There are no examples given of large polygamous marriages in the families of commoners.<\/p>\nThe original instruction to Adam was that a “man . . . cleaves to his wife” (Gn 2:24). Hebrew laws generally imply that a marriage with one wife is the most acceptable form of marriage (Ex 20:17; 21:5; Lv 18:8, 16-20; 20:10; Nm 5:12; Dt 5:21). Although this seems to have become the norm by the time of the monarchy, a king such as Solomon did not follow Hebrew traditions in this matter. In the postexilic period marriages were predominantly monogamous, although they were being terminated increasingly by divorce. In the NT period monogamy seems to have been the rule, although persons such as Herod the Great were polygamous. Christ taught that marriage should last the lifetime of the partners, and if a man divorced his wife and married another woman during his previous spouse’s lifetime, he committed adultery (Mt 5:31-32).<\/p>\nMarriage generally took place with those who were close to the immediate family circle, and it was imperative, therefore, that limits on acceptable consanguinity should be imposed. In patriarchal times a man could marry his half sister on his father’s side (Gn 20:12), and this continued to be the case even under David (2 Sm 13:13), although it was specifically forbidden in Leviticus 20:17. As there is some contradiction between the marriage laws of Deuteronomy and those in the Law of Holiness (Dt 25:5; Lv 18:16), it is possible that there was some modification of the stricter Levitical regulations. Marriages between cousins, such as Isaac with Rebekah, and Jacob with Rachel and Leah, were common. When a close relative was interested in marriage, it was almost impossible to refuse (Tb 6:13; 7:11-12). Moses was the offspring of a marriage between nephew and aunt (Ex 6:20; Nm 26:59), which would have been forbidden in Leviticus 18:12-13 and 20:19, as would Jacob’s marriage with two sisters at the same time (Gn 29:30).<\/p>\nWhen the Israelites settled in Canaan, many of them married Canaanite women, much to the consternation of those who desired to maintain the purity of the Hebrew religion (1 Kgs 11:4). Such intermarriage was prohibited under Mosaic law (Ex 34:15-16; Dt 7:3-4), although many Israelites ignored these regulations and continued to indulge in mixed marriages. If a woman was captured in war and was prepared to abandon her native country, an exception could be made (Dt 21:10-14). By contrast, Samson married a Philistine woman who remained with her own people, but who received conjugal visits from her husband periodically (Jgs 14:8–15:2).<\/p>\nThe danger of intermarriage affecting the purity of Hebrew religion was considered so great that in the postexilic period wholesale divorce was ordered where Jews had married foreign wives (Ezr 9:2; 10:3, 16-17). The intent was that the national religion should remain pure, even though homes and families were destroyed. Even in NT times, Paul denounced marriage with non-Christians (2 Cor 6:14-15).<\/p>\nIt is difficult to estimate at what age young people married. A boy was considered to be a man by his early teens, and late in Jewish tradition this transition was celebrated by the bar mitzvah, which generally occurred when the boy was 13.<\/p>\nNormally the young man’s parents chose the bride. The resulting discussion about the marriage occurred between the groom’s parents and the bride’s parents, and often neither of the young people was consulted. It was not essential for the eldest in the family to be married first (Gn 29:26). When Abraham decided that Isaac should be married, a servant was sent to choose a bride from among Abraham’s relatives in Mesopotamia. The servant made contact with the bride’s brother and mother (24:33-53), and it was only afterward that Rebekah was asked to give her consent (vv 57-58). Her father was possibly incapacitated; otherwise, it would have been unlikely that her consent would have been asked at all.<\/p>\nOne of the reasons why the average young man would not have been able to afford more than one wife was the practice of the bride-price, which had to be paid to the bride’s father. It was possible to substitute service for the bride-price (Gn 29:15-30), or the completion of an appointed task (1 Sm 18:25-27). A specific sum is mentioned for the bride-price in the case of a virgin who had been raped and who had to be purchased by her seducer. The price was set at 50 shekels, but this was considered to be a punishment; it is probable that the normal amount was between 10 and 320 shekels (Lv 27:4-5).<\/p>\nAt the time of the second temple, a virgin bride was considered to be worth 50 shekels, and a widow or divorced woman about half that sum. During this period, a virgin bride was normally married in midweek so that, if her husband found her not to be a virgin, he could bring proof to the court the following day, which would still be in advance of the Sabbath. A widow or a divorced woman normally married on the equivalent of a Thursday, giving her a full day with her husband before the Sabbath.<\/p>\nMarriage was a covenant or alliance between two families. It thus united them, and by extending the kinship, the overall size of the group was increased. This was important in a society where responsibilities for relatives, however distant, were accepted unhesitatingly. The covenant concept also could have political overtones, as with the marriage between Solomon and the Egyptian princess (1 Kgs 11:1) or Ahab of Israel and Jezebel of Tyre (16:31).<\/p>\nThe sealing of the covenant included the transfer of gifts, which would establish the wealth and status of the donor and of the bride (Gn 34:12). In the ancient Near East, the giving of a gift was thought to include a part of the donor, so that the giver was actually offering a portion of himself. The gift that sealed the covenant also established the donor’s authority over the bride.<\/p>\nThe next stage in the marriage procedure was the betrothal. First mentioned in Exodus 22:16, the term is used several times in Deuteronomy (Dt 20:7; 22:23-24). The betrothal had the legal status of a marriage (Dt 28:30; 2 Sm 3:14), and anyone violating a betrothed virgin would be stoned, according to the law of Deuteronomy, for violating his neighbor’s “wife” (Dt 22:23-24). The meaning of a betrothal involved taking possession, in a manner similar to that of receiving tribute. Nevertheless, there remained a distinction between betrothing a woman and taking her as a wife (20:7). During the period of betrothal, the prospective groom was exempt from military service. It was assumed that the betrothal was a formal part of a permanent relationship (Mt 1:18; Lk 1:27; 2:5).<\/p>\nA man who was to marry another’s daughter was already regarded as a son-in-law at the time of betrothal (Gn 19:14). Mary, as Joseph’s betrothed, was actually considered his wife, although he did not have intercourse with her until after the birth of Jesus.<\/p>\nThe first biblical record of a wedding being celebrated by a feast is in the story of Jacob (Gn 29:22). There was no actual marriage contract recorded until its mention in the book of Tobit (Tb 7:12). This contract was not considered valid until the couple had cohabited for a week (Gn 29:27; Jgs 14:12, 18). When Samson left his bride before the end of the seven-day period, the bride’s parents considered the marriage void and gave her to another man (Jgs 14:20).<\/p>\nThe wedding was an occasion of great family rejoicing. The special clothing of the bride and groom (Is 61:10; Ez 16:9-13) included for the bride a fine dress often adorned with jewels (Ps 45:14-15; Is 61:10) and other ornaments, while the bridegroom had fine clothing and wore a diadem (Sg 3:11; Is 61:10). The bride wore a veil (Gn 24:65; Sg 4:3), which was removed in the bridal chamber. This would account for Rebekah’s need to veil herself in the presence of Isaac, her fiancé (Gn 24:65), and also for the ease with which Laban was able to replace Rachel with Leah on Jacob’s wedding night (29:23-25).<\/p>\nSymbolic ceremonies may sometimes have been included as part of the betrothal or wedding ceremonies, such as Ruth’s request that Boaz spread his skirt over her to indicate that he was taking her to wife (Ru 3:9). Another ritual may have been the ceremonial removal of the bride’s girdle by the groom in the nuptial chamber, which was a room or tent specially prepared for the newly married couple. The marriage was normally consummated on the first night (Gn 29:23; Tb 8:1), and the stained linen would be retained as evidence of the bride’s virginity.<\/p>\nIn a contrast to the elaborate procession and feasting of the marriage, divorce was simple. A man could divorce his wife if he found fault with her in any particular matter, and this right was not abolished until the 11th century AD<\/span>. Divorce was discouraged, however, and gradually the procedure became more complex, being hedged about with a number of deterrents.<\/p>\nAs the laws regarding divorce became more complex, so the procedure became increasingly expensive. At a later time a lawyer, or sometimes a rabbi, would give advice, especially on such matters as the return of property rightly belonging to the bride or her family.<\/p>\nIf a bride was found to have committed adultery, the husband was thought to be entitled to a divorce. This was also the case if he even suspected her of infidelity. He could also divorce his wife if he felt that she had violated normal morality, had become apostate, or had been less than efficient in the management of her household. If a woman refused her husband his conjugal rights for a period of at least one year, she could be divorced. Other grounds for divorcing a wife included insulting behavior to a husband or his relatives, contracting an incurable disease, or refusing to accompany her husband when he moved the domicile to a new area.<\/p>\nIn general, the status of the wife was low. Despite the fact that she gave advice, managed the household, educated the young children, and worked alongside her husband when necessary, he was still her master, and her role was to obey. She was little more than a servant, although better than a slave, for she could not be sold even though she could be divorced.<\/p>\nIn the frequent figurative uses of marriage in the OT, the Hebrew people and God are referred to in terms of bride and bridegroom (Is 62:4-5; Jer 2:2). The desolation that is about to overtake Judah is contrasted by Jeremiah with the celebration of a wedding feast (Jer 7:34; 16:9; 25:10). Figurative forms are used again in Hosea, where God rejects the relationship with his wife, Israel (Hos 2:2), but is prepared to accept her again if she resumes her faithful practices (vv 19-20).<\/p>\nIn the NT, John the Baptist compares his sense of joy with that of a friend of the groom at a wedding (Jn 3:29), while Jesus himself made reference to the wedding preparations in the parable of the wise and foolish virgins (Mt 25:1-12). In the story of the marriage feast (22:1-14) Christ mentions quite incidentally the fact that wedding robes were provided for the guests at such ceremonies. The theme of the Christian church as the bride of Christ occurs in such books as 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, and Revelation.<\/p>\nJesus’ Teachings on Marriage and Adultery<\/p>\nIn the realm of civil law there are changes of emphasis in Jesus’ teaching over against the OT. For example, the OT did not regard infidelity by a husband as adultery against his wife. When challenged by the Jews, Jesus said that originally God had made one wife for a man; therefore, there should be no divorce (Mk 10:2-9). Further, he stated if a man does divorce his wife and marry again, he “commits adultery against her” (v 11). Thus, Jesus made man and woman equal as regards adultery. An unfaithful husband is just as adulterous as an unfaithful wife. This revolutionary teaching struck the disciples as severe (see Mt 19:10), but it illustrates what Jesus meant when he said their righteousness must be greater than that of the Jewish leaders (5:20).<\/p>\nThere is a slight difference in Matthew’s account of Jesus’ teaching, which has led some scholars to argue that Jesus was not quite as strict as the above summary suggests. According to Matthew 19:9, a wife’s “unchastity” (probably some sexual misconduct) allows an aggrieved husband to divorce her and marry again. If this remark concluded the passage, this interpretation would be the simplest. However, from the context it is more likely that Jesus allowed innocent spouses to separate from their wives but not to remarry. This explains why the disciples were so shocked and why Jesus went on to speak about some who refuse to marry for the sake of the kingdom of heaven (Mt 19:12). This was also the way the church interpreted the passage for the first five centuries. They allowed Christians to separate but not to remarry (cf. 1 Cor 7:11).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Adultery; Civil Law and Justice; Concubinage, Concubines; Divorce; Family Life and Relations; Sex, Sexuality; Virgin.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MARRIAGE, MARRIAGE CUSTOMS<\/h3>\nThe joining together of male and female in matrimony, as practiced by various cultures.<\/p>\nThe idea of marriage was ordained by God in his instruction to Adam that a man should leave his father and mother, and that he and his wife should be as one flesh (Gn 2:24).<\/p>\nSeveral forms of marriage are referred to in the OT, the earliest of which seems to be based on a matrilineal principle. Although there appears to be some evidence for this in the middle Bronze Age and in the early monarchy, it is difficult to be certain about the matter, despite the importance in Egypt, and perhaps elsewhere, of the role of the mother in determining descent.<\/p>\nGenerally, the bride left her parents when she married and went to live with her husband’s clan, as Rebekah did (Gn 24:58-59). The phrase “to marry a wife” is from a root meaning to “become master” (Dt 21:13), and the wife frequently treated her husband as, and referred to him as, master.<\/p>\nHebrew genealogical lists indicate that descent was reckoned through the male line (Gn 5:10; 36:9-43; Nm 1:1-15; Ru 4:18-22; 1 Chr 1:1-9). The important right of naming a child, indicating power and authority over that child, was exercised almost equally between father and mother in biblical references (cf. Gn 4:1, 25-26; 5:29; 35:18; 1 Sm 1:20; 4:21; Is 8:3; Hos 1:4-9). Sons were frequently named after their fathers and were identified with them.<\/p>\nThe father was the authority figure in the home in a patriarchal society. His wife and children were regarded as his possessions in somewhat the same way as his fields and livestock (Ex 20:17; Dt 5:21). He had the right to sell his daughters (Ex 21:7; Neh 5:5), and even had the power of life and death over his children.<\/p>\nThe ease with which a man could terminate a marriage by divorcing his wife also shows the measure of his authority in the family (Dt 24:1-4; cf. 22:13-21).<\/p>\nA levirate marriage was instituted to preserve a family name and inheritance. When a man died, the responsibility for maintaining his widow and any children that she might have fell upon her husband’s closest male relative. The order of responsibility is set out in Deuteronomy 25:5-10. Normally, the brother of the deceased husband living with the clan was expected to enter into a levirate marriage with the widow. If she was childless, the firstborn of the new marriage was regarded as a child of the deceased. Levirate marriage was also known to the Canaanites, Assyrians, and Hittites.<\/p>\nThe most familiar levirate situation in the OT, although not conforming strictly to the law of Deuteronomy 25, is described in the book of Ruth. It was essential for Ruth to find some close male relative to marry her so that the family name and property could be preserved. The closest male relative declined the responsibility, feeling that it was a double imposition, first, to have to purchase the land and support Ruth, and second, to know that the first son would be regarded as her dead husband’s child, bearing his name and inheriting the land. Boaz agreed to undertake the responsibility (Ru 2:20–4:10).<\/p>\nDespite numerous examples of polygamy cited in the OT, there is no doubt that the vast majority of the Israelites were monogamous. There are no examples given of large polygamous marriages in the families of commoners.<\/p>\nThe original instruction to Adam was that a “man . . . cleaves to his wife” (Gn 2:24). Hebrew laws generally imply that a marriage with one wife is the most acceptable form of marriage (Ex 20:17; 21:5; Lv 18:8, 16-20; 20:10; Nm 5:12; Dt 5:21). Although this seems to have become the norm by the time of the monarchy, a king such as Solomon did not follow Hebrew traditions in this matter. In the postexilic period marriages were predominantly monogamous, although they were being terminated increasingly by divorce. In the NT period monogamy seems to have been the rule, although persons such as Herod the Great were polygamous. Christ taught that marriage should last the lifetime of the partners, and if a man divorced his wife and married another woman during his previous spouse’s lifetime, he committed adultery (Mt 5:31-32).<\/p>\nMarriage generally took place with those who were close to the immediate family circle, and it was imperative, therefore, that limits on acceptable consanguinity should be imposed. In patriarchal times a man could marry his half sister on his father’s side (Gn 20:12), and this continued to be the case even under David (2 Sm 13:13), although it was specifically forbidden in Leviticus 20:17. As there is some contradiction between the marriage laws of Deuteronomy and those in the Law of Holiness (Dt 25:5; Lv 18:16), it is possible that there was some modification of the stricter Levitical regulations. Marriages between cousins, such as Isaac with Rebekah, and Jacob with Rachel and Leah, were common. When a close relative was interested in marriage, it was almost impossible to refuse (Tb 6:13; 7:11-12). Moses was the offspring of a marriage between nephew and aunt (Ex 6:20; Nm 26:59), which would have been forbidden in Leviticus 18:12-13 and 20:19, as would Jacob’s marriage with two sisters at the same time (Gn 29:30).<\/p>\nWhen the Israelites settled in Canaan, many of them married Canaanite women, much to the consternation of those who desired to maintain the purity of the Hebrew religion (1 Kgs 11:4). Such intermarriage was prohibited under Mosaic law (Ex 34:15-16; Dt 7:3-4), although many Israelites ignored these regulations and continued to indulge in mixed marriages. If a woman was captured in war and was prepared to abandon her native country, an exception could be made (Dt 21:10-14). By contrast, Samson married a Philistine woman who remained with her own people, but who received conjugal visits from her husband periodically (Jgs 14:8–15:2).<\/p>\nThe danger of intermarriage affecting the purity of Hebrew religion was considered so great that in the postexilic period wholesale divorce was ordered where Jews had married foreign wives (Ezr 9:2; 10:3, 16-17). The intent was that the national religion should remain pure, even though homes and families were destroyed. Even in NT times, Paul denounced marriage with non-Christians (2 Cor 6:14-15).<\/p>\nIt is difficult to estimate at what age young people married. A boy was considered to be a man by his early teens, and late in Jewish tradition this transition was celebrated by the bar mitzvah, which generally occurred when the boy was 13.<\/p>\nNormally the young man’s parents chose the bride. The resulting discussion about the marriage occurred between the groom’s parents and the bride’s parents, and often neither of the young people was consulted. It was not essential for the eldest in the family to be married first (Gn 29:26). When Abraham decided that Isaac should be married, a servant was sent to choose a bride from among Abraham’s relatives in Mesopotamia. The servant made contact with the bride’s brother and mother (24:33-53), and it was only afterward that Rebekah was asked to give her consent (vv 57-58). Her father was possibly incapacitated; otherwise, it would have been unlikely that her consent would have been asked at all.<\/p>\nOne of the reasons why the average young man would not have been able to afford more than one wife was the practice of the bride-price, which had to be paid to the bride’s father. It was possible to substitute service for the bride-price (Gn 29:15-30), or the completion of an appointed task (1 Sm 18:25-27). A specific sum is mentioned for the bride-price in the case of a virgin who had been raped and who had to be purchased by her seducer. The price was set at 50 shekels, but this was considered to be a punishment; it is probable that the normal amount was between 10 and 320 shekels (Lv 27:4-5).<\/p>\nAt the time of the second temple, a virgin bride was considered to be worth 50 shekels, and a widow or divorced woman about half that sum. During this period, a virgin bride was normally married in midweek so that, if her husband found her not to be a virgin, he could bring proof to the court the following day, which would still be in advance of the Sabbath. A widow or a divorced woman normally married on the equivalent of a Thursday, giving her a full day with her husband before the Sabbath.<\/p>\nMarriage was a covenant or alliance between two families. It thus united them, and by extending the kinship, the overall size of the group was increased. This was important in a society where responsibilities for relatives, however distant, were accepted unhesitatingly. The covenant concept also could have political overtones, as with the marriage between Solomon and the Egyptian princess (1 Kgs 11:1) or Ahab of Israel and Jezebel of Tyre (16:31).<\/p>\nThe sealing of the covenant included the transfer of gifts, which would establish the wealth and status of the donor and of the bride (Gn 34:12). In the ancient Near East, the giving of a gift was thought to include a part of the donor, so that the giver was actually offering a portion of himself. The gift that sealed the covenant also established the donor’s authority over the bride.<\/p>\nThe next stage in the marriage procedure was the betrothal. First mentioned in Exodus 22:16, the term is used several times in Deuteronomy (Dt 20:7; 22:23-24). The betrothal had the legal status of a marriage (Dt 28:30; 2 Sm 3:14), and anyone violating a betrothed virgin would be stoned, according to the law of Deuteronomy, for violating his neighbor’s “wife” (Dt 22:23-24). The meaning of a betrothal involved taking possession, in a manner similar to that of receiving tribute. Nevertheless, there remained a distinction between betrothing a woman and taking her as a wife (20:7). During the period of betrothal, the prospective groom was exempt from military service. It was assumed that the betrothal was a formal part of a permanent relationship (Mt 1:18; Lk 1:27; 2:5).<\/p>\nA man who was to marry another’s daughter was already regarded as a son-in-law at the time of betrothal (Gn 19:14). Mary, as Joseph’s betrothed, was actually considered his wife, although he did not have intercourse with her until after the birth of Jesus.<\/p>\nThe first biblical record of a wedding being celebrated by a feast is in the story of Jacob (Gn 29:22). There was no actual marriage contract recorded until its mention in the book of Tobit (Tb 7:12). This contract was not considered valid until the couple had cohabited for a week (Gn 29:27; Jgs 14:12, 18). When Samson left his bride before the end of the seven-day period, the bride’s parents considered the marriage void and gave her to another man (Jgs 14:20).<\/p>\nThe wedding was an occasion of great family rejoicing. The special clothing of the bride and groom (Is 61:10; Ez 16:9-13) included for the bride a fine dress often adorned with jewels (Ps 45:14-15; Is 61:10) and other ornaments, while the bridegroom had fine clothing and wore a diadem (Sg 3:11; Is 61:10). The bride wore a veil (Gn 24:65; Sg 4:3), which was removed in the bridal chamber. This would account for Rebekah’s need to veil herself in the presence of Isaac, her fiancé (Gn 24:65), and also for the ease with which Laban was able to replace Rachel with Leah on Jacob’s wedding night (29:23-25).<\/p>\nSymbolic ceremonies may sometimes have been included as part of the betrothal or wedding ceremonies, such as Ruth’s request that Boaz spread his skirt over her to indicate that he was taking her to wife (Ru 3:9). Another ritual may have been the ceremonial removal of the bride’s girdle by the groom in the nuptial chamber, which was a room or tent specially prepared for the newly married couple. The marriage was normally consummated on the first night (Gn 29:23; Tb 8:1), and the stained linen would be retained as evidence of the bride’s virginity.<\/p>\nIn a contrast to the elaborate procession and feasting of the marriage, divorce was simple. A man could divorce his wife if he found fault with her in any particular matter, and this right was not abolished until the 11th century AD<\/span>. Divorce was discouraged, however, and gradually the procedure became more complex, being hedged about with a number of deterrents.<\/p>\nAs the laws regarding divorce became more complex, so the procedure became increasingly expensive. At a later time a lawyer, or sometimes a rabbi, would give advice, especially on such matters as the return of property rightly belonging to the bride or her family.<\/p>\nIf a bride was found to have committed adultery, the husband was thought to be entitled to a divorce. This was also the case if he even suspected her of infidelity. He could also divorce his wife if he felt that she had violated normal morality, had become apostate, or had been less than efficient in the management of her household. If a woman refused her husband his conjugal rights for a period of at least one year, she could be divorced. Other grounds for divorcing a wife included insulting behavior to a husband or his relatives, contracting an incurable disease, or refusing to accompany her husband when he moved the domicile to a new area.<\/p>\nIn general, the status of the wife was low. Despite the fact that she gave advice, managed the household, educated the young children, and worked alongside her husband when necessary, he was still her master, and her role was to obey. She was little more than a servant, although better than a slave, for she could not be sold even though she could be divorced.<\/p>\nIn the frequent figurative uses of marriage in the OT, the Hebrew people and God are referred to in terms of bride and bridegroom (Is 62:4-5; Jer 2:2). The desolation that is about to overtake Judah is contrasted by Jeremiah with the celebration of a wedding feast (Jer 7:34; 16:9; 25:10). Figurative forms are used again in Hosea, where God rejects the relationship with his wife, Israel (Hos 2:2), but is prepared to accept her again if she resumes her faithful practices (vv 19-20).<\/p>\nIn the NT, John the Baptist compares his sense of joy with that of a friend of the groom at a wedding (Jn 3:29), while Jesus himself made reference to the wedding preparations in the parable of the wise and foolish virgins (Mt 25:1-12). In the story of the marriage feast (22:1-14) Christ mentions quite incidentally the fact that wedding robes were provided for the guests at such ceremonies. The theme of the Christian church as the bride of Christ occurs in such books as 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, and Revelation.<\/p>\nJesus’ Teachings on Marriage and Adultery<\/p>\nIn the realm of civil law there are changes of emphasis in Jesus’ teaching over against the OT. For example, the OT did not regard infidelity by a husband as adultery against his wife. When challenged by the Jews, Jesus said that originally God had made one wife for a man; therefore, there should be no divorce (Mk 10:2-9). Further, he stated if a man does divorce his wife and marry again, he “commits adultery against her” (v 11). Thus, Jesus made man and woman equal as regards adultery. An unfaithful husband is just as adulterous as an unfaithful wife. This revolutionary teaching struck the disciples as severe (see Mt 19:10), but it illustrates what Jesus meant when he said their righteousness must be greater than that of the Jewish leaders (5:20).<\/p>\nThere is a slight difference in Matthew’s account of Jesus’ teaching, which has led some scholars to argue that Jesus was not quite as strict as the above summary suggests. According to Matthew 19:9, a wife’s “unchastity” (probably some sexual misconduct) allows an aggrieved husband to divorce her and marry again. If this remark concluded the passage, this interpretation would be the simplest. However, from the context it is more likely that Jesus allowed innocent spouses to separate from their wives but not to remarry. This explains why the disciples were so shocked and why Jesus went on to speak about some who refuse to marry for the sake of the kingdom of heaven (Mt 19:12). This was also the way the church interpreted the passage for the first five centuries. They allowed Christians to separate but not to remarry (cf. 1 Cor 7:11).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Adultery; Civil Law and Justice; Concubinage, Concubines; Divorce; Family Life and Relations; Sex, Sexuality; Virgin.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MARRIAGE, MARRIAGE CUSTOMS The joining together of male and female in matrimony, as practiced by various cultures. The idea of marriage was ordained by God in his instruction to Adam that a man should leave his father and mother, and that he and his wife should be as one flesh (Gn 2:24). Several forms of marriage are referred to in the OT, the earliest of which seems to be based on a matrilineal principle. Although there appears to be some evidence for this in the middle Bronze Age and in the...","summary_en":"MARRIAGE, MARRIAGE CUSTOMS The joining together of male and female in matrimony, as practiced by various cultures. The idea of marriage was ordained by God in his instruction to Adam that a man should leave his father and mother, and that he and his wife should be as one flesh (Gn 2:24). Several forms of marriage are referred to in the OT, the earliest of which seems to be based on a matrilineal principle. Although there appears to be some evidence for this in the middle Bronze Age and in the...","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}]},"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"}}

Ieremia 7

Citește Biblia

Ieremia 7

Niciun rezultat

Redare audio

Bine ai venit! 👋